In the ensuing weeks, Bourdeau mulled over his options as to how best to establish a good

working relationship with the Chief of Staff. It was evident from his earliest encounters that

meetings in Nouakchott were leisurely and not motivated by the business agenda. Rather, the

many and long meetings were almost exclusively devoted to developing the social

relationship. Bourdeau felt pressured to deliver a successful outcome but also to wrap the

project up quickly. He was conscious of the daily budget his company was spending to keep

the team there. To speed up the process would call for a more assertive $$western style$$

negotiation approach. However, considering that this relationship was the lynchpin for many

others in the political and economic arenas, he could ill afford to trample on local customs and

risk alienation. He decided to focus his initial effort on reading the cultural sensitivities and to

develop a strategy once he felt the relationship was on a more secure footing.

The meetings with the Chief of Staff, Bourdeau learned, were expected to take place on an

almost daily basis. The tea ritual mentioned in his $$Bible$$ dictated the agenda and topics for

discussion, three cups in each session.

The first tea was bitter, called the $$tea of life$$ and was given in the spirit of welcome. This

meant that the subject matter should remain social and personal. Any mention of business

during this tea was politely ignored, and even frowned upon. When the second tea was served,

a little sweeter and known as the tea $$de l$$amour$,$ it was permissible for Bourdeau to lobby

for government support that would underpin the ultimate success of the project. Nevertheless,

it became clear over time that this section of the meeting was meant to be cumulative $$ there

would be no quick deals made or proposals instantly approved. This vital part of the

conversation was frustratingly controlled, both in length and content, by the host summoning

the third tea. This last tea was the sweetest of all, known as the $$tea of death$$ and was a

definite signal for the end of the meeting.

As Bourdeau expected, head office was becoming more and more impatient and the pressure

to produce a robust report was building. He felt that his relationship with the Chief of Staff

was on a good footing, and yet he was uncertain as to how much longer it would take for him

to be entrusted with the keys to the rest of the administration. He tried many combinations

around the tea ritual but was firmly, although politely, brought back to the Chief of Staff$$s

agenda.

Bourdeau$$s instinct that his company was becoming impatient was proved right when a senior

colleague from head office made a site visit to help move the process along. Confident that his

presence would impose a sense of urgency on proceedings, the senior colleague stated his

intentions and left before the third tea was served. It proved to be a serious mistake. Bourdeau

recalled his host$$s instantaneous reaction.

$$I could see it in his eyes straight away $$ and his behaviour. He was offended; he

started acting upset right away. It was a major faux pas, a huge step back.$$

Luckily, Bourdeau$$s previous commitment to following local protocol was enough to

maintain the relationship, although he was virtually back to square one as far as closing the

deal was concerned.

After doggedly attending a day of meetings to repair the damage, an unexpected event

occurred the following morning. It was a Thursday $$ the last day of the working week in Islamic Mauritania. The Chief of Staff was on his way in a $4$x$4$ to pick up Bourdeau and his

colleagues. They were invited to spend the weekend with him and his family in the desert.

There was no time for planning $$ they would have to improvise. Should they jump in the car

and join their host, or should they politely decline? If they joined, how would they play it$?$