涉华商业谈判中耍诈概率高 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.

一项调查显示，美国人在与中国人进行商业谈判时采用不道德策略的概率，要比与美国人进行商业谈判时更大，而中国人在与中国人进行商业谈判时采用不道德策略的概率，也要比与美国人进行商业谈判时更大。

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.

这项调查是由剑桥大学贾奇商学院(Cambridge Judge Business School)与中美学者联合开展的，考察的是美国人和中国人采用“道德上有问题的”谈判策略的倾向，例如撒谎、刺探情报或者试图让对手被解雇。

“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.

这项调查发现：“相对于与美国谈判对手展开的同文化谈判，美国谈判代表在与中国谈判对手展开跨文化谈判时采用道德上有问题的谈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.”

“而相对于与中国谈判对手展开的同文化谈判，中国谈判代表在与美国谈判对手展开跨文化谈判时采用这种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.

这种失衡的一种可能解释是，谈判代表觉得谈判对手自己有可能采用不道德的策略。换句话说，中美商人都觉得中国谈判对手不那么老实。

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.

这项调查为支撑这种解释提供了一些证据。调查发现，与美国谈判代表相比，中国谈判代表明显更愿意在商业谈判中采用不道德的策略，无论他们的谈判对象是谁。

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

这项调查向受访者提出的问题是，他们采用16种道德上有问题的谈判策略的可能性，可能性分值为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.

这些策略包括虚假承诺、旨在巩固本方立场的虚假陈述、用不当方式收集有关对手谈判立场的信息、攻击对手的关系网等。

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

接着，这项调查计算了各组采用道德上有问题的谈判策略的概率。

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.

分值从1到7，7代表采用不道德策略倾向最大的。美国谈判代表在与中国谈判对手谈判时的得分均值为3.00，在与美国谈判对手谈判时的得分均值为2.75。

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

与此同时，中国谈判代表在与美国谈判对手谈判时的得分均值要更高一些，为3.92；在与中国谈判对手谈判时的得分均值为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.

根据这项调查，美国谈判代表最可能采用的不道德策略与使用不当方式收集信息及虚假承诺有关。

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.

中国谈判代表最有可能采用虚假承诺和“攻击对手关系网”的策略，比如努力让对手被解雇，这样就会有新人来接替对手。