IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison on Intercultural Business Negotiations of Asia’s Four Little Dragons


  • Yu-Te Tu

    (Department of Business Administration Chungyu Institute of Technology, Taiwan)


The Four Little Dragons have experienced growth rates between 5 and 10 percent over the last decade and are the recipients of the largest capital transfer in the region. Despite the enthusiasm for increased economic exchange, however, people are finding that cultural differences hinder their ability to efficiently conduct business. In this research, Casse and Deols’ model of negotiation styles are dependent variables, and cultural factors are utilized as independent variables to examine how cultural differences affect negotiation styles. Data are collected from public companies by means of an online survey, and the snowball sampling method is applied. Structural equation modeling is selected to measurehypothesized models and research hypotheses. The findings show that (1) an individualist attitude directly affects the style of negotiation; (2) nationality is a moderated variant of individualist attitude and style of negotiation; and (3) different styles of negotiation are preferred by negotiators of the Four Little Dragons. The researcher hopes this study can improve the understanding of the negotiation styles used by the Four Little Dragons and help business people develop better strategies to reap increased benefits and to maintain their competitive advantage. Additionally, a comparison can be made of the differences and similarities among the styles of negotiation used in a number of different countries, such as BRIC, or within specific regions, such as Germany. Furthermore, future studies can employ a qualitative method and other factors, such as gender or ethics to examine and add value to the current findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Te Tu, 2013. "A Comparison on Intercultural Business Negotiations of Asia’s Four Little Dragons," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 3(4), pages 65-79, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:mir:mirbus:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:65-79

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mir:mirbus:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:65-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: M Kabir (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.