Business negotiation in Vietnam : relationship development between North American and Vietnamese negotiators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis studies some of the major factors affecting relationship development between Vietnamese and North American business people, including: the different status of foreigners, the economic needs of the Vietnamese, the unsettled environment, the different conception of working relationships and the importance of face. The focus of the empirical research is the relationship development between Vietnamese and North American negotiators. A review of the Vietnamese culture and the pertinent literature led to the formulation and thesis of three hypotheses with respect to: the most important issue for the Vietnamese negotiator, the type of relationship wanted by the Vietnamese negotiator, and the impact of status differential on the relationship. Two principal research methods were used to test these hypotheses. First, a questionnaire was distributed to business people attending business classes at the University of Economics of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Second, a series of interviews was conducted with Vietnamese and North American business people living and working in Vietnam. The findings confirm that the Vietnamese emphasize the development of good working relationships with their negotiating counterparts. It should be noted, however, that the concept of a good working relationship is conceived differently than in North America. The second hypothesis is partially supported by the data; the Vietnamese negotiators seem to attach more importance to the evaluation of the trust of their partners, rather than to competitive or cooperative objectives. This is because the Vietnamese negotiators want to make sure they will not be in a situation in which they might lose face. This appears to be the main relationship objective of the Vietnamese negotiators. No conclusive evidence has been found to endorse the third hypothesis. Although status differential affects the behavior of Vietnamese negotiators, it does not affect the way they develop relationships with their North American partners. Possibly, the special status of North American business people, and the similar basis of all business interactions, have led the Vietnamese to have specific relationship objectives when negotiating with North Americans, whatever their status might be.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".