“It’s Not Culture. It’s Negotiation” — Empathy Without Losing Boundaries

Discussion about a difficult negotiation with a partner. The partner has once again changed terms that had already been agreed. Samuel wants to leave room for cultural differences; Nia sees a repeating pattern.

— Let’s give them some space. Relationships and patience may matter more there than they do for us.
— This is the third time they’ve changed the terms after we agreed.

Samuel does not want to impose his own norms. Nia is starting to wonder whether the partner is simply testing how much more the company will concede.

What really happened

Samuel is trying to be culturally attentive. He does not want to judge the partner solely by his own norms, so he explains each new change in terms as possibly reflecting a different approach to relationships or negotiation. Nia focuses on the repeated behavior: agreements are reopened after acceptance and the company keeps giving more away. Her question is simple: do we actually have evidence that this is a cultural difference, or are we using culture as a convenient explanation for an ordinary negotiation tactic? The mistake is not considering culture. The mistake is turning a possibility into certainty.

What the research says

Culture can genuinely influence assumptions, strategies, and the course of negotiations (Gunia, Brett & Gelfand, 2016). At the same time, reviews of the literature show that simple cultural dimensions are often overused and that findings can be inconsistent. A country is not a sufficient description of an individual negotiator (Schoen, 2021; Voronov & Singer, 2002). A useful error to guard against is therefore explaining behavior as “cultural” without testing alternative explanations. Culture can be a hypothesis, but not an alibi or a ready-made diagnosis.

How to handle it

Start with observable behavior: “The terms were changed three times after we reached agreement.” Then consider several possible explanations: a different negotiation norm, an unclear internal decision process on the partner’s side, a deliberate tactic, or genuinely new information. Boundaries can be set regardless of the explanation: “We understand that your practice may be different; this particular condition, however, is not something we will change.” The general rule is: use cultural knowledge to ask better questions, not to answer on behalf of the other person.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer is especially useful here because it includes a cultural layer, but that layer should never become an automatic explanation for another person. The Culture-8 assessment can help Samuel see possible differences in attitudes toward relationships, hierarchy, communication, or time. Em can then compare those hypotheses with the partner’s actual behavior and remind him that a profile is a hypothesis, not a justification. In this situation, Em can suggest questions that test alternative explanations and help set a clear boundary without abandoning respect for differences. Team and organization-level insights can also help distinguish the company’s own norms from those of a partner. Micro-lessons reinforce the key habit: use cultural knowledge to understand and inquire more intelligently, not to explain every behavior automatically as culture.