Iran: Cultural Values, Self images and Negotiation Behavior

Communication and NegotiationOverviewCultures are frequently categorized as “high-context” or “low-context.” 105 Thisparadigm was developed mainly out of observation of the differences between highcontext East Asian (particularly Chinese and Japanese) culture and low contextWestern culture (particularly American, being the epitome of that type). In terms ofcommunication, the East Asian cultures are said to be highly language-oriented, butmarked by linguistic ambiguity and therefore dependent on extra-linguistic devices totransmit the true meaning of messages. The Western cultures, on the other hand, aresaid to use more explicit "WYSIWYG" (“What You See Is What You Get”) languageas the main carrier of messages, avoiding ambiguous extra-linguistic devices. EastAsian cultures are also often identified as "shame cultures" in which outwardappearances, personal standing, reputation, and honor are paramount.This model is useful in understanding certain elements of the predominant Iraniancommunication paradigm. Ostensibly, Iran is an example of a high contextcommunication culture. Iranian use of flowery language and linguistic ambiguityplaces Iranian culture in this category. Moreover, Iranians accord great import to thecontext of communication. This is not only true in communication with each other,but in communicating with foreigners who arguably may not be sensitive to many ofthe contextual implications that are being communicated. Furthermore, in theirinteraction with foreign low context interlocutors, Iranians frequently tend to readcontextual non-verbal connotations that their interlocutors had no intention oftransmitting .From many other aspects, however, Iranian culture is closer to the low contextWest than to the cultures of East Asia, or even its neighboring Arab cultures. It ispragmatic and considerate of “force ratios,” honor plays a role but not one thatsupersedes rational considerations and considerations of confidence building andfuture credibility rarely bow to the practical and “here and now” goal.Iranian negotiating techniques are best understood in contrast with those of EastAsian and Western societies. Classic Western negotiation techniques are based ondynamics in which anything can happen. The underlying premise is that as long asthere is a common denominator (both sides want the interaction to succeed),incremental give and take will produce the inherent compromise and a mutuallyacceptable solution. Western negotiation techniques are, therefore, not averse tocreating crises as part of the negotiation process. Such a crisis is not seen as impairingthe confidence between the two sides, but a device in the interactive process. Bluffingand disinformation are legitimate tools, though they should be used with caution,105 This paradigm was first proposed by Edward Hall, in 1976. Since then, it has (usually) served as atool to analyze differences between Western and Eastern societies, while also defining a challenge andpossible solutions for those involved in various intercultural connections, especially business. EdwardT. Hall. Beyond Cultures (New York: Anchor Press-Doubleday, 1976).27