Security zone in Syria: "secret negotiations" of Americans and Russians. American: "I must admit that the Russians cannot be defeated because of the language!" Negotiations with America in Russian
My friend came from the USA and asked me for help. He himself is Russian, having worked for about ten years at several major universities on the west coast. Now he plans to find a job here in Russia. The request with which he addressed was typical - to suggest good employers and potential partners. Discussing these topics, we imperceptibly came to the issue of holding business negotiations. And here I realized that many things can be surprising and incomprehensible to him. And in fact, contact with a good company is not so important for him now, but understanding some of our peculiarities of negotiating, which can surprise, annoy, infuriate. In this article, I am not trying to systematize or evaluate them, I will only give a few typical cases.
It happens that complex negotiations can go on for several months and consist of a chain of meetings. Unfortunately, not every one of them has a clear and agreed goal. Sometimes your interlocutor, having in mind other meanings, wraps the conversation in one direction that is interesting to him. You are perplexedly waiting for a discussion of an important topic for you. The difference between interests can be so great that there is a desire to invite an interpreter. Yes, it can be good practice to state the fact that the meeting is not prepared. Perhaps you should leave such meetings at the very beginning, without wasting your time and the time of the interlocutor. But how much effort is spent on logistics!
Probably the most egregious case was with me this summer. I was approached by a fairly busy man who asked me to meet and discuss some of his questions. The purpose of the meeting was stated - acquaintance, duration - one hour. I must say that the place of the conversation was extremely inconvenient for me, I got there for two hours in all possible traffic jams. The meeting itself took exactly five minutes. We shook hands, briefly discussed his question, and he signaled that the conversation was over. I left in complete bewilderment, irritated by the disproportion of my time spent to the achieved result. And I still had to go two hours ago in exactly the same traffic jams. What was it? Why did I come? What did I get? These were business negotiations, not a conversation between two friends. My mistake. It was necessary to clarify the goal “at the entrance” and make a decision about its expediency for me.
It also happens that a meeting turns into an aimless conversation for several hours. Yes, yes, there is such a thing. You feel not at business negotiations, but at a party of old friends. And they talked about children, and about fishing, and about views of the harvest. You try to get to the specifics, but she slips away, she seems to be out of the conversation. It must be understood that some people have a different sense of time and a different culture. Relationships are more important for them, it is critical for them to understand that the interlocutor of a character similar to them and has the same traditions. And these long meetings are often seen as a prelude to negotiations, where specifics arise if and only if the interlocutors share each other's values. This must be borne in mind, do not get annoyed, and if your rhythm of life is not comparable with such logic, simply do not enter into such negotiations and take care of your nerves.
A separate kind of seemingly aimless meetings I call "one-man theatre." There are such negotiations when your interlocutor does not allow you to open your mouth. He will tell you about you, ask questions and answer them himself, come up with a dozen interaction scenarios and consistently reject them himself. Here, as in an English joke, one must relax and try to have fun. Look at it as a rest, a respite. In fact: you are sitting in a good meeting room, for sure you are treated to tea or coffee, maybe even cookies. The person in front of you himself talks about his desires, criticizes them himself, helps you build the right communication. You just need to nod and manage the meeting from time to time by asking clarifying questions. Yes, time is a pity, I understand. But if you know this feature behind your interlocutor and you understand the purpose of the meeting, just add an extra hour or three extra iterations for negotiations to your schedule.
By the way, about questions. It is surprisingly rare to ask clarifying or comprehension questions. I think it has to do with the fear of appearing incompetent. Believe me, this fear is a fiction. There is nothing more pleasant to the interlocutor than a counterpart who shows his interest with questions. First, it is attention to it and possible joint activity. Secondly, it greatly simplifies decision-making, since by pronouncing the answer, your interlocutor partially develops his attitude to the issue under discussion. Third, questions can direct the meeting to right direction, reducing its duration, or vice versa, extend the meeting if the interlocutor is set to receive the result only for himself. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that many people are generally reluctant to ask questions and take it for granted without getting irritated by subsequent misunderstandings.
The most perplexing situations are when your interlocutor is not inclined to win-win stories. It often happens that they just put pressure on you. In one company well known to me, there was even such a cultural feature: first, put pressure on, criticize the interlocutor and his work, and then negotiate. Treat it like a game, don't take it seriously. Understand that if they are talking to you, then there is already an interest. And pressure and such toy manipulations are a sign of either self-doubt or a special culture. A special case of such pressure is trumping with connections. This is a very common practice when the interlocutor sincerely considers his acquaintances as his achievements. I advise you to consider this part of the conversation as a small talk, or as an introduction, the beginning of a meeting. It’s bad, of course, when such an approach is combined with the “one-man theatre”, but if you really look at it as a theater, then again you can save your nerves.
I believe that the true art of negotiation is to maintain an equal position. Do not speak "through the lip", do not devalue the interlocutor and the negotiations themselves, do not give assessments and do not judge. It is worth watching facial expressions and intonation, they sometimes mean much more than words. I remember how, in negotiations with one person I respected, it annoyed me that he often raised his eyebrows and frowned indignantly. It took me six months to decide to tell him about my emotions and that I perceive his non-verbal manifestations as aggressive. His surprise knew no bounds, he sincerely did not want me or anyone else to think so. Since the cut off, and negotiations with him have become an order of magnitude more comfortable, which immediately affected the result. I think that sometimes it is worth talking directly about your emotions, although it is believed that there should not be emotions in business.
Probably, excessive emotionality is the last of the most annoying ways of conducting business negotiations. I'm not talking about energy, about high spirits. Sometimes it happens that your interlocutor is upset about something, or even outraged, strives to be offended. It is not at all a fact that this is directly related to the fact and subject of your meeting. Usually I simply react to this, asking either to reduce the degree or reschedule the meeting. As a rule, nothing worthwhile comes out of such heat. In addition, the thought that you are being crushed does not leave, and this is not a partner style of behavior. Sometimes I ask to “turn off the girl”, and sometimes it works well with serious men over 40. But, again, try to look at it philosophically. Do not consider the pressure and emotionality of the interlocutor as the result of your mistakes. Be simple and always take care of your nerves.
We parted ways with my "American" friends. He shared with me the peculiarities of negotiating on another continent, I spoke out on those cases that I considered inherent and special for our country. You know, we didn't find much difference. Both here and there there are difficulties, and here and there people remain people. Pursuing their goals, manipulating, playing, pressing and emotional. However, such cases are becoming less and less. If you don't take it seriously, represent yourself in the theater and don't waste your nerves.
RADIO EXCHANGE OF SOVIET VOENMORS DURING THE EXERCISE.Reprinted from the site "Military Review".
I am an American, but I grew up in the USSR, my father served as a naval attache at the embassy in Moscow. Having lived in Moscow for 12 childhood years, when I left, I spoke Russian better than English. My abilities in Russian were in demand by the intelligence of the Navy and I served them from 1979 to 1984. On duty and for myself, I kept a journal. He handed over the breech to the archive, and his own.
There was something in the recording, but mostly "live" broadcast. I HAD TO RECOGNIZE THE RUSSIANS CANNOT BE BEAT BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE.
The most interesting was said between peers or friends, they were not shy in expressions. I've only skimmed through a few pages of my old posts, here are a few:
- WHERE IS THE LOG?
- FUCK KNOWS HIM, THEY SAY, ON THE SATELLITE THE MACACO IS ITCHING.
Translation
- WHERE IS CAPTAIN DEREVYANKO?
- I DON'T KNOW, THEY SAY IT WORKS ON A CLOSED COMMUNICATION CHANNEL AND TRACKS AMERICAN TESTS OF THE Mk-48 TORPEDO PROTOTYPE /
= SEREGA, CHECK. DIMKA TOLD THAT THE CANADIAN IS RINSEING YOUR BOWL .
Translation:
- SERGEY, DMITRY REPORTED THAT A CANADIAN ANTI-SUBMARINE HELICOPTER IS CARRYING OUT ACOUSTIC SOUNDING IN YOUR SECTOR.
- SOUTHWEST OF YOUR FIFTH, FLAT-SHOT IN PORRIDGE, SCREEN IN SNOW.
Translation:
- (SOUTH-WEST OF YOUR FIFTH?) MILITARY TRANSPORT PLANE DISCHARGE ACOUSTIC BUOYATER IN THE AREA OF POSSIBLE LOCATION OF SERIES "K" SUBMARINE, MANY SMALL OBJECTS ON THE RADAR SCREEN.
- THE CHIEF BOURGEON IS SITTING UNDER THE WEATHER, SILENT.
Translation:
- AMERICAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER CLOSES IN A STORM AREA OBSERVING RADIO SILENCE.
- STARGAZER SEES A BUBBLE, ALREADY WITH SPITS.
Translation:
- OPTICAL SURVEILLANCE STATION REPORTS THAT AMERICAN TANKER PLANE IS OUT OF FUEL HOSE.
- WE HAVE A Narrow-EYED FUCK TURNED ON HERE, THEY SAY, SORRY, LOSE COURSE, THE MOTOR IS BREAKED, AND ITSELF JERKS. HIS PAIR OF DRY WORKED, THEY HAVE A BIRCH SHOUTING.
- DRIVE HIM TO X, I DO NOT WANT TO GET P-DY FOR THIS JAUNDICE. IF NECESSARY, LET THE BORDERS WRAPPED HIM IN A PERDAK, AND THE TEAM TO DRAW A TALE TO OUR SPECIALIST.
Translation:
- DURING A FLEET EXERCISE, A KOREAN VESSEL CAME CLOSE TO THE OPERATION AREA, SUGGESTING A BREAKDOWN. WHEN THE SU-15 PAIR OVERFLOWED, THE BIRCH WARNING RADAR STATION WORKED.
- TELL ME GO, I DON'T WANT PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THIS KOREAN. IF IT TRYS TO LEAVE THE AREA, DESTROY THE VESSEL AND TOW IT, AND THE TEAM FOR INTERROGATION.
In analyzing World War II, American military historians found a very interesting fact. Namely, in a sudden clash with the Japanese forces, the Americans, as a rule, made decisions much faster and, as a result, defeated even the superior enemy forces. After examining this pattern, scientists came to the conclusion that the average word length for Americans is 5.2 characters, while for Japanese it is 10.8. Therefore, it takes 56% LESS TIME to issue orders. For the sake of "interest", they analyzed Russian speech and it turned out that the length of words in Russian is on average 7.2 characters, HOWEVER, IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS, THE RUSSIAN-SPEAKING COMMAND STRUCTURE SWITCHES TO NORMATIVE VOCABULARY - AND THE LENGTH OF WORDS IS REDUCED TO (!) 3.2 characters.
An example is the phrase:
- 32nd, I ORDER IMMEDIATELY DESTROY THE ENEMY TANK LEADING FIRE ON OUR POSITIONS -
translation..
- 32nd, FUCK ABOUT THIS!
Washington is conducting "secret negotiations" with Moscow regarding the creation of a security zone in Syria. This is reported by some foreign publications. Earlier, we recall, Washington was "not invited" to some international forums where the future of Syria was discussed.
The United States and Russia are in "secret talks" to create a safe zone in southern Syria, writes Washington correspondent Laura Rosen.
Contacts between US and Russian officials have "invisibly intensified" in recent weeks, the columnist notes. The purpose of the contacts is to try to advance an agreement on the creation of a security zone in southern Syria.
As a “former diplomat from the region” told the publication on condition of anonymity, the negotiations began with a meeting in Jordan at the end of May. Earlier, in early May, Russia, Iran and Turkey were negotiating the creation of four zones aimed at de-escalating tensions between the forces of Bashar al-Assad and the armed Syrian opposition. Now the Trump administration is trying to figure out what role the United States could play here.
"Last week, Americans and Russians met in Jordan to discuss these zones in the south," the former diplomat told the journalist. He called the meeting in Jordan only a fragment of the discussions that are taking place between the United States, Russia, Israel and Jordan on the issue of "de-escalation zones in southern Syria."
The United States is concerned that any agreement on the future of Syria must keep Israel and Jordan stable. Israel, in turn, says it will not allow the presence of Iran on the border with Syria.
According to the source, "responsible for the deal with Russia" is US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Such information, surprisingly, is circulating against the background of the scandal about the "collusion" of the Trump team with Moscow during the presidential election campaign.
The priority of the Trump administration on Syria is also indicated: "stop the killings." "That's why they want to see what Russia is doing ... They are ready to recognize a big role for Russia ... to find a solution ... but one in which Assad should be out of the game in the final, and Iran should also leave," the source shared the information.
His information was confirmed by a certain high-ranking international diplomat. Americans and Russians calmly meet, discuss the Syrian topic, without advertising it in any way, he said.
"They met several times," said the diplomat. It's hard to tell exactly where they are, he noted, "but they seem to be having some pretty serious discussions."
In his opinion, the territory from the border with Jordan to the Euphrates should become the subject of Russian-American agreements. “Implicit agreements” between the governments of Syria, Jordan and Israel should also be taken into account, the official believes.
The US State Department did not confirm the meeting in Jordan. However, they noted that the agency is working hard to try to reduce violence in Syria.
"The United States remains committed to supporting a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict," the State Department said. One option could lead to more representative government and a world free of terrorism in Syria, a State Department official said. “We have been saying for a long time that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria and are working tirelessly to achieve a de-escalation of violence and victory over ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorists” (named groups are banned in Russia).
Congress, however, is much more determined. Speaking at a May 25 meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Bob Corker said Rex Tillerson had asked Congressmen to delay a decision on new sanctions against Russia as work was under way to secure a deal on Syria.
Corker clarified that, according to Tillerson, we are talking about a "short window of opportunity" and "a change in the trajectory of our relations with Russia."
Corker's patience, however, had already "run out". The congressman promised to grill Tillerson when he appears before the Senate Budget Committee and tries to defend Trump's fiscal 2018 budget.
The Russians "continue to work against our interests," Corker insists.
Meanwhile, a Jordanian official confirmed that the Americans and Russians did indeed have several meetings regarding Syria. Meetings were held in Jordan, Geneva, Astana and other places.
“We Jordanians meet and connect with all stakeholders that have influence in the region, whether Russians, Americans or others,” the Jordanian official, who banned the media from publishing his name, told the publication. “Our goal is to express our opinion, outline the vision of the situation in accordance with our national strategic interests and ensure the security of our borders,” the source explained.
The last discussion between the United States and Russia was devoted to the south of Syria, Czech Ambassador to the United States Hynek Kmonicek said in a conversation with Al Monitor. "If this approach works, it could be strategically interesting." However, it "will not be easy," the ambassador noted. The interests are very different: the American side wants to create islands of stability in the de-escalation zones, the Russians think that this is “very funny: islands of stability”, and the jihadists have their own plans. And these parties "should convince each other"? “I have a feeling that the Russians need a political solution to leave,” the Czech diplomat suggests.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, the newspaper writes further, in an interview with a French newspaper referred to US-Russian consultations on, in particular, the topic of Syria's southern borders with Israel and Jordan. Putin mentioned "some progress" and "real results". “I spoke with President Trump on the phone, and he supports this idea in general - the creation of de-escalation zones,” Putin was quoted as saying.
The Russian leader, the newspaper writes, said in an interview with Le Figaro that Russia is "ready to listen" to what the United States and its European partners say. However, a "concrete" dialogue is needed, and not "empty talk about mutual claims and threats." "There is a need for real effort," the president said.
While the US State Department is silent on the subject of Syrian consultations, the Pentagon has acknowledged the "forcing" of contacts between the military and the military. The meetings are held to avoid an accidental clash with the Russians in Syria. The generals say they "had the opportunity to intensify the dialogue at the appropriate level." At the same time, US-Russian talks between the military do not involve discussing de-escalation zones in Syria.
As Sergei Balmasov, an expert at the Institute of the Middle East and the Russian Council on International Affairs, recalls, reports of an impending operation by the United States, Great Britain and Jordan in the "Jordanian corridor" began to appear in early April. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Bashar al-Assad himself spoke about this.
“It is quite possible to assume,” the expert cites, “that the demonstration of the invasion was a kind of bargaining between the parties in southern Syria. As for contacts between the United States and Russia, they are quite logical, given that it is not in the interests of both countries to act unilaterally in Syria. Another question is how to find a consensus in conditions when the interests of both Damascus and Tehran and Jordan and Israel intersect in the south of Syria. For example, the Israelis have repeatedly stated that the alliance of the opposition "Southern Front" needs additional security, and the Americans have repeatedly demonstrated that the new administration will take into account the problems of the allies.
A separate topic is the activity of Iran and its controlled formations in the southern direction. The strengthening of Iran causes a negative reaction of regional players, and this situation may complicate relations between Russia and Iran. The expert is sure that reaching any powers of attorney on southern Syria is "a more difficult task than dialogue on the north of the country."
Obviously, let's add that the US State Department is silent, does not give comments to the press for a very simple reason: meetings are being held, but they do not bring any changes due to the conflicting interests of their participants.
In addition, Washington is in a relatively disadvantageous position: initially, the future of Syria was discussed at the initiative of Russia, and today the Americans have to, as Al Monitor's source put it, "watch what Russia is doing."
Russians and Americans are both attracted and repelled from each other. Such a paradox is explained by the internal contradictions characteristic of our countries. "In essence, the main boundary between people is along a moral divide, not along geographic, ethnic, demographic, or political lines." R. Anderson, P. Shikhirev "Sharks and Dolphins"
R. Lewis, a prominent English specialist in the field of intercultural relations, draws attention to the following paradoxes between Russians and Americans (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Rice. one. Paradoxes of the national consciousness of Russians.
Table 1. The paradoxes of the national consciousness of Americans
| Are egalitarians, advocates of equality | There has never been an influential socialist party in the US |
| Have the most high level divorces | Consider themselves moralists and regularly attend church |
| Have equal starting opportunities | The income gap between different segments of the population is one of the largest in the world |
| Proud of their voting system | Have one of the lowest percentages of electoral participation in the world |
| Fiercely fighting for democracy | Prejudice against ethnic minorities |
| Love sports and outdoor activities | Have the shortest vacation in the world |
| Isolate themselves from the rest of the world | Acting as a world gendarme |
| Have a high crime rate, racial and social problems | 81% of Americans look to the future with optimism |
| propagandize healthy lifestyle life | There are many overweight people in the US |
Perhaps, for us, some pairs of oppositions will not seem paradoxical (for example, a person may well be proud and shy), but it cannot be denied that rather contradictory traits coexist in the Russian character. The Americans are no less paradoxical.
More in common or different?
All the paradoxes noted above can be explained on the basis of an analysis of the basic values of the Russian and American nations. But let's see how we are similar and how we differ from each other. By the way, the very presence of such a number of paradoxes among Russians and Americans testifies to the common character of the two nations.
TO general characteristics can include the following:
1. Both powers are polyethnic and unite many nationalities living in their territories.
2. America and Russia are historical expansionists: the US moved west and Russia moved east.
3. Both countries are nuclear powers, which cannot but affect their attitude towards other members of the world community.
4. Huge territories contributed to the development of thinking on a grand scale among our peoples. Americans love everything big: their houses are big, their cars are big, their ranches have hundreds of acres of land. The Russians were always interested in what was beyond the horizon, and we did not pay attention to the little things.
5. Our peoples are distinguished by a direct, somewhat rude style of communication. Both nations do not approve of the officialdom that is characteristic of many Western European countries.
6. Both Russians and Americans show hospitality when meeting with foreign guests.
7. Both countries have a messianic spirit. Americans see their mission in establishing democracy (as they understand it) throughout the world. Russians have always sought to unite Europe and Asia, preserving and developing spiritual values as opposed to Western pragmatism.
8. Russians and Americans love technical innovations and inventions.
9. In both countries there is no class of aristocrats.
The differences between our national characters are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The main differences between Russians and Americans
| Russia | USA |
| Collectivists | individualists |
| Russians prefer to make collective decisions and are group-oriented | In American culture, a person solves his own problems and defends his own opinion. |
| Mixed European and Asian roots | Western European cultural roots |
| Wars were mostly fought on their own territory | Wars were fought, as a rule, on foreign territory |
| Show caution | They like to take risks |
| Tendency towards pessimism and fatalism | An optimistic outlook on life |
| emotional | pragmatic |
| Public property can quickly become private, and vice versa | Clear separation between public and private property |
| Sincere and deep friendship | Friendships rarely turn into deep friendships. |
| Private life and work have a great influence on each other | Work and social life are demarcated |
| Spiritual values occupy a more important place in the life of Russians | Material values are more important than spiritual ones |
| The pace of life of Russians is slower than that of Americans | For Americans, time is money. They value and value time |
| Team relationships are highly valued | Career for Americans is more important than relationships |
| Indiscriminate in collecting information | Picky about collecting information |
Two way street
Does the existence of such significant differences in our characters mean that Russians and Americans are doomed to failure in cooperation? Yes and no! Yes, if we do not take these differences into account. Not if we know and use them. In principle, this is obvious, and it would not even be worth writing about if we knew how to take them into account. How can we make sure that the differences in our national characters not only do not interfere, but also help us in business cooperation?
First of all, you need to remember that cross-cultural cooperation is a two-way street, where both parties must move towards each other, and where you need to know the rules of the road. Of course, there are international rules for doing business, but there are also differences that are the result of differences in cultures. In his book Russian Parkinson's Laws, Yuri Luzhkov, with his usual irony, drew attention to the need to take into account such differences and to what price one has to pay for a dismissive attitude towards them.
Pointing to one of the reasons for the failure of Russian reforms, the mayor of Moscow writes: “There is no single template for a “normal economy”. There is no universal recipe suitable for all countries. The same principles and programs lead to very different results in Japan, Germany, Korea, Indonesia and Latin America. What can we say about Russia! Everyone here is throwing up their hands. Our brave radical reformers proceeded from the postulate that "there is no need to invent anything," that "twice two makes four both here and in Paris," as one young prime minister used to say. With reckless perseverance, these zealous young people copied one by one everything that was alien to the local economic tradition, the historically established skills of economic thinking and behavior. And here is the result…”.
business people evaluate each other
What do we know about the Americans, and what do they know about us? P. N. Shikhirev provides interesting data based on the results of a survey of Russian and American businessmen. Russian and American experts were asked to describe the business qualities of themselves and each other. The evaluation was carried out according to nine parameters typical for this kind of research. Based on the survey, profiles of business cultures were compiled, which I simplified somewhat by converting them to numerical expressions.
Numbers from 1 to 4 indicate proximity to the left pole, and from 6 to 10 - to the right. The number 5 means the presence of both characteristics to the same extent. For example, the first scale "collectivism - individualism" characterizes business behavior from the position of commitment to collective or individual actions.
Collectivism – 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 Individualism
Russians rate themselves at 5, and Americans at 9, i.е. they consider themselves to be equally individualists and collectivists, and their foreign colleagues - pronounced individualists. The Americans, on the other hand, consider Russians to be collectivists, evaluating us as a unit and agreeing with the assessment of their qualities by Russians.
Other features built according to the same scheme are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Russians and Americans about themselves and about each other
| RR* | AR | Business interaction options | RA | AA |
| 5 | 1 | Collectivism - individualism | 9 | 10 |
| 5 | 2 | People-oriented (do not ruin relationships) - business-oriented (result at any cost) | 10 | 9 |
| 9 | 10 | Democracy - authoritarianism | 5 | 2 |
| 5 | 3 | Polyactivity - monoactivity (the former do not like detailed plans and can do several things at the same time, the latter act clearly according to the plan and organize their actions sequentially) | 10 | 9 |
| 4 | 2 | High - low dependence on public opinion | 9 | 10 |
| 3 | 2 | Emotionality - rationality | 8 | 9 |
| 3 | 1 | Orientation only on own gain - orientation on mutual gain | 9 | 3 |
| 8 | 6 | For profit, funds are important - funds are not important | 10 | 9 |
| 3 | 2 | Monologue - dialogue during negotiations (the former can interrupt the interlocutor and allow others to do this in a conversation, the latter perceive the fact of interrupting speech as a manifestation of rudeness on the part of the interlocutor) | 10 | 9 |
* Note:
RR - Russians about Russians RA - Russians about Americans AR - Americans about Russians AA - Americans about Americans
Speaking of business culture, we usually mean some generalized model of behavior. In each specific case, one has to deal with an individual whose personal qualities may differ significantly from those generally accepted in a given culture. But, firstly, such cases are not numerous, and secondly, the basic national values they will manifest themselves in any situation, since they sit so deeply in us that it is almost impossible to get rid of them, at least during the life of one generation.
In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that the most effective algorithm for communication between Russian and American managers will be the one that each of the participants in communication builds for himself, having studied and compared the values of our cultures and looking at how they manifest themselves in specific business situations, i.e. on practice.
How to motivate a partner?
It would be nice for novice businessmen who have little experience in dealing with Americans to learn a number of rules that allow them to quickly adapt to working with overseas partners:
1. Use humor when communicating with Americans.
2. When negotiating, lay all your cards on the table and invite them to do the same.
3. Get straight to the point and determine who is responsible for what.
4. Be persistent in achieving results.
5. Americans are not inclined to go into the details of the transaction until they are sure of the reality of the contract. Keep this in mind.
6. Americans are irritated by the complexity that can be avoided. Try not to complicate joint projects.
7. It is useful to explain to Americans your peculiarities of perception of reality. Otherwise, they will judge them by their own standards.
8. Remember the Americans' favorite expression: "Time is money."
9. They're willing to take risks, so don't be too cautious.
10. During negotiations, they often talk out loud. Do the same. This will help you quickly develop a common point of view and will be evidence that you have nothing to hide.
11. Americans don't like protocol in business meetings. If you have something to say, don't be afraid to speak your mind, even if you are below the status of many other negotiators.
12. They love clichéd expressions. Be sure that you are familiar with their meaning.
13. Don't be offended by sarcasm, irony and banter from Americans.
14. Show your toughness - Americans respect strength. At the same time, make it clear that you are ready to make concessions.
15. Show confidence in the quality of your product and be persistent.
16. Don't forget that Americans are workaholics. They do not respect the slow pace of work and long rest.
17. Be creative - Americans are open to innovation.
18. Americans are more interested in their future than your past. It is not worth wasting time on examples from the past, no matter how heroic it may be.
19. Americans are tough, but sometimes naive. In negotiations with them, you need to constantly change tactics, speaking both in their language and in your own.
20. When negotiating with the Americans, it is desirable to have someone on your team who knows the specifics of their business communication well.
Russian pessimist's optimism
Sometimes it seems to me that Russians are prone to self-abasement, to low self-esteem. We love to criticize ourselves and make fun of our own shortcomings. Often such actions are not entirely sincere. Scolding ourselves, we seem to be waiting for what they will say to us: “What are you doing! You are not so bad, you are much better!
Comparing Russians with foreigners, I am more and more convinced of the deep spirituality and inner decency of our compatriots. For many, this statement will cause an ironic smile, but such a minority. Yes, we rank low in the Investment Attractiveness Index. Yes, according to the corruption index, Russia is in 74th place out of a hundred countries. But this is judged by the relatively small group of people occupying the middle and upper floors of the executive and legislative branches.
The bulk of Russians are honest, kind, sympathetic, hospitable, modest, emotional and smart people. The time will come when everything will fall into place. According to A.I. Solzhenitsyn: "We will get back on our feet when conscience prevails over the economy." In the meantime, we need to learn to communicate with other cultures by demonstrating best features Russian national character.
However, this will be very difficult to do. We can achieve mutual understanding with a foreign partner only by understanding how peculiarly we see foreigners, thanks to the points of our own cultural environment. Table 4 lists some characteristics of Americans that are positive from their point of view, but perceived negatively by other cultures.
Table 4. Estimates of typical traits of the American character in other countries
| American Traits: Self-Esteem | How others perceive them |
| Equality and Democracy | None (South East Asia) |
| Individualism | Lack of concern for others (Asia, Sweden) |
| Competitive fight | Aggressiveness (France) |
| Speed of decision making | Too much fuss (Japan, China) |
| Openness and directness in communication | Roughness (Japan, France) |
| Changes and improvements are welcome | They can disrupt the status quo (Saudi Arabia) |
| Result orientation | Underestimation of the role of human relationships (Italy, South-East Asia) |
| Self confidence | Arrogance ( South America, Arab countries) |
| Big smile and informal communication | Insincerity and disrespect for the interlocutor (Germany, France) |
| Future orientation | Disregard for traditions (China) |
| Defense of democracy and freedom of trade | Protection of own interests (Russia, Arab countries) |
It is even more difficult to prove to a representative of another culture that his behavior is illogical. Try, for example, to convince the Arabs that religion and business cannot be mixed, to prove to the Japanese that it is faster to make individual decisions, and to persuade the Koreans not to show hostility towards their neighbors.
American story:“I am an American, but I grew up in the USSR, my father served as a naval attache at the embassy in Moscow.
Having lived for 12 childhood years in Moscow, when I left, I spoke Russian better than English. But that's not the point, we recently moved to another house and I found my logs, which I kept while serving in radio intelligence on Pacific Ocean. My abilities in Russian were in demand by the Navy intelligence and I served with them from 1979 to 1984. On duty and for myself, I kept a journal. He handed over the breech to the archive, and his own. We - 7 people, including two former German officers who were in captivity in the USSR, were considered the best linguists in the Navy. We listened to the broadcast 24/7 and sometimes, especially when there were exercises, we spent 18 hours on headphones.
There was something in the recording, but mostly "live" broadcast. I must admit that the Russians cannot be defeated precisely because of the language. The most interesting was said between peers or friends, they were not shy in expressions. I've only skimmed through a few pages of my old posts, here are a few:
Where is the log?
- Fuck knows, they say, on the satellite it scratches a macaque.
Translation:
- Where is Captain Derevianko?
- I don’t know, but they say that it works through a closed communication channel and monitors American tests of the Mk-48 torpedo prototype
Sergei, check. Dimka told me that the Canadian in your basin was rinsing the z*lup.
Translation:
- Sergey, Dmitry reported that a Canadian anti-submarine helicopter is conducting acoustic sounding in your sector.
South west of your fifth, flat-ass shit in porridge, a screen in the snow.
Translation:
- (South west of your fifth?) a military transport aircraft drops light acoustic buoys in the area of \u200b\u200bthe possible location of a K-series submarine, many small objects on the radar screen.
The main bourgeois sits under the weather, is silent.
Translation:
- An American aircraft carrier camouflages itself in a stormy area, observing radio silence.
Stargazer sees a bubble, already with snot.
Translation:
- The optical observation station reports that the American aircraft tanker has released a fuel hose.
We have here a narrow-eyed fool turned on, they say, sorry, he lost his course, the motor broke down, and he jerked off. His pair of dry bypassed, their Birch was screaming.
- Drive him to x * d, I don't want to get pi * dy for this jaundice. If necessary, let the border guards wrap him in a fart, and draw a team to our special officer to draw a fairy tale.
Translation:
- During a fleet exercise, a South Korean vessel came close to the area of operations, citing breakdowns. When flying over a pair of Su-15s, the Bereza warning radar went off.
- Tram-ram ..., when trying to leave the area, deprive the ship of progress and tow.
When analyzing World War II, American military historians discovered a very interesting fact. Namely, in a sudden clash with the forces of the Japanese, the Americans, as a rule, made decisions much faster - and, as a result, defeated even superior enemy forces. After examining this pattern, scientists came to the conclusion that the average word length for Americans is 5.2 characters, while for the Japanese it is 10.8. Consequently, it takes 56% less time to issue orders, which plays an important role in a short battle. For the sake of "interest", they analyzed Russian speech - and it turned out that the length of a word in Russian is 7.2 characters per word (on average), however, in critical situations, Russian-speaking command staff switches to profanity- and the length of the word is reduced to (!) 3.2 characters per word. This is due to the fact that some phrases and even phrases are replaced by one word. An example is the phrase:
32nd - I order to immediately destroy the enemy tank, firing at our positions -
32nd - yo * not for this x * yu!
