INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATION EFFECTIVENESS

            Are some people better negotiators than others? The answer is more complex than you might think. Three factors influence how effectively individuals negotiate: personality, mood/emotions, and gender.

Personality Traits in Negotiation

Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his or her personality? Because personality and negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, at best, “sort of”.

Negotiators w ho are agreeable or extraverted are not very successful in distributive bargaining. Why? Because extraverts are outgoing and friendly, they tend to share more information than they should. And agreeable people are more interested in finding ways to cooperate rather than top butt heads. These traits, while slightly helpful in integrative negotiations, are liabilities when interests are opposed. So the best distributive bargainer appears to be a disagreeable introvert-someone more interested in his or her own outcomes than in pleasing the other party and having a pleasant social exchange. People who are highly interested in having positive relationships with other people, and who are not very concerned about their own outcomes, are especially poor negotiators. These people tend to be very anxious about disagreements and plan to give in quickly to avoid unpleasant conflicts even before negotiations start.

Research also suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong. In a sense, these weak links are good news because they mean you’re not severely disadvantaged, even if you are an agreeable extravert, when it comes time to negotiate. We all can learn to be better negotiators. In fact, people who think so are more likely to do well in negotiations because they persist in their efforts even in the face of temporary setbacks.  

Moods/Emotions in Negotiation

Do moods and emotions influence negotiation? They do, but the way they do appears to depend on the type of negotiation. In distributive negotiations, it appears to depend on the type of negotiation. In distributive negotiations, it appears that negotiators in a position of power or equal status who show anger negotiate better outcomes because their anger induces concessions from their opponents. This appears to hold true even when the negotiators are instructed to show anger despite not being truly angry. On the other hand, for those in a less powerful position, displaying anger leads to worse outcomes. So if you’re a boss negotiating with a peer or a subordinate, displaying anger may help you, but if you’re an employee negotiating with a boss, it might hurt you.

            In integrative negotiations, in contrast, positive moods and emotions appear to lead to more integrative agreements (higher levels of joint gain). This may happen because, as we noted in chapter 4, positive mood is related to creativity.

Gender differences in negotiations

Do men and women negotiate differently? And does gender affect negotiation outcomes? The answer to the first question appears to be no. the answer to the second is a qualified yes. 

            A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than are men. The evidence doesn’t support this belief. However, men have been found to negotiate better outcomes than women, although the difference is relatively small. It’s been postulated that men and women place divergent values on outcomes. It is possible that a few hundred dollars more in salary or the corner officer is less important to women than forming and maintaining an interpersonal relationship. 

            The belief that women are “nicer” than mean in negotiations is probably due to confusion between gender and the lower degree of power women typically hold in most large organizations. Because women are expected to be “nice” and mean “tough”, research shows women are penalized when they initiate negotiations. What’s more, when women and men actually do conform to these stereotypes-women act “nice” and men “tough” – it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing the stereotypical gender differences between male and female negotiators. Thus, one of the reasons negotiations favour men is that women are “damned of thy do, damned if they don’t”. Negotiate tough and they are penalized for violating a gender stereotype. Negotiate nice and it only reinforces and lets other take advantage of the stereotype.

            Evidence also suggests women’s own attitudes and behaviours hurt them in negotiations. Managerial women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance afterward, even when their performance and the outcomes they achieve are similar to those for men. Women are also less likely than men to see an ambiguous situation as an opportunity for negotiation. It appears that women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations when such action would be in their best interests.  

Third-party negotiations

            To this point, we’ve discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occasionally, however, individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party to help them find a solution. There are four basic third-party roles: mediator, arbitrator, conciliator and consultant.

A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. Mediators are widely used in labour-management negotiations and in civil court disputes. Their overall effectiveness is fairly impressive. The settlement rate is approximately 60 percent, with negotiator satisfaction at about 75 percent. But the situation is the key to whether negotiation will succeed; the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict. In addition, conflict intensity can’t be too high; mediation is most effective under moderate levels of conflict. Finally, perceptions of the mediator are important; to be effective, the mediator must be perceived as neutral and no coercive.

An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested by the parties) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or contract). The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. Whether or not there is a negative side depends on how heavy handed the arbitrator appears. If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be dissatisfied and unlikely to graciously accept the arbitrator’s decision. Therefore, the conflict may resurface at a later time.

A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent. This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. As Don Corleone’s adopted son and a lawyer by training, Duval acted as an intermediary between the Corleones and the other Mafioso families. Comparing conciliation to mediation in terms of effectiveness has proven difficult because the two overlap a great deal. In practice, conciliators typically act as more than mere communication conduits. They also engage in fact finding, interpret messages, and persuade disputants to develop agreements.

A consultant is a skilled and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate problem solving through communication and analysis, aided by a knowledge of conflict management. Unlike other third parties, the consultant does not try to settle the issues but rather works to improve relationships between the conflicting parties so they can reach a settlement themselves. Instead of putting forward specific solutions, the consultant tries to help a longer-term focus: to build new and positive perceptions and attitudes between the conflicting parties.

Conflict and culture

            Research suggests that differences across counties in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives. Collectivist cultures see people as deeply embedded in social situations, whereas individualist cultures see people as autonomous. As a result, collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve relationships and promote the good of the group as a whole than individualists. To preserve peaceful relationships, collectivists will avoid direct expression of conflicts, preferring to use more indirect methods for resolving differences of opinions. Collectivists may also be more interested in demonstrations of concern and working through third parties to resolve disputes, whereas individualists will be more likely to confront differences of opinion directly and openly.

            Some research does support this theory. A study of Indian, French, and U.K-based project managers to determine their approach toward managing conflict showed that French project managers, who are considered to be more individualistic, used competitor counter-parts used avioder and accommodator styles. A study among librarians in India, however, showed that the use of conflict management style differed depending on the seniority of the librarian and the relationship with the person with whom the conflict needs to be managed. For example, head librarians used integrating as a style with subordinates but used obliging with peers, while integrating is used by junior librarians as the dominant style irrespective of who they are dealing with. Another study revealed that whereas U.S. mangers were more likely to use competing tactics in the face of conflicts, compromising and avoiding are the most preferred methods of conflict management in China. Interview data, however, suggests top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms preferred integration even more than compromising and avoiding.

Cultural differences in negotiations

Compared to the research on conflict, there is more research on how negotiating styles vary across national cultures. One study compared U.S. and Japanese negotiators and found the generally conflict-avoidant Japanese negotiators tended to communicate indirectly and adapt their bahaviours to the situation. A follow-up study showed that whereas among U.S. mangers making early offers led to the anchoring effect we noted when discussing distributive negotiation, for Japanese negotiators early offers led to more information sharing and better integrative outcomes. In another study, managers with high levels of economic power from Hong Kong, which is a high power-distance country, were more cooperative in negotiations over a shared resource than German and U.S. manager, who were lower in power distance. This suggests that in high power distance countries, those in positions of power might exercise more restraint.

            Another study looked at verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics exhibited by North American, Japanese and Brazilians during half-hour bargaining sessions. Some of the differences were particularly interesting. The Brazilians on average said “no” 83 times, compared to 5 times for the Japanese and 9 times for the North Americans., the Japanese displayed more than 5 periods of silence lasting longer than 10 seconds during the 30-minure sessions. North Americans averaged 3.5 such periods; the Brazilians had none. The Japanese and North Americans interrupted their opponent about the same number of times, but the Brazilians interrupted 2.5 to 3 times more often than either. Finally, the Japanese and the North Americans had no physical contact with their opponents during negotiations except for hand-shaking, but the Brazilians touched each other almost 5 times every half hour.

Summary and implications for managers

            While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constrictive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. As shown in exhibit 14-8, levels of conflict can be either too high or too low. Either extreme hinders performance.

An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change, without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities.

            What advice can we give managers faced with excessive conflict and the need to reduce it? Don’t assume one conflict-handling intention will always be best! Select an intention appropriate for the situation. Here are some guidelines.

·         Use competition when quick, decisive action is vital (in emergencies), on important issues, when unpopular rules, discipline), on issues vital to the organization’s welfare when you know you’re right, and against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behaviour.

·         Use collaboration to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised, when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspective or gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

·         Use avoidance when an issue is trivial or symptomatic of other issues, when more important issues are pressing, when you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns, when potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolutions, to let people cool down and regain perspective, when gathering information supersedes immediate decision, and when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.  

·         Use accommodation when you find you’re wrong and to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, to show your reasonableness, when issues are more important to others than to yourself and to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, to build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, when harmony and stability are especially important, and to allow employees to develop by learning from mistakes.

·         Use compromise when goals are important but not worth the effort of potential disruption of more assertive approaches, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues, to arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure, and as a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful.

Negotiation is an ongoing activity in groups and organizations. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but is often negatively affects the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it focused on the short term and because it is confrontational. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and t hat build lasting relationships.  When engaged in negotiation, make sure you set aggressive goals and try to find creative ways to achieve the goals of both parties, especially when you value the long-tem relationship with the other party. That doesn’t mean sacrificing your self-interest; rather, it means trying to find creative solutions that give both parties what they really want.