涉華商業談判中耍詐概率高 Chinese business more likely to be target for unethical tactics

US negotiators are more likely to use unethical tactics in business talks with Chinese than with other Americans, while Chinese are more likely to be unethical when dealing with people from their own country, according to research.

一項調查顯示，美國人在與中國人進行商業談判時採用不道德策略的概率，要比與美國人進行商業談判時更大，而中國人在與中國人進行商業談判時採用不道德策略的概率，也要比與美國人進行商業談判時更大。

A study, by the Cambridge Judge Business School in collaboration with US and Chinese academics, looked at the propensity of Americans and Chinese to use “ethically questionable” negotiating strategies, such as lying, spying or trying to get their counterparty fired.

這項調查是由劍橋大學賈奇商學院(Cambridge Judge Business School)與中美學者聯合開展的，考察的是美國人和中國人採用“道德上有問題的”談判策略的傾向，例如撒謊、刺探情報或者試圖讓對手被解僱。

“American participants were significantly more likely to use ethically questionable negotiation tactics in intercultural negotiations with Chinese counterparts than in intra-cultural negotiations with American counterparts,” the study found.

這項調查發現：“相對於與美國談判對手展開的同文化談判，美國談判代表在與中國談判對手展開跨文化談判時採用道德上有問題的談判策略的概率要大得多。

“By contrast, Chinese participants were marginally less likely to use such tactics in intercultural negotiations with American counterparts than in intracultural negotiations with Chinese counterparts.”

“而相對於與中國談判對手展開的同文化談判，中國談判代表在與美國談判對手展開跨文化談判時採用這種策略的概率要略低一些。”

One possible explanation for this imbalance is the perceived likelihood that the other side in a negotiation will themselves use unethical tactics. In other words, both US and Chinese businesspeople perceive Chinese counterparties as less scrupulous.

這種失衡的一種可能解釋是，談判代表覺得談判對手自己有可能採用不道德的策略。換句話說，中美商人都覺得中國談判對手不那麼老實。

The study provided some evidence to support this belief. It found Chinese negotiators were significantly more willing to use unethical tactics in business negotiations, regardless of who they negotiated with, than Americans were.

這項調查爲支撐這種解釋提供了一些證據。調查發現，與美國談判代表相比，中國談判代表明顯更願意在商業談判中採用不道德的策略，無論他們的談判對象是誰。

Participants were asked, on a scale of one to seven, their likelihood of using 16 ethically questionable negotiation strategies.

這項調查向受訪者提出的問題是，他們採用16種道德上有問題的談判策略的可能性，可能性分值爲1到7。

These included false promises, misrepresentation to strengthen their position, inappropriate information-gathering about the counterparty’s negotiating position, attacking an opponent’s network, and “traditional” competitive bargaining such as inflated opening demands.

這些策略包括虛假承諾、旨在鞏固本方立場的虛假陳述、用不當方式收集有關對手談判立場的信息、攻擊對手的關係網等。

The study then calculated the likelihood that a group would use ethically questionable negotiating tactics.

接着，這項調查計算了各組採用道德上有問題的談判策略的概率。

On a scale of one to seven, with seven being the least ethical, US participants had a mean score of 3.00 when dealing with Chinese counterparts and 2.75 when dealing with US counterparts.

分值從1到7，7代表採用不道德策略傾向最大的。美國談判代表在與中國談判對手談判時的得分均值爲3.00，在與美國談判對手談判時的得分均值爲2.75。

Meanwhile, Chinese participants had a higher score of 3.92 when dealing with Americans and 4.06 when dealing with Chinese counterparts.

與此同時，中國談判代表在與美國談判對手談判時的得分均值要更高一些，爲3.92；在與中國談判對手談判時的得分均值爲4.06。

According to the research, the unethical behaviour most likely to be used by US negotiators related to dubious information-gathering and false promises.

根據這項調查，美國談判代表最可能採用的不道德策略與使用不當方式收集信息及虛假承諾有關。

Chinese participants were most likely to make false promises and “attack their opponent’s network” by, for example, trying to get their counterparty fired so a new person would take their place.

中國談判代表最有可能採用虛假承諾和“攻擊對手關係網”的策略，比如努力讓對手被解僱，這樣就會有新人來接替對手。