International Journal of Conflict Management
Emerald Article: Understanding propensity to initiate negotiations: An
examination of the effects of culture and personality
Roger J. Volkema, Denise Fleck
Article information:
To cite this document:
Roger J. Volkema, Denise Fleck, (2012),"Understanding propensity to initiate negotiations: An examination of the effects of
culture and personality", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 23 Iss: 3 pp. 266 - 289
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10444061211248976
Downloaded on: 03-07-2012
References: This document contains references to 93 other documents
To copy this document: [email protected]
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
23,3
266
Understanding propensity to
initiate negotiations
An examination of the effects of culture and
personality
Roger J. Volkema
Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, DC, USA and
IAG/PUC-Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and
Denise Fleck
COPPEAD Graduate School of Business,
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to introduce a model of the initiation process in negotiations, and to
describe a study of the effects of culture and personality on propensity to initiate and assertiveness in
negotiations.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a survey research approach and hierarchical regression
analyses, initiation propensity and assertiveness were regressed against two country cultures diverse
with respect to perceived appropriateness of initiation (Brazil and the USA) and four measures of
personality (self-efficacy, locus of control, risk propensity, Machiavellianism).
Findings – Regression analyses found three personality factors (risk propensity, self-efficacy,
Machiavellianism) to be most significantly associated with initiation propensity/assertiveness, along
with an interaction effect involving country culture and risk propensity.
Research limitations/implications – Future studies might benefit from a broader, more diverse
subject pool (beyond the two countries studied). This would allow for separate analyses of cultural
dimensions, rather than treating culture as a composite measure. In addition, future research might
include measures of actual initiation behavior.
Practical implications – Initiation is a manageable process. Self-efficacy, for example, can be
improved by observing others skilled in the initiation process, and through practicing initiation under
more favorable conditions. Furthermore, an individual can follow a graduated approach to gain
initiation confidence, beginning with simply engaging (without asking) and progressing to asking and
optimizing.
Originality/value – This paper offers a model for understanding the dynamics of the initiation
process in negotiations, which generally has been overlooked by negotiation researchers. The study
examines two sets of factors that can influence initiation behavior that have not been investigated in
total – culture and personality.
Keywords Negotiation, Negotiating, Initiation behaviour, Culture, National cultures, Personality,
Assertiveness, Brazil, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2012
pp. 266-289
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/10444061211248976
Negotiation is an interpersonal decision-making process necessary whenever we
cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly (Thompson, 2009). Due to its ubiquitous
nature, the skills associated with negotiation are generally considered essential for
both personal fulfillment and professional success (Greenhalgh, 2001; Lewicki et al.,
2009; Mintzberg, 1973).
Like many interpersonal processes (e.g. group/team development, problem solving,
decision making) (Bruner and Pomazal, 1988; Cowan, 1986), the early stages of the
negotiation process often portend how succeeding stages will unfold and, ultimately,
the outcome of the interaction (Buelens and Van Poucke, 2004; Curhan and Pentland,
2007; Magee et al., 2007; Patton and Balakrishnan, 2010; Wheeler, 2004). That is, these
early stages lay the groundwork for the proposal, request, complaint, demand,
suggestion, or favor that an individual hopes will satisfy the need, which prompted the
interpersonal encounter.
For most individuals, however, initiating a negotiation (and asking for what one
wants, in particular) is at least an occasional challenge, while for many others initiation
is a chronic issue (Miles, 2010; Small et al., 2007). For example, studies of salary
negotiations have shown that individuals often do not initiate compensation
discussions, despite the fact that these discussions frequently produce higher salaries
(Babcock and Laschever, 2003; Babcock et al., 2003; Bowles et al., 2007; Gerhart and
Rynes, 1991). Furthermore, there are typically many additional opportunities for
individuals to negotiate special deals once they have been hired by an organization (e.g.
flexible work hours, international work assignments, specialized training), which they
often fail to do (Rousseau, 2005). Interdepartmental negotiations (e.g. cross-functional
team projects, reorganizations) and inter-organizational negotiations (e.g. mergers,
trade agreements) also can suffer when one or more parties is reluctant to initiate.
Much of the research on negotiation has assumed that the parties will engage one
another to discuss their wants and needs. Consequently, the focus of this research often
has been on the tactical management of issues, proposals, and agreements to achieve a
favorable or integrative outcome (Lewicki et al., 2009; Thompson, 2009). Yet failure to
initiate can adversely affect all parties, limiting their understanding of immediate and
extended issues while denying an outcome that is mutually beneficial. Organizations
lose talented employees who fear asking for a raise, companies lose customers/clients
who choose avoidance or withdrawal over initiation, etc. (Harvey et al., 2004; Huppertz,
2003).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of two sets of factors on an
individual’s propensity to initiate negotiations – attitude regarding behavioral
appropriateness, and personality. Using a survey research approach, propriety (as a
function of six cultural variables) and personality characteristics (risk propensity,
locus of control, self-efficacy, Machiavellianism) were assessed, along with both
general (e.g. assertiveness) and specific measures of propensity to initiate. Through
regression analyzes, those factors most significantly related to these measures of
propensity to initiate a negotiation were determined. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the implications of these findings for negotiators and future research.
Understanding initiation intentionality and behavior
An individual’s behavior regarding initiation of a negotiation can involve several
decisions and actions, including whether or not to physically engage a counterpart
(versus re-directing or completely avoiding confrontation), to verbalize one’s request
(versus waiting for the other party to raise the subject), and to optimize a request (as
opposed to asking for less than is desired, and hoping that it will receive a more
favorable response) (Volkema, 2009). As such, initiating a negotiation can require
several stages or acts of assertiveness (Shell, 2001).
Understanding
propensity
267
IJCMA
23,3
268
The process of deciding to initiate a negotiation (i.e. engage, request, optimize)
represents a special case of planned behavior, a theory of deliberative action proposed
by Ajzen and his colleagues (cf. Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969, 1972) that
delineates the effects of attitudes or beliefs on intentions and behavior (for a review, see
Kim and Hunter, 1993). This research has focused on a broad array of subjects (e.g.
voting behavior, consumer spending, personal habits, ethics), generally finding that
attitudes/beliefs affect intentions, which in turn are highly correlated with behavior. In
addition, the links between attitudes, intentions, and behavior are affected by control
factors that can impede behavioral performance.
For initiation behavior, the social influences that delineate appropriateinappropriate behavior represent an individual’s normative attitudes/beliefs, and the
individual’s general and specific motivations regarding initiating a negotiation are
his/her behavioral beliefs (Bandura, 2001; Huppertz, 2003). The former – perceived
appropriateness – is influenced by one’s culture (system of shared beliefs), while the
latter – motivation – is affected by an individual’s personality (e.g. risk propensity,
locus of control, self-efficacy, Machiavellianism) (Cho and Lee, 2006). Since negotiation
involves one or more counterparts with their own motivations, there are also control
(situational) factors that an individual will likely take into consideration during this
deliberative process. The situational or contextual factors specific to initiation of a
negotiation include, for example, the salience of the negotiation, the negotiating venue
(public, private), a counterpart’s reputation/demeanor, and perceived alternatives,
factors which can potentially influence an individual’s assertiveness and propensity to
negotiate (i.e. desire to engage, verbalize, and optimize).
These three sets of characteristics/factors – culture, personality, situation/context
– come into play during determination of intentionality to initiate a request or
demand, with situational factors also affecting the transition from intentions to
behavior and subsequent outcome (for example, as a counterpart’s demeanor is
revealed during engagement) (Figure 1). For this reason, we might expect culture
and personality/motivation to be associated with an individual’s chronic inability to
initiate negotiations, while situational factors would more likely be associated with
episodic reluctance to initiate. Since the former are more difficult to manipulate or
change than the latter during a given negotiation, it is particularly important for a
negotiator as well as his or her counterparts to understand the negotiator’s
tendencies.
Over time, aspects of perceived appropriateness and motivation are influenced by
the results of a negotiating experience (i.e. negotiating outcomes), as well as by the
observed/vicarious negotiating experiences of others. Thus, to understand initiation
intentions/behavior – particularly chronic versus episodic intentionality/behavior with
respect to reluctance to initiate – requires an appreciation for the potential effects of
attitudes (as determined by socialization or culture) and personality on intentionality.
Specific dimensions of culture and personality, along with their corresponding
relationships to initiation behavior, are discussed next[1].
Culture
As previously noted, negotiation is a process involving social engagement (Thompson,
2009), an endeavor that can produce anxiety for one or both parties (Miles, 2010;
Volkema, 2009; Wheeler, 2004). In general, an individual will experience the greatest
Understanding
propensity
269
Figure 1.
A model of the initiation
process in negotiation
IJCMA
23,3
270
anxiety or dissonance when his/her behavior is counter-normative, voluntary, and
public (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). Society or culture typically determines what is
considered inappropriate or counter-normative behavior in a social encounter (recorded
in memory as scripts or schema), which can cause individuals to hesitate or retreat in
certain negotiable situations. Therefore, to understand reluctance to initiate a
negotiation requires an appreciation for culture.
Culture has been defined as the patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting,
acquired and transmitted mainly through symbols. It constitutes the distinctive
achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts. The essential
core of culture consists of traditional ideas (i.e. historically derived and selected) and
especially their attached values (Kluckhohn, 1951).
Hofstede (1997, 2001) was among the first to quantify the dimensions of country
culture, focusing on four dimensions:
(1) individualism-collectivism;
(2) uncertainty avoidance;
(3) masculinity-femininity; and
(4) power distance.
A subsequent study by House et al. (2004) of 62 countries identified overlapping
dimensions, each of which has implications for perceived appropriateness and
negotiation. Two other dimensions of culture – temporal orientation and cultural
context – also can influence propriety with respect to initiation behavior (Volkema,
2011). Each of these six dimensions, and its relationship to initiation behavior, is
discussed next, followed by a singular hypothesis combining these relationships.
Individualism-collectivism. An individualist culture is one in which individual rights,
achievement, and recognition are valued, whereas in a collectivist culture it is the
interests of the social unit (family, community, etc.) that are paramount. In general,
people from more individualist cultures are inclined to view negotiations from a
fixed-pie (distributive) perspective, which affects their perceptions of appropriate
behavior. This can spur initiating behavior as well as the manner in which a request is
made (e.g. open-entry negotiating, or cold-calling). Liu et al. (2001), for example, found
that customers from higher individualist cultures were more likely to take action when
they received poor service quality.
Individuals from collectivist cultures, on the other hand, are concerned with both
self-face (i.e. self identity, respect) and other-face (i.e. a counterpart’s sense of self), the
latter concern leading to more avoidance behavior (Oetzel et al., 2008; Oetzel and
Ting-Toomey, 2003). In a study of Asians and Asian Americans (collectivist cultures)
and European Americans (individualist culture), for example, Taylor et al. (2004) found
the former cultures less likely than the latter culture to reach out for support during
periods of stress due to possible relational ramifications such as disturbing group
harmony, losing face, receiving criticism, and making the situation worse. Morrison
et al. (2004), in a study of organizational newcomer behavior, found that newcomers
from a collectivist culture (Hong Kong) were less likely than newcomers from an
individualist culture (US) to rely on supervisor-focused feedback inquiries for reducing
uncertainty and managing their performance.
Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance, a second dimension identified by
Hofstede (1997) and House et al. (2004), is concerned with a society’s tolerance for
uncertainty and ambiguity. Individuals from low uncertainty avoidance cultures are
more comfortable with unstructured situations, and more tolerant of risk taking (which
negotiation entails, since it is by definition an interpersonal process involving
imperfect information).
In cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance, individuals are socialized to
conform to policies, procedures, and rules, whereas in low uncertainty avoidance
cultures these rules are seen as more symbolic than deterministic. Thus, in high
uncertainty avoidance cultures, menus, sticker prices, and precedents are more likely to
be viewed as implicit contracts that define the terms or conditions of a negotiation,
while they are but a starting point for negotiations in low uncertainty avoidance
cultures (Schuster and Copeland, 1996). This, of course, has implications for the
perceived appropriateness that individuals are likely to place on initiating a
negotiation, particularly in cases where the request might seem contrary to policy or
practice, but also in unfamiliar situations (where it is assumed that there is probably a
rule governing behavior).
Fu et al. (2004), in fact, found that individuals from high uncertainty avoidance
cultures were less likely to perceive that a persuasive strategy would be effective.
There also was less experimentation and innovation, along with less rational
argumentation, since it was assumed that one’s counterpart in a high uncertainty
avoidance culture could adequately determine whether or not a request was legitimate.
Instead, individuals from a high uncertainty avoidance culture were more likely to
endorse a relationship-oriented strategy (rapport building, gift giving) than an
assertive strategy. This is generally consistent with the investigations of Liu et al.
(2001), who found that individuals from a high uncertainty avoidance culture were less
likely than individuals from a low uncertainty avoidance culture to take action when
they experienced poor service quality.
Masculinity-femininity. A third dimension of culture Hofstede labeled
masculinity-femininity. Hofstede found that the roles of men and women differed
substantially in some country cultures (which he labeled masculine cultures), while
showing much less variability in other cultures (which he called feminine cultures). In
masculine cultures, men are generally expected to be assertive, competitive,
achievement-oriented, and focused on material success, while women are typically
more modest, tender-hearted, and concerned with quality of life issues. In the US, for
example, a country with moderately high masculinity, women have been found to be
more apprehensive about negotiations than have men and, consequently, they appear
less likely to initiate a negotiation. And when they do negotiate, women have been
found to ask for and receive considerably less than have men (e.g. in salary
negotiations) (Babcock et al., 2006; Babcock and Laschever, 2003; Barron, 2003).
In a feminine culture, on the other hand, the gender roles tend to overlap, with both
men and women showing more concern for relational issues than task-centered
activities and accomplishments (Bergeron and Schneider, 2005). Individuals with
strong relational or affiliation interests typically avoid confrontational approaches in
interpersonal conflicts, preferring to accommodate the other party (Schneer and
Chanin, 1987). This concern or orientation would likely manifest itself during the
initiation process as well, limiting engagement, asking, and certainly optimizing.
Understanding
propensity
271
IJCMA
23,3
272
Power distance. A fourth dimension of culture – power distance – refers to the
presumed status of some individuals within a culture based on age, gender, family
background, social class, etc. (Marsland and Beer, 1983). It is typical for countries with
high power distance to have unequal distributions of wealth, and to some extent these
differences have come to be accepted by individuals (Hofstede, 1997; House et al., 2004).
Cultures with high power distance generally are comfortable with hierarchical
structures, clear lines of authority, and the right to use power with discretion. Power
generally is not delegated to lower levels, so an individual in a high power distance
culture may not have the authority to make a decision (i.e. they need to check with a
superior). This can influence their willingness to initiate a request, and most certainly
their ability to grant a favor. Morrison et al. (2004), for example, found that newcomers
within a low power distance culture (US) tend to be more likely than newcomers from a
high power distance culture (Hong Kong) to initiate feedback inquiries from their
supervisors.
Because individuals in high power distance cultures are more likely to respond
positively to hierarchical structures and the use of power or authority, an individual
may be less inclined to pursue a negative response from a counterpart, particularly if
that counterpart is seen to be a legitimate authority.
Temporal orientation. Subsequent to his original research, Hofstede added a fifth
dimension referred to as long-term versus short-term orientation. For cultures with a
long-term orientation (including many Asian cultures), relationships, personal
adaptability, and perseverance are important. Rather than initiating a special
request, which could threaten a relationship, individuals from long-term oriented
cultures are more inclined to react to a personal need by deferring action to another
time (that is, thinking longer-term, bigger picture), and making the necessary changes
personally to adapt to the situation (Cooper-Chen and Tanaka, 2008). These
adaptations might include deferring engagement, or engaging but waiting for the other
party to broach the subject/request of interest (Volkema, 2011).
While cultures with a long-term orientation are more focused on traditions and
long-term commitments, which would likely support the status quo and impede
change, cultures with a short-term orientation are more focused on the present, with an
emphasis on the bottom line and quick results (Hofstede, 2001). For these individuals, a
disproportionate weight is often placed on immediate outcomes, as the value of a
delayed action is discounted (Weber and Chapman, 2005). This suggests a greater
desire within short-term oriented cultures to satisfy one’s immediate needs by
engaging a prospective counterpart and making a demand or request (if not optimizing
that request).
Cultural context. Finally, cultures have been characterized as having high or low
cultural context, which also has implications for initiation behavior (Hall, 1976). In
high-context cultures, individuals are generally very familiar with one another as a
consequence of having shared similar experiences and expectations. Communication in
a high-context culture is often more implicit than explicit (i.e. based on context,
relational development, and nonverbal cues).
In contrast, a country that has a low-context culture typically has more diversity
and, consequently, less reliance on situational familiarity to communicate. As a result
of the greater diversity, communication in a low-context culture is often more precise,
direct, and verbal than in a high-context culture (Adair et al., 2001). Thus, negotiators
from low-context cultures (e.g. the US) may be more inclined to make direct statements
of their preferences or priorities, while individuals from high-context cultures (e.g.
Japan) might be more inclined to use offers as a means of gathering information about
a counterpart (Adair et al., 2007).
In general, individuals from low-context cultures are likely to be less concerned
about the social implications of initiating a negotiation (engaging a counterpart,
making a request, and optimizing that request) than individuals from a high-context
culture. In a study of North American (low-context culture) and Filipino
(high-context culture) industrial exporters, Mintu-Wimsatt (2002) found that
the high-context variable enhanced cooperation (which suggests a focus on
relational concerns rather than self-interests).
Given these collective arguments and findings, we would expect the following as
regards these six dimensions of culture:
H1. An individual from a high individualist, low uncertainty avoidance, high
masculinity, low power distance, short-term oriented, low-context culture will
be more likely to initiate a negotiation than will someone from a high
collectivist, high uncertainty avoidance, high femininity, high power distance,
long-term oriented, high-context culture.
Personality
Beyond the role of socialization and culture in defining propriety in initiation behavior,
an individual’s personality will affect intentionality and, consequently, behavior.
Based on prior research, four characteristics of personality, in particular, are likely to
play a role in one’s decision to initiate a request: risk propensity, locus of control,
self-efficacy, and Machiavellianism[2].
Risk propensity. The first of these personality characteristics, risk propensity, refers
to an individual’s tendency to take or avoid risk in a decision-making situation (Sitkin
and Pablo, 1992). The decision to engage another party in a negotiation involves
several types of risks, including possible threats to social identity and self-confidence
in a public venue as well as opportunity costs that might be incurred. The former can
manifest itself through hearing (or in anticipation of hearing) the other party say “no”
to a request (Fisher and Shapiro, 2005; Rudman et al., 2007; Ury, 1991), a consequence
that becomes more probable as a negotiator moves from simple engagement to making
a formal request to optimizing that request.
According to Taylor (1974), risk is a function of two factors – uncertainty of the
outcome, and significance of the consequences – which are evident in any negotiation.
The former is generally lowered by acquiring more information, while the latter is
addressed by reducing one’s stakes (Taylor, 1974). In terms of a negotiation, for
example, an individual might seek to lower uncertainty by attempting to learn more
about his/her counterpart (wants/needs, alternatives, style) and to reduce the stakes by
limiting one’s request (i.e. sub-optimizing).
In a study of consumer behavior, Cho and Lee (2006) found that subjects’ risk
propensity influenced their risk perceptions, with higher risk propensity leading to
perceptions of lower risk. An individual’s lower risk perceptions, in turn, were
associated with a lesser likelihood of pursuing risk-reducing strategies such as
information search (which suggests deferring immediate engagement) and a lesser
Understanding
propensity
273
IJCMA
23,3
likelihood of reducing one’s investment (i.e. a greater likelihood of optimizing one’s
request).
Thus,
H2. An individual with high risk propensity will be more likely to initiate a
negotiation than will an individual with low risk propensity.
274
Locus of control. Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that
they can control the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). Typically, individuals are
described as having a locus of control that ranges from a high internal locus of control
to a high external locus of control. Individuals with a high internal locus of control
believe that it is primarily their own behavior and actions that determine the events in
their lives, while individuals with a high external locus of control believe that it is
external forces (e.g. chance, fate, other people) that determine events.
Individuals with a high internal locus of control are generally thought to have better
control of their behavior, to exhibit more political behavior, and to be more likely to
attempt to influence other people than individuals with a high external locus of control.
They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation
than are externals. Overall, individuals with a high internal locus of control are more
assertive than individuals with an external locus of control (Cooley and Nowicki, 1974;
Hartwig et al., 1980), speaking longer and more frequently during encounters
(Campbell et al., 1990).
Research on bargaining and negotiation also suggests a potential relationship
between locus of control and initiation behavior. Specifically, individuals with a high
internal locus of control versus a high external locus of control have been found to be
more competitive (Ford, 1983), to demand more in their opening offers (Bigoness, 1976),
and to reach better agreements (Stolte, 1983). In addition, a recent study by Shalvi et al.
(2010) found that negotiators with a high internal locus of control were more likely to
overcome the influence of receiving a non-favorable initial offer.
Overall, these studies suggest a greater likelihood of an individual with a high
internal locus of control initiating a negotiation – engaging (an act of assertiveness,
competitiveness), requesting (due to their general assertiveness, but also their speaking
proclivity), and optimizing (related to their own initial offer demands, and their
willingness to overcome the non-favorable demands of others).
Therefore,
H3. An individual with a high internal locus of control will be more likely to
initiate a negotiation than will an individual with a high external locus of
control.
Self-efficacy. A third personality characteristic that could predict initiation behavior is
self-efficacy, the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner or
attaining certain goals. It differs from locus of control in that an individual may believe
that personal effort will lead to a desirable outcome (high internal locus of control) but
that he or she is not capable of putting forth the necessary effort (a low sense of
self-efficacy).
Self-efficacy has been described as a measure of personality (Judge et al., 2002) but
also a function of personal experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and
physiological factors (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Since negotiation is a skill, it can be
acquired through personal experience or practice. Individuals also can become more
confident in asking for what they want through vicarious experience (i.e. observing the
behavior of skilled others) (Nadler et al., 2003). Social persuasion in the form of support
and encouragement from colleagues and other confederates can affect confidence and
performance generally, and initiation behavior more specifically (Bluen and
Jubiler-Lurie, 1990; London et al., 1999).
Self-efficacy can be viewed in general terms as well as within the context of a
specific task (Yeo and Neal, 2006). In either case, the stronger an individual’s belief in
his/her ability to accomplish a goal (e.g. a negotiated outcome), the less risk the
individual is likely to perceive in taking action. Indeed, Cho and Lee (2006) found that,
in addition to risk propensity, self-efficacy influences an individual’s risk perceptions,
which in turn can affect his/her likelihood of reducing risk through information search
or reduction of stakes/investment. An individual with high self-efficacy was more
likely to view a situation as low in risk, and to eschew risk-reducing strategies such as
information search and investment reduction.
In terms of assertive behavior, Arisohn et al. (1988), building on the work of Lee
(1984) and others, found that individuals reporting positive outcome expectancies were
more assertive. Since initiation involves engagement and requesting, two forms of
social assertiveness, we might expect a similar relationship between self-efficacy and
the likelihood of initiating a negotiation.
Specifically:
H4. An individual with high self-efficacy will be more likely to initiate a
negotiation than will an individual with low self-efficacy.
Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism refers to an individual’s tendency to deceive and
manipulate others for personal gain (Mudrack, 1990). High Machiavellians generally
do not believe that integrative outcomes are easily achieved and, consequently, they
tend to eschew collaborative approaches in favor of distributive strategies
(Amanatullah et al., 2008).
Since the achievement of one’s objective via negotiation requires initiation
(engaging a counterpart at the very least, if not making a verbal request), the goal
orientation of an individual can significantly affect this process. Several scholars have
reported high Machiavellians as being particularly goal oriented: motivated to succeed
(Reimers and Barbuto, 2002), showing a strong commitment to self-set goals (Huber
and Neale, 1986), and willing to use their influence over others to achieve their goals
(Lau and Shaffer, 1999).
Given high Machiavellians’ apparent orientation towards personal goals and
achievement, we might expect these individuals to be assertive with other parties in
pursuit of their desires. Barbuto and Moss (2006), for example, in a meta-analysis of 11
studies of Machiavellianism and influence tactics, found a positive correlation between
Machiavellianism and assertiveness. Sakalaki et al.’s (2007) contention that high
Machiavellians are concerned with maximizing their own profits suggests a potential
for optimization of requests as well.
Therefore:
H5. An individual with high Machiavellianism will be more likely to initiate a
negotiation than will an individual with low Machiavellianism.
Understanding
propensity
275
IJCMA
23,3
276
The study
Participants
The participants in this study were individuals taking graduate business courses in
their home countries of Brazil and the US, countries that are diverse with respect to the
six dimensions of culture discussed above[3]. Questionnaires were administered in
English (the language of the courses) in these two countries. Participants were asked to
list their nationality, and only those participants indicating a single country (Brazil or
the US) were included in the study. A total of 77 usable sets of questionnaires were
obtained (40 from Brazil, 37 from the US). If these participants, 45 (58.4 percent) were
males, and the final sample had a mean age of 27.5 years ðsd ¼ 5:5Þ with a mean of 5.2
years ðsd ¼ 5:0Þ of work experience.
Procedure
Each participant was asked to complete a set of questionnaires which focused on
personality and assertiveness/initiation propensity, as well as to provide demographic
information (age, gender, work experience, nationality). The series of questionnaires
focused on risk propensity (employing three questions used by Cho and Lee, 2006),
locus of control (using Mueller and Thomas’, 2001, ten questions adapted from Rotter,
1966), and self-efficacy (four questions, adapted from Cho and Lee, 2006, to have a
negotiation focus). The Cronbach alphas for these three questionnaires were 0.71, 0.78,
and 0.66, respectively. Machiavellianism was measured using the Mach IV
questionnaire (Christie and Geis, 1970), a questionnaire that had been used in prior
negotiation research (cf. Amanatullah et al., 2008). The Cronbach alpha was 0.67 for
this questionnaire.
Since there is not, as of yet, a single universally accepted measure of initiation
behavior, multiple dependent measures were employed in this study. The first
consisted of 12 questions that assessed three dimensions of propensity to initiate
negotiations (Babcock et al., 2006):
(1) recognition of negotiable situations;
(2) apprehension upon initiating a negotiation; and
(3) entitlement of a favorable outcome.
Each of the 12 items – four for recognition ða ¼ 0:64Þ; five for apprehension ða ¼
0:86Þ; and three for entitlement ða ¼ 0:49Þ – was rated by participants on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An
overall propensity to initiate score also was calculated by averaging the ratings for the
recognition questions, the apprehension questions, and the entitlement questions
(reverse coded) ða ¼ 0:69Þ[4].
According to Ames (2009), assertiveness is a characterization of how a person
responds in a negotiation, as the individual attempts to answer the question: How hard
should I push? The behavioral response to this question can range from avoidance and
passivity at one extreme to aggression and hostility at the other. Thus, assertiveness
might be viewed as a proxy for negotiation initiation. Therefore, the second dependent
measure employed in this study was the Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; Rathus,
1973), a 30-item questionnaire that employs a six-point scale. Initiation by definition
involves several forms of assertiveness (e.g. engaging, asking). The RAS has been used
in a number of studies, and generally has evidenced acceptable validity (with respect to
other self-report and observational measures of assertiveness) as well as test-retest and
split half reliabilities (Elliott and Gramling, 1990; Quillen et al., 1977). For the data
provided by participants in this study, the Cronbach alpha was 0.86.
The third measure consisted of three scenarios employed by Ames (2008), each
scenario presenting three alternatives to the participants. The scenarios consisted of a
salary negotiation (in which one can propose different salary counteroffers), a request
for assistance while under a deadline (with choices ranging from using one’s leverage
to avoiding confrontation altogether), and a disagreement during a team meeting (in
which one’s behavior can vary from vocal disagreement to quiet contemplation).
(Scenario texts are available in Ames, 2008.) The alternatives, presented in
counterbalanced order, represented high, medium, and low assertive behaviors
(rated 3, 2, and 1 in value, respectively, with 3 representing the maximum response
with respect to assertiveness). Participants were asked to rank the alternatives for each
scenario, with the value of the alternative ranked first in each scenario being used in
this analysis.
Analysis
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyzes, including as
independent variables each of the factors shown in the five hypotheses – cultural
propriety or appropriateness ð1 ¼ Brazil; 2 ¼ USÞ; risk propensity, internal locus of
control, self-efficacy, and Machiavellianism. Interaction effects were included for
country culture and each of the four personality variables. The analyzes controlled for
gender and age, which has been found to be related to assertiveness and initiation
behavior (cf. Babcock et al., 2006; Rizzo and Mendez, 1988; Small et al., 2007; Thomas
and Thomas, 2008). Separate analyzes were run for each of the dependent variables:
propensity to initiate a negotiation (i.e. recognition of negotiable situations, entitlement
of a favorable outcome, and apprehension upon initiating a negotiation), Rathus’
assertiveness, and assertiveness as determined by the average value for the three
scenarios.
Results
Table I shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the independent
variables and dependent variables in this study. Each of the four personality variables
(risk propensity, internal locus of control, self-efficacy, and Machiavellianism) was
significantly correlated with at least one of the primary dependent variables. Country
(Brazil vs US), on the other hand, was only significantly correlated with a single
dimension of one of the primary dependent variables – a positive correlation with
recognizing a negotiable situation.
As shown in Table I, none of the three dimensions of propensity to initiate –
recognition of negotiable situations, apprehension regarding initiating a negotiation,
and entitlement of a favorable outcome – was significantly correlated with each other.
However, there was some correspondence between the primary dependent measures.
Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule was significantly correlated with overall propensity to
initiate negotiations ðr ¼ 0:57; p , 0.001), as well as with two of the dimensions of
propensity to initiate: recognition ðr ¼ 0:44; p , 0.001) and apprehension ðr ¼ 20:44;
p , 0.001). Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule and overall propensity to initiate also were
Understanding
propensity
277
1
***
p , 0.01,
4
5
6
0.34 ***
0.20 *
0.20 *
20.10 20.19 *
0.01
0.24 **
20.06
0.17
20.03
0.13
0.15
0.28 **
0.25 **
(0.69)
8
9
10
11
12
0.17
0.10
0.02
0.59 **** (0.64)
20.29 ** 20.33 ***
0.06
20.66 **** 20.11
(.86)
20.20 *
0.06
0.50 ****
0.61 ****
0.18
0.02
(0.49)
0.33 ***
0.02
0.57 ****
0.44 **** 20.44 **** 0.19 (0.86)
0.20 *
0.17
20.10
0.23 *
0.42 **** 20.04
0.04 0.33 ***
0.23 **
0.15
(0.67)
7
p , 0.001. a Male ¼ 1; Female ¼ 2 b Brazil ¼ 1; United States ¼ 2
p , 0.05,
Notes: n ¼ 77: *p , 0.10,
****
0.04
20.19 *
0.18
0.09
20.04 20.05
20.12 20.08
20.19
0.01
5.2
4.0
3.5
16.5
2.3
**
0.7 20.21 * 20.06
4.2
0.9
1.3
1.2
24.7
0.4
3
0.17
0.01
(0.71)
20.34 ***
20.16
20.01
0.03
(0.78)
0.28 ** (0.66)
20.10
20.12
0.30 ***
20.27 ** 20.12
0.08
0.22 * 20.06
2
Dependent
8. Propensity to initiate
negotiations (PIN)
9. PIN – opportunity
recognition
10. PIN – apprehension
11. PIN 2 entitlement
12. Assertiveness (Rathus)
13. Assertiveness scenarios
5.5
0.5 20.07
0.5
0.03
2.0
0.04
4.9
0.07
2.5 20.12
12.1 20.05
27.5
1.4
1.5
8.1
37.6
10.8
77.2
Independent
1. Age
2. Gendera
3. Countryb
4. Risk propensity
5. Locus of control (int.)
6. Self-efficacy
7. Machiavellianism
Table I.
Descriptive statistics and
correlation matrix for
country, personality, and
assertiveness/initiative
Mean SD
278
Variable
IJCMA
23,3
significantly correlated with the assertiveness measures of the three scenarios ðr ¼
0:33; p , 0.01 and r ¼ 0:23; p , 0.10, respectively).
The first regression analyzes focused on propensity to negotiate. In terms of the
overall measure, there were four significant findings, two of which involved stated
hypotheses (Table II). Self-efficacy ðb ¼ 0:28; p , 0.05) and Machiavellianism ðb ¼
0:24; p , 0.05) were positively associated with overall propensity to initiate a
negotiation, consistent with H4 and H5, respectively. Thus, the greater one’s
self-efficacy and Machiavellianism, the greater his/her propensity to initiate
negotiations. In addition, there was a significant interaction effect for country
culture and risk propensity ðb ¼ 0:22; p , 0.05): Individuals from the US with a high
risk propensity had a higher overall propensity to initiate than individuals from Brazil
with a low risk propensity. This would be consistent with H1 and H2. Finally, age was
negatively associated with propensity to initiate ðb ¼ 20:19; p , 0.10), suggesting
that younger participants had a greater propensity towards initiating negotiations
than did older participants.
Separate regression analyzes were conducted for each of the three dimensions of
propensity to initiate. For the first of these dimensions – recognition of negotiable
opportunities – the regression analysis revealed one significant finding: The
interaction effect for country culture and risk propensity was statistically significant
ðb ¼ 0:33; p , 0.01). As with overall propensity to initiate, individuals from the US
with a high-risk propensity had a higher recognition of negotiable opportunities than
did individuals from Brazil with a low risk propensity, consistent with H1 and H2. In
addition, age was negatively associated with recognition of opportunities ðb ¼ 20:20;
p , 0.10), suggesting that younger participants were better than older participants at
perceiving situations to be negotiable.
For the second dimension of propensity to initiate – apprehension regarding
initiating a negotiation – there was a single significant factor. Self-efficacy was
negatively associated with apprehension ðb ¼ 20:32; p , 0.01), consistent with H4.
Thus, the greater an individual’s self-efficacy (i.e. belief that one is capable of
performing in a certain manner or attaining certain goals), the less apprehensive he/she
was expected to be regarding initiating a negotiation.
For the third dimension of propensity to initiate – entitlement of a favorable
outcome – there were two significant findings. The more significant of these concerned
Machiavellianism ðb ¼ 0:52; p , 0.001), followed by risk propensity ðb ¼ 0:25;
p , 0.05). The positive association for Machiavellianism was consistent with H5, while
the positive association for risk propensity was consistent with H2.
Regressing the independent and control variables against assertiveness as
measured by the Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule revealed one significant finding:
Self-efficacy was positively associated with Rathus’ assertiveness measure ðb ¼ 0:31;
p , 0.05). That is, the greater an individual’s self-efficacy, the more assertive the
individual indicated he/she would be. This result is consistent with H4.
Finally, there were three significant findings related to assertiveness as measured
by the three scenarios. In terms of the hypotheses, internal locus of control ðb ¼ 0:23;
p , 0.10) and risk propensity ðb ¼ 0:22; p , 0.10) were positively associated with
assertiveness in the scenarios, consistent with H3 and H2, respectively. The greater
one’s internal locus of control (i.e. belief that one’s own behavior and actions determine
life’s events) and one’s risk propensity, the more assertive the individual was expected
Understanding
propensity
279
Entitlement
20.02
20.01
20.14
0.25 * *
20.04
0.07
0.52 * * * *
20.17
20.14
20.08
20.11
0.32
0.31
7.92 * * * *
Apprehension
0.15
0.08
2 0.13
2 0.02
2 0.18
2 0.32 * * *
0.02
2 0.10
2 0.17
2 0.07
2 0.08
0.15
0.10
3.94 * *
2 0.19 *
2 0.06
2 0.22
0.15
0.14
0.28 * *
0.24 * *
0.22 * *
2 0.05
2 0.30
2 0.28
0.26
0.20
4.62 * * * *
Overall
20.08
20.04
20.02
0.09
0.08
0.31 * *
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.11
0.09
2.76 * *
Rathus’ assertiveness
schedule
**
p , 0.05,
20.20 *
0.13
20.03
0.22 *
0.23 *
0.01
20.05
20.03
20.04
0.03
20.06
0.12
0.09
2.42 *
Assertiveness
(scenarios)
Notes: n ¼ 77: Standardized coefficients are shown for control variables (Age, Gender), main effects, and interaction effects. *p , 0.10,
***
p , 0.01, * * * *p , 0.001. a Male ¼ 1; Female ¼ 2; b Brazil ¼ 1; United States ¼ 2
2 0.20 *
0.07
2 0.25
0.05
0.17
0.05
2 0.06
0.33 * * *
0.01
0.03
2 0.27
0.15
0.11
3.96 * *
Age
Gendera
Countryb
Risk propensity
Internal locus of control
Self-efficacy
Machiavellianism
Country £ risk propensity
Country £ internal locus of control
Country £ self-efficacy
Country £ Machiavellianism
R2
DR 2
F
Table II.
Results of hierarchical
regression analyses of
assertiveness/initiation
behavior on country and
personality factors
Recognition
280
Independent variable
Propensity to initiate
IJCMA
23,3
to be in these three situations. In addition, younger participants indicated that they
would be more assertive than older participants ðb ¼ 20:20; p , 0.10).
Discussion
For many individuals, initiation is one of the most difficult aspects of negotiation. Since
it is both a voluntary and public act in many cases, “asking” can bring on considerable
angst, even if the outcome is favorable. Unfortunately, asking is generally one of the
things a negotiator must do if he/she hopes to get something that is needed or desired
(Wheeler, 2004). And failing to ask not only can adversely affect the initiator, but his or
her counterpart as well (e.g. the exceptional employee who chooses to pursue another
job opportunity rather than ask for a raise, the company representative who chooses
not to propose a joint venture, etc.).
Most of us have had years of experience negotiating in a variety of personal and
professional situations. Those experiences, and the lessons taken from them, are
captured in the cognitive scripts stored in memory (Miles, 2010). While the vast
majority of these scripts may serve us well, some can limit our ability to ask for what
we want in pursuit of otherwise highly-achievable goals. And even effective scripts are
of little value if our emotions limit their accessibility (Fisher and Shapiro, 2005; Morse,
2006).
To manage initiation or asking in negotiations, it is important to understand the
factors that influence an individual’s decision making in this stage of the process. This
paper introduced a model (Figure 1) that sought to delineate the initiation process, with
particular focus on six cultural dimensions (individualism-collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity-femininity, power distance, temporal orientation, cultural
context) and four personality factors (risk propensity, locus of control, self-efficacy,
Machiavellianism) that can influence intentionality and behavior. Using a set of
established questionnaires, individuals from two culturally diverse countries were
surveyed to determine which of these factors are related to initiation likelihood or
propensity.
The analyzes found that personality factors were the more significant factors
associated with initiation propensity/assertiveness. Self-efficacy, for example, was
positively associated with overall propensity to initiate (and negatively associated with
apprehension regarding initiation behavior), as well as positively associated with
assertiveness as measured by Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule. Thus, the more an
individual believes that he/she is capable of performing in a certain manner or
attaining certain goals, the less apprehensive and more assertive that individual will be
with respect to negotiation.
This has potential implications for practitioners, since self-efficacy can be affected
by personal and vicarious experience (Bandura, 2001): The more positive consequences
an individual observes or experiences relative to goal/task achievement, the more
confident he/she becomes (Nadler et al., 2003). This would suggest that first observing
others skilled in the art of social engagement and asking, followed by trying to
replicate the observed behavior under favorable circumstances (e.g. with counterparts
who are familiar and/or known to be accommodating, and in situations where
achieving the desired outcome is not critical) could improve a negotiator’s initiation
propensity.
Understanding
propensity
281
IJCMA
23,3
282
Machiavellianism also was found to be positively associated with the overall
measure of propensity to initiate. More specifically, Machiavellianism was positively
correlated with the entitlement dimension of propensity to initiate. Risk propensity also
was positively correlated with entitlement (as well as with the level of assertiveness of
the behavioral options selected in the three scenarios). The relationship between these
two personality dimensions and entitlement is worth further comment. The three
dimensions of propensity to initiate – recognition, apprehension, and entitlement –
can be viewed as related to a logical sequencing of the initiation process. Once an
individual recognizes a negotiable situation, he/she must overcome any natural
apprehension about engaging the counterpart and verbalizing a request. Entitlement,
conceivably, allows the individual to push beyond any perceived resistance (verbal or
nonverbal) encountered during the engagement or requesting phases of initiation. The
significant positive correlations between Machiavellianism and entitlement and
between risk propensity and entitlement suggest that individuals with these
personality characteristics might be more inclined to overcome perceived resistance
from a counterpart. In contrast, individuals with low risk propensity might be more
inclined to lower their uncertainty by attempting to learn more about a counterpart
(wants/needs, alternatives, style) or reducing the stakes (e.g. sub-optimizing one’s
request). Knowing both one’s own personality in this regard, as well as the style
(reputation) and demeanor of a prospective counterpart, can be important in gauging
how a particular initiation is likely to unfold and end.
For individuals whose characteristics or profiles indicate that they could have
difficulty initiating negotiations, a graduated approach to improving initiation
confidence and skills might be considered. That is, rather than seeking to engage,
request, and optimize, even with a favorable counterpart, a negotiator might simply
engage a counterpart (without asking) as a first step, and progress to making a request
over a series of negotiations. While situational factors were held constant in this study,
these also should be managed carefully to increase the likelihood of a positive
experience (e.g. choosing a private location for initiating a negotiation).
As indicated in Table I, country was positively correlated with recognition of
negotiable opportunities, but this was not found to be the case when regressing
opportunity recognition on all the independent variables. Furthermore, country (Brazil
vs US) was not found to be significant as a main effect in any of the hierarchical
regression analyzes. There was, however, a significant interaction effect involving
country and risk propensity: Individuals from the US who reported high risk
propensity indicated a higher likelihood of initiating a negotiation (and also a higher
likelihood of recognizing a negotiable situation) than did individuals from Brazil who
reported a low risk propensity. This suggests that in a culture where, relatively
speaking, initiation is seen as an appropriate behavior, individuals with a propensity to
take risks will recognize more opportunities for initiating a negotiation, while the
combination of cultural inappropriateness and low risk propensity significantly
reduces the likelihood of seeing a situation as negotiable. In most cases, recognition is
critical to getting the initiation process started (unless one’s counterpart perceives a
situation as such and takes the lead). As with self-efficacy, risk propensity can change
over time with experiences of success. However, an individual’s culture is not so
quickly altered, which suggests a potentially strong impediment to initiation for
individuals from cultures that do not encourage initiation. This applies not only to
individuals who would seek to begin a negotiation for their own purposes, but those
who would benefit from knowing the initiation limitations of a counterpart with ideas
that might be valuable to both parties.
One explanation of these findings is that personality factors simply have a greater
influence than do cultural factors on propensity to initiate negotiations/assertiveness.
Taras et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis, in fact, found the relative predictive power of
cultural values, personality, and demographics to vary for different outcomes. Another
possibility is that the “globalization” process (i.e. the internet, cable television) has
reduced some level of cultural distinctiveness among countries. In terms of business
education, many of the textbooks and cases used in Brazil, particularly those written in
English, are authored by North American scholars and based on research conducted in
the US. Further, it is more and more common for students to spend some weeks or
months studying in other countries. It is also possible that masters-level business
students share a set of values that supersede values found in a larger social entity (e.g.
country).
As a next step in this line of research, follow-up studies might include a broader,
more diverse sample of subjects (i.e. additional countries, cultures). While Brazil ranks
medium-low overall for the six cultural dimensions identified in this paper, it might be
worthwhile to examine one or more Asian countries (e.g. China, Japan), which have
even lower rankings than Brazil (Volkema, 2011). Likewise, while the US ranks
medium-high overall for these six dimensions, other countries with similar rankings
such as Great Britain and Germany might also be worth examining.
In addition, although we chose to treat culture as a single variable, it is conceivable
that separate measures for each of the six cultural variables might be examined. This
would require a considerably larger and still diverse sample of countries, but it would
allow for another level of analysis with respect to the role of culture in determining
initiation behavior. It might also allow certain cultural variables to be examined
through scenario modifications (for example, varying the relative power of the parties
to examine the nuances of power distance, or varying the in-group versus out-group
relationship of the parties for the individualism-collectivism variable).
In addition, laboratory studies would be appropriate for testing the effects of culture
and personality factors on actual behavior. That is, future studies might put
individuals in situations where initiation constitutes a viable yet uncomfortable
opportunity and measure actual behavior. Since negotiations often consist of a number
of opportunities to initiate a request or demand, even near final-stage closure (Lewicki
et al., 2009; Thompson, 2009), there might be multiple opportunities for measurement
and analysis.
The significant correlations between all the dependent variables – propensity to
initiate negotiations, Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule, and the assertiveness scenarios
– lends some validity to these measures. At the same time, it also suggests that future
studies may not need to employ all measures. The modest Cronbach alpha for
entitlement, which was based on only three statements, suggests some additional
development work might be conducted on this dimension of propensity to initiate.
Another change in these dependent measures that might also be considered in
future research is to further modify Ames’ scenarios so that the options reflect the
specific levels of the initiation process rather than just varying levels of assertiveness.
That is, the choices for each scenario could include:
Understanding
propensity
283
IJCMA
23,3
.
.
.
.
284
non-engagement of a prospective counterpart;
engagement of a counterpart but without making a request;
engagement of a counterpart with a sub-optimal request; and
engagement of a counterpart with an optimal request.
This would allow for more accurate pinpointing of the levels of initiation comfort and
resistance, as well as the contributions of each personality factor to overcoming these
points of resistance.
As with many interpersonal processes (e.g. group/team development, problem
solving), the early stages of the negotiation process can have a profound influence on
how succeeding stages will unfold and, ultimately, the outcome of an encounter. When
one or more parties fail in the initiation process, there is a good chance that
opportunities will be lost. By better understanding the factors that can influence the
initiation stage of negotiation, we can expect to improve the effectiveness of the process
and, potentially, the satisfaction of the parties as well.
Notes
1. Situational or contextual factors are included in the model shown in Figure 1 for the purpose
of completeness. However, these factors were held constant in this study, and therefore were
not included in any measures or analyses.
2. The Big Five personality measures also were considered for this study. However, Hofstede
and McCrae (2004) found significant relationships between each of the Big Five personality
variables and one or more of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions –
individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and power
distance. Therefore, we chose not to include these measures in our analyses.
3. Using normalized (0-100 scale) country values from Hofstede (2001) for individualism,
uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, power distance, and short-term orientation, and
normalized values for cultural context reported in VanEverdingen and Waarts (2003),
Volkema (2011) calculated propensity to initiate indices for various countries, including
Brazil and the United States. For the six cultural dimensions listed in Hypothesis 1, the
indices for Brazil and the US are 37.3 and 76.3, respectively (mean values for the six
dimensions). These indices are among the lowest (Brazil) and highest (the US) for the
countries examined by Hofstede, and therefore represent significantly different cultures with
respect to propensity to initiate negotiations.
4. Babcock et al. (2006) list the statements employed for each dimension. They report
comparable though slightly higher reliability measures for recognition ða ¼ 0:73Þ,
apprehension ða ¼ 0:92Þ; and entitlement ða ¼ 0:55Þ:
References
Adair, W.L., Okumura, T. and Brett, J.M. (2001), “Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the
United States and Japan”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 371-85.
Adair, W.L., Weingart, L. and Brett, J.M. (2007), “The timing and function of offers in US and
Japanese negotiations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1056-68.
Ajzen, I. (1988), Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Open University Press, Milton-Keynes.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1969), “The prediction of behavioral intention in a choice situation”,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 400-16.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1972), “Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing
behavioral intentions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Amanatullah, E., Morris, M. and Curhan, J. (2008), “Negotiators who give too much: unmitigated
communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative
bargaining”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 723-38.
Ames, D.R. (2008), “Assertiveness expectancies: how hard people push depends on the
consequences they predict”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6,
pp. 1541-57.
Ames, D.R. (2009), “Pushing up to a point: Assertiveness and effectiveness in leadership and
interpersonal dynamics”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 111-33.
Arisohn, B., Bruch, M.A. and Heimberg, R.G. (1988), “Influence of assessment methods on
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy ratings of assertive behavior”, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 336-41.
Babcock, L. and Laschever, S. (2003), Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., Small, D. and Stayn, H. (2006), “Gender differences in the propensity to
initiate negotiations”, in De Cremer, D., Zeelenberg, M. and Murnighan, J.K. (Eds), Social
Psychology and Economics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 239-59.
Babcock, L., Laschever, S., Gelfand, M. and Small, D. (2003), “Nice girls don’t ask”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 10, pp. 14-15.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.
Barbuto, J.E. Jr and Moss, J.A. (2006), “Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence
tactics: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 30-52.
Barron, L.A. (2003), “Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs about
requests for a higher salary”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 635-62.
Bergeron, N. and Schneider, B.H. (2005), “Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed
aggression: a quantitative synthesis”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 116-37.
Bigoness, W.J. (1976), “Effects of locus of control and style of third party intervention upon
bargaining behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 305-12.
Bluen, S.D. and Jubiler-Lurie, V.G. (1990), “Some consequences of labor-management
negotiations: laboratory and field studies”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 105-18.
Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L. and Lai, L. (2007), “Social incentives for gender differences in the
propensity to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 84-103.
Bruner, G.C. and Pomazal, R.J. (1988), “Problem recognition: the crucial first stage of the
consumer decision process”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 43-53.
Buelens, M. and Van Poucke, D. (2004), “Determinants of a negotiator’s initial opening offer”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-35.
Campbell, K.E., Olson, K.R. and Kleim, D.M. (1990), “Physical attractiveness, locus of control, sex
role, and conversational assertiveness”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 130 No. 2,
pp. 263-5.
Understanding
propensity
285
IJCMA
23,3
Cho, J. and Lee, J. (2006), “An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 112-20.
Christie, R. and Geis, F.L. (1970), Studies in Machiavellianism, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cooley, E. and Nowicki, S. Jr (1974), “Jr Locus of control and assertiveness in male and female
college students”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 85-7.
286
Cooper-Chen, A. and Tanaka, M. (2008), “Public relations in Japan: the cultural roots of kouhou”,
Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 94-114.
Cowan, D.A. (1986), “Developing a process model of problem formulation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 763-76.
Curhan, J.R. and Pentland, A. (2007), “Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from
conversational dynamics within the first five minutes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 802-11.
Elliott, T.R. and Gramling, S.E. (1990), “Personal assertiveness and the effects of social support
among college students”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 427-36.
Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1959), “Cognitive consequences of forced compliance”, Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 203-10.
Fisher, R. and Shapiro, D. (2005), Beyond Reason: Using Emotion as You Negotiate,
Viking/Penguin, New York, NY.
Ford, D.L. Jr (1983), “Jr Effects of personal control beliefs: an explanatory analysis of bargaining
outcomes in inter-group negotiations”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 113-25.
Fu, P.P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Peng, T., Srinivas, E.S., Howell, J.P., Prieto, L.,
Koopman, P., Boonstra, J.J., Pasa, S., Lacassagne, M., Higashide, H. and Cheosakul, A.
(2004), “The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the
perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 284-305.
Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S. (1991), “Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male
and female MBA graduates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 256-62.
Greenhalgh, L. (2001), Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, New York, NY.
Hartwig, W., Dickson, A. and Anderson, H. (1980), “Locus of control and assertion”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 1345-6.
Harvey, M., Buckley, M.R., Novicevic, M.M. and Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2004), “The Abilene paradox
after thirty years: the global perspective”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 215-26.
Hofstede, G.H. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G.H. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and
dimensions of culture”, Cross-cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-88.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Huber, V.L. and Neale, M.A. (1986), “Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiator
performance and subsequent goal setting”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 342-65.
Huppertz, J.H. (2003), “An effort model of first-stage complaining behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 132-44.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2002), “Are measures of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core
construct?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 693-710.
Kim, M. and Hunter, J.E. (1993), “Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and
behavior: a meta-analysis of past research, part 2”, Communication Research, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 331-64.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951), “Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in
definition and classification”, in Parsons, T. and Shils, E. (Eds), Toward a General Theory
of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 388-433.
Lau, V.P. and Shaffer, M.A. (1999), “Career success: the effects of personality”, Career
Development International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 225-31.
Lee, C. (1984), “Accuracy of efficacy and outcome expectations in predicting performance in a
simulated assertiveness task”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-48.
Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B. and Saunders, D.M. (2009), Negotiation, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
Boston, MA.
Liu, B.S., Furrer, O. and Sudharshan, D. (2001), “The relationships between culture and
behavioral intentions toward services”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 118-29.
London, M., Larsen, H.H. and Thisted, L.N. (1999), “Relationships between feedback and
self-development”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Magee, J.C., Galinsky, A.D. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2007), “Power, propensity to negotiate, and
moving first in competitive interactions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 200-12.
Marsland, S. and Beer, M. (1983), “The evolution of Japanese management: lessons for US
managers”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 49-67.
Miles, E. (2010), “The role of face in the decision not to negotiate”, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 400-14.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2002), “Personality and negotiation style: the moderating effects of cultural
context”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 729-48.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Morrison, E.W., Chen, Y. and Salgado, S.R. (2004), “Cultural differences in newcomer feedback
seeking: a comparison of the United States and Hong Kong”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Morse, G. (2006), “Decisions and desire”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 44-51.
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001), “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 51-75.
Mudrack, P.E. (1990), “Machiavellianism and locus of control: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 125-6.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. (2003), “Learning negotiation skills: four models of
knowledge creation and transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 529-40.
Understanding
propensity
287
IJCMA
23,3
288
Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. and Ting-Toomey, S. (2008), “An analysis of the relationships among face
concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: a four-culture
investigation”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 382-403.
Oetzel, J.G. and Ting-Toomey, S. (2003), “Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a cross- cultural
empirical test of face negotiation theory”, Communication Research, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 599-624.
Patton, C. and Balakrishnan, P. (2010), “The impact of expectation of future negotiation
interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63
No. 8, pp. 809-16.
Quillen, J., Besing, S. and Dinning, D. (1977), “Standardization of the Rathus Assertiveness
Schedule”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 418-22.
Rathus, S.A. (1973), “A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior”, Behavior Therapy,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 398-406.
Reimers, J.M. and Barbuto, J.E. Jr (2002), “A frame exploring the effects of Machiavellian
disposition on the relationship between motivation and influence tactics”, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 29-43.
Rizzo, A. and Mendez, C. (1988), “Making things happen in organizations: does gender make a
difference?”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-20.
Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal vs external control of reinforcements”,
Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Rousseau, D.I-d.e. (2005), I-deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves, Sharpe,
New York, NY.
Rudman, L., Dohn, M. and Fairchild, K. (2007), “Implicit self-esteem compensation: automatic
threat defense”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 798-813.
Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C. and Thepaut, Y. (2007), “Machiavellianism and economic
opportunism”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1181-90.
Schneer, J.A. and Chanin, M.N. (1987), “Manifest needs as personality predispositions to
conflict-handling behavior”, Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 575-90.
Schuster, C. and Copeland, M. (1996), Global Business: Planning for Sales and Negotiation,
Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Shalvi, S., Moran, S. and Ritov, I. (2010), “Overcoming initial anchors: the effect of negotiator’s
dispositional control beliefs”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 232-48.
Shell, G.R. (2001), “Bargaining styles and negotiation: the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode
Instrument in negotiation training”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 155-74.
Sitkin, S.B. and Pablo, A.L. (1992), “Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-38.
Small, D.A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L. and Gettman, H. (2007), “Who goes to the bargaining table?
Influence of gender and framing on initiation of negotiation”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 600-13.
Stolte, J.F. (1983), “Self-efficacy: sources and consequences in negotiation networks”, The Journal
of Social Psychology, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 69-75.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. and Steel, P. (2010), “Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: a
three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 405-39.
Taylor, J.W. (1974), “The role of risk in consumer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 54-60.
Taylor, S.E., Sherman, D.K., Kim, H.S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K. and Dunagan, M. (2004), “Culture
and social support: who seeks it and why?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 354-62.
Thomas, K. and Thomas, G. (2008), “Conflict styles of men and women at six organization
levels”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 148-66.
Thompson, L.L. (2009), The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, 4th ed., Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Ury, W. (1991), Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, New York, NY.
VanEverdingen, Y.M. and Waarts, E. (2003), “The effects of national culture on the adoption of
innovations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-32.
Volkema, R.J. (2009), “Why Dick and Jane don’t ask: getting past initiation barriers in
negotiations”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 595-604.
Volkema, R.J. (2011), “Why people don’t ask: understanding initiation behavior in international
negotiations”, Thunderbird International Business Review, forthcoming.
Weber, B.J. and Chapman, G.B. (2005), “The combined effects of risk and time on choice: does
uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 104-18.
Wheeler, M. (2004), “Anxious moments: openings in negotiation”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 153-69.
Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2006), “An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy
and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1088-101.
Corresponding author
Roger J. Volkema can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Understanding
propensity
289