International Journal of Conflict ManagementEmerald Article: Understanding propensity to initiate negotiations: An examination of the effects of culture and personalityRoger 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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

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.comWith 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.

Understanding propensity toinitiate negotiations

An examination of the effects of culture andpersonality

Roger J. VolkemaKogod School of Business, American University, Washington, DC, USA and

IAG/PUC-Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and

Denise FleckCOPPEAD 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 todescribe a study of the effects of culture and personality on propensity to initiate and assertiveness innegotiations.

Design/methodology/approach – Using a survey research approach and hierarchical regressionanalyses, initiation propensity and assertiveness were regressed against two country cultures diversewith respect to perceived appropriateness of initiation (Brazil and the USA) and four measures ofpersonality (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, alongwith an interaction effect involving country culture and risk propensity.

Research limitations/implications – Future studies might benefit from a broader, more diversesubject pool (beyond the two countries studied). This would allow for separate analyses of culturaldimensions, rather than treating culture as a composite measure. In addition, future research mightinclude measures of actual initiation behavior.

Practical implications – Initiation is a manageable process. Self-efficacy, for example, can beimproved by observing others skilled in the initiation process, and through practicing initiation undermore favorable conditions. Furthermore, an individual can follow a graduated approach to gaininitiation confidence, beginning with simply engaging (without asking) and progressing to asking andoptimizing.

Originality/value – This paper offers a model for understanding the dynamics of the initiationprocess in negotiations, which generally has been overlooked by negotiation researchers. The studyexamines two sets of factors that can influence initiation behavior that have not been investigated intotal – culture and personality.

Keywords Negotiation, Negotiating, Initiation behaviour, Culture, National cultures, Personality,Assertiveness, Brazil, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

Negotiation is an interpersonal decision-making process necessary whenever wecannot achieve our objectives single-handedly (Thompson, 2009). Due to its ubiquitousnature, the skills associated with negotiation are generally considered essential forboth personal fulfillment and professional success (Greenhalgh, 2001; Lewicki et al.,2009; Mintzberg, 1973).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA23,3

266

International Journal of ConflictManagementVol. 23 No. 3, 2012pp. 266-289q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1044-4068DOI 10.1108/10444061211248976

Like many interpersonal processes (e.g. group/team development, problem solving,decision making) (Bruner and Pomazal, 1988; Cowan, 1986), the early stages of thenegotiation 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, theseearly stages lay the groundwork for the proposal, request, complaint, demand,suggestion, or favor that an individual hopes will satisfy the need, which prompted theinterpersonal encounter.

For most individuals, however, initiating a negotiation (and asking for what onewants, in particular) is at least an occasional challenge, while for many others initiationis a chronic issue (Miles, 2010; Small et al., 2007). For example, studies of salarynegotiations have shown that individuals often do not initiate compensationdiscussions, despite the fact that these discussions frequently produce higher salaries(Babcock and Laschever, 2003; Babcock et al., 2003; Bowles et al., 2007; Gerhart andRynes, 1991). Furthermore, there are typically many additional opportunities forindividuals to negotiate special deals once they have been hired by an organization (e.g.flexible work hours, international work assignments, specialized training), which theyoften fail to do (Rousseau, 2005). Interdepartmental negotiations (e.g. cross-functionalteam 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 oneanother to discuss their wants and needs. Consequently, the focus of this research oftenhas been on the tactical management of issues, proposals, and agreements to achieve afavorable or integrative outcome (Lewicki et al., 2009; Thompson, 2009). Yet failure toinitiate can adversely affect all parties, limiting their understanding of immediate andextended issues while denying an outcome that is mutually beneficial. Organizationslose talented employees who fear asking for a raise, companies lose customers/clientswho 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 anindividual’s propensity to initiate negotiations – attitude regarding behavioralappropriateness, and personality. Using a survey research approach, propriety (as afunction of six cultural variables) and personality characteristics (risk propensity,locus of control, self-efficacy, Machiavellianism) were assessed, along with bothgeneral (e.g. assertiveness) and specific measures of propensity to initiate. Throughregression analyzes, those factors most significantly related to these measures ofpropensity to initiate a negotiation were determined. The paper concludes with adiscussion of the implications of these findings for negotiators and future research.

Understanding initiation intentionality and behaviorAn individual’s behavior regarding initiation of a negotiation can involve severaldecisions 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 (asopposed to asking for less than is desired, and hoping that it will receive a morefavorable response) (Volkema, 2009). As such, initiating a negotiation can requireseveral stages or acts of assertiveness (Shell, 2001).

Understandingpropensity

267

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 proposedby Ajzen and his colleagues (cf. Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969, 1972) thatdelineates the effects of attitudes or beliefs on intentions and behavior (for a review, seeKim and Hunter, 1993). This research has focused on a broad array of subjects (e.g.voting behavior, consumer spending, personal habits, ethics), generally finding thatattitudes/beliefs affect intentions, which in turn are highly correlated with behavior. Inaddition, the links between attitudes, intentions, and behavior are affected by controlfactors that can impede behavioral performance.

For initiation behavior, the social influences that delineate appropriate-inappropriate behavior represent an individual’s normative attitudes/beliefs, and theindividual’s general and specific motivations regarding initiating a negotiation arehis/her behavioral beliefs (Bandura, 2001; Huppertz, 2003). The former – perceivedappropriateness – is influenced by one’s culture (system of shared beliefs), while thelatter – motivation – is affected by an individual’s personality (e.g. risk propensity,locus of control, self-efficacy, Machiavellianism) (Cho and Lee, 2006). Since negotiationinvolves one or more counterparts with their own motivations, there are also control(situational) factors that an individual will likely take into consideration during thisdeliberative process. The situational or contextual factors specific to initiation of anegotiation 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 tonegotiate (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 ordemand, with situational factors also affecting the transition from intentions tobehavior and subsequent outcome (for example, as a counterpart’s demeanor isrevealed during engagement) (Figure 1). For this reason, we might expect cultureand personality/motivation to be associated with an individual’s chronic inability toinitiate negotiations, while situational factors would more likely be associated withepisodic reluctance to initiate. Since the former are more difficult to manipulate orchange than the latter during a given negotiation, it is particularly important for anegotiator as well as his or her counterparts to understand the negotiator’stendencies.

Over time, aspects of perceived appropriateness and motivation are influenced bythe results of a negotiating experience (i.e. negotiating outcomes), as well as by theobserved/vicarious negotiating experiences of others. Thus, to understand initiationintentions/behavior – particularly chronic versus episodic intentionality/behavior withrespect to reluctance to initiate – requires an appreciation for the potential effects ofattitudes (as determined by socialization or culture) and personality on intentionality.Specific dimensions of culture and personality, along with their correspondingrelationships to initiation behavior, are discussed next[1].

CultureAs 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

IJCMA23,3

268

Figure 1.A model of the initiation

process in negotiation

Understandingpropensity

269

anxiety or dissonance when his/her behavior is counter-normative, voluntary, andpublic (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). Society or culture typically determines what isconsidered inappropriate or counter-normative behavior in a social encounter (recordedin memory as scripts or schema), which can cause individuals to hesitate or retreat incertain negotiable situations. Therefore, to understand reluctance to initiate anegotiation 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 distinctiveachievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts. The essentialcore of culture consists of traditional ideas (i.e. historically derived and selected) andespecially their attached values (Kluckhohn, 1951).

Hofstede (1997, 2001) was among the first to quantify the dimensions of countryculture, 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 overlappingdimensions, each of which has implications for perceived appropriateness andnegotiation. Two other dimensions of culture – temporal orientation and culturalcontext – also can influence propriety with respect to initiation behavior (Volkema,2011). Each of these six dimensions, and its relationship to initiation behavior, isdiscussed 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 theinterests of the social unit (family, community, etc.) that are paramount. In general,people from more individualist cultures are inclined to view negotiations from afixed-pie (distributive) perspective, which affects their perceptions of appropriatebehavior. This can spur initiating behavior as well as the manner in which a request ismade (e.g. open-entry negotiating, or cold-calling). Liu et al. (2001), for example, foundthat customers from higher individualist cultures were more likely to take action whenthey received poor service quality.

Individuals from collectivist cultures, on the other hand, are concerned with bothself-face (i.e. self identity, respect) and other-face (i.e. a counterpart’s sense of self), thelatter concern leading to more avoidance behavior (Oetzel et al., 2008; Oetzel andTing-Toomey, 2003). In a study of Asians and Asian Americans (collectivist cultures)and European Americans (individualist culture), for example, Taylor et al. (2004) foundthe former cultures less likely than the latter culture to reach out for support duringperiods of stress due to possible relational ramifications such as disturbing groupharmony, losing face, receiving criticism, and making the situation worse. Morrisonet al. (2004), in a study of organizational newcomer behavior, found that newcomersfrom a collectivist culture (Hong Kong) were less likely than newcomers from anindividualist culture (US) to rely on supervisor-focused feedback inquiries for reducinguncertainty and managing their performance.

IJCMA23,3

270

Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance, a second dimension identified byHofstede (1997) and House et al. (2004), is concerned with a society’s tolerance foruncertainty and ambiguity. Individuals from low uncertainty avoidance cultures aremore comfortable with unstructured situations, and more tolerant of risk taking (whichnegotiation entails, since it is by definition an interpersonal process involvingimperfect information).

In cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance, individuals are socialized toconform to policies, procedures, and rules, whereas in low uncertainty avoidancecultures these rules are seen as more symbolic than deterministic. Thus, in highuncertainty avoidance cultures, menus, sticker prices, and precedents are more likely tobe 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 avoidancecultures (Schuster and Copeland, 1996). This, of course, has implications for theperceived appropriateness that individuals are likely to place on initiating anegotiation, particularly in cases where the request might seem contrary to policy orpractice, but also in unfamiliar situations (where it is assumed that there is probably arule governing behavior).

Fu et al. (2004), in fact, found that individuals from high uncertainty avoidancecultures were less likely to perceive that a persuasive strategy would be effective.There also was less experimentation and innovation, along with less rationalargumentation, since it was assumed that one’s counterpart in a high uncertaintyavoidance culture could adequately determine whether or not a request was legitimate.Instead, individuals from a high uncertainty avoidance culture were more likely toendorse a relationship-oriented strategy (rapport building, gift giving) than anassertive strategy. This is generally consistent with the investigations of Liu et al.(2001), who found that individuals from a high uncertainty avoidance culture were lesslikely than individuals from a low uncertainty avoidance culture to take action whenthey experienced poor service quality.

Masculinity-femininity. A third dimension of culture Hofstede labeledmasculinity-femininity. Hofstede found that the roles of men and women differedsubstantially in some country cultures (which he labeled masculine cultures), whileshowing much less variability in other cultures (which he called feminine cultures). Inmasculine cultures, men are generally expected to be assertive, competitive,achievement-oriented, and focused on material success, while women are typicallymore modest, tender-hearted, and concerned with quality of life issues. In the US, forexample, a country with moderately high masculinity, women have been found to bemore apprehensive about negotiations than have men and, consequently, they appearless likely to initiate a negotiation. And when they do negotiate, women have beenfound to ask for and receive considerably less than have men (e.g. in salarynegotiations) (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 bothmen and women showing more concern for relational issues than task-centeredactivities and accomplishments (Bergeron and Schneider, 2005). Individuals withstrong relational or affiliation interests typically avoid confrontational approaches ininterpersonal conflicts, preferring to accommodate the other party (Schneer andChanin, 1987). This concern or orientation would likely manifest itself during theinitiation process as well, limiting engagement, asking, and certainly optimizing.

Understandingpropensity

271

Power distance. A fourth dimension of culture – power distance – refers to thepresumed status of some individuals within a culture based on age, gender, familybackground, social class, etc. (Marsland and Beer, 1983). It is typical for countries withhigh power distance to have unequal distributions of wealth, and to some extent thesedifferences have come to be accepted by individuals (Hofstede, 1997; House et al., 2004).

Cultures with high power distance generally are comfortable with hierarchicalstructures, clear lines of authority, and the right to use power with discretion. Powergenerally is not delegated to lower levels, so an individual in a high power distanceculture may not have the authority to make a decision (i.e. they need to check with asuperior). This can influence their willingness to initiate a request, and most certainlytheir ability to grant a favor. Morrison et al. (2004), for example, found that newcomerswithin a low power distance culture (US) tend to be more likely than newcomers from ahigh power distance culture (Hong Kong) to initiate feedback inquiries from theirsupervisors.

Because individuals in high power distance cultures are more likely to respondpositively to hierarchical structures and the use of power or authority, an individualmay be less inclined to pursue a negative response from a counterpart, particularly ifthat counterpart is seen to be a legitimate authority.

Temporal orientation. Subsequent to his original research, Hofstede added a fifthdimension referred to as long-term versus short-term orientation. For cultures with along-term orientation (including many Asian cultures), relationships, personaladaptability, and perseverance are important. Rather than initiating a specialrequest, which could threaten a relationship, individuals from long-term orientedcultures are more inclined to react to a personal need by deferring action to anothertime (that is, thinking longer-term, bigger picture), and making the necessary changespersonally to adapt to the situation (Cooper-Chen and Tanaka, 2008). Theseadaptations might include deferring engagement, or engaging but waiting for the otherparty to broach the subject/request of interest (Volkema, 2011).

While cultures with a long-term orientation are more focused on traditions andlong-term commitments, which would likely support the status quo and impedechange, cultures with a short-term orientation are more focused on the present, with anemphasis on the bottom line and quick results (Hofstede, 2001). For these individuals, adisproportionate weight is often placed on immediate outcomes, as the value of adelayed action is discounted (Weber and Chapman, 2005). This suggests a greaterdesire within short-term oriented cultures to satisfy one’s immediate needs byengaging a prospective counterpart and making a demand or request (if not optimizingthat request).

Cultural context. Finally, cultures have been characterized as having high or lowcultural context, which also has implications for initiation behavior (Hall, 1976). Inhigh-context cultures, individuals are generally very familiar with one another as aconsequence of having shared similar experiences and expectations. Communication ina 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 diversityand, consequently, less reliance on situational familiarity to communicate. As a resultof 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

IJCMA23,3

272

from low-context cultures (e.g. the US) may be more inclined to make direct statementsof 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 abouta counterpart (Adair et al., 2007).

In general, individuals from low-context cultures are likely to be less concernedabout the social implications of initiating a negotiation (engaging a counterpart,making a request, and optimizing that request) than individuals from a high-contextculture. In a study of North American (low-context culture) and Filipino(high-context culture) industrial exporters, Mintu-Wimsatt (2002) found thatthe high-context variable enhanced cooperation (which suggests a focus onrelational concerns rather than self-interests).

Given these collective arguments and findings, we would expect the following asregards these six dimensions of culture:

H1. An individual from a high individualist, low uncertainty avoidance, highmasculinity, low power distance, short-term oriented, low-context culture willbe more likely to initiate a negotiation than will someone from a highcollectivist, high uncertainty avoidance, high femininity, high power distance,long-term oriented, high-context culture.

PersonalityBeyond 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 toplay 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, refersto an individual’s tendency to take or avoid risk in a decision-making situation (Sitkinand Pablo, 1992). The decision to engage another party in a negotiation involvesseveral types of risks, including possible threats to social identity and self-confidencein a public venue as well as opportunity costs that might be incurred. The former canmanifest 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 consequencethat becomes more probable as a negotiator moves from simple engagement to makinga formal request to optimizing that request.

According to Taylor (1974), risk is a function of two factors – uncertainty of theoutcome, and significance of the consequences – which are evident in any negotiation.The former is generally lowered by acquiring more information, while the latter isaddressed by reducing one’s stakes (Taylor, 1974). In terms of a negotiation, forexample, an individual might seek to lower uncertainty by attempting to learn moreabout his/her counterpart (wants/needs, alternatives, style) and to reduce the stakes bylimiting one’s request (i.e. sub-optimizing).

In a study of consumer behavior, Cho and Lee (2006) found that subjects’ riskpropensity influenced their risk perceptions, with higher risk propensity leading toperceptions of lower risk. An individual’s lower risk perceptions, in turn, wereassociated with a lesser likelihood of pursuing risk-reducing strategies such asinformation search (which suggests deferring immediate engagement) and a lesser

Understandingpropensity

273

likelihood of reducing one’s investment (i.e. a greater likelihood of optimizing one’srequest).

Thus,

H2. An individual with high risk propensity will be more likely to initiate anegotiation than will an individual with low risk propensity.

Locus of control. Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe thatthey can control the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). Typically, individuals aredescribed as having a locus of control that ranges from a high internal locus of controlto a high external locus of control. Individuals with a high internal locus of controlbelieve that it is primarily their own behavior and actions that determine the events intheir lives, while individuals with a high external locus of control believe that it isexternal forces (e.g. chance, fate, other people) that determine events.

Individuals with a high internal locus of control are generally thought to have bettercontrol of their behavior, to exhibit more political behavior, and to be more likely toattempt to influence other people than individuals with a high external locus of control.They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situationthan are externals. Overall, individuals with a high internal locus of control are moreassertive 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 relationshipbetween locus of control and initiation behavior. Specifically, individuals with a highinternal locus of control versus a high external locus of control have been found to bemore 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 toovercome the influence of receiving a non-favorable initial offer.

Overall, these studies suggest a greater likelihood of an individual with a highinternal locus of control initiating a negotiation – engaging (an act of assertiveness,competitiveness), requesting (due to their general assertiveness, but also their speakingproclivity), and optimizing (related to their own initial offer demands, and theirwillingness to overcome the non-favorable demands of others).

Therefore,

H3. An individual with a high internal locus of control will be more likely toinitiate a negotiation than will an individual with a high external locus ofcontrol.

Self-efficacy. A third personality characteristic that could predict initiation behavior isself-efficacy, the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner orattaining certain goals. It differs from locus of control in that an individual may believethat personal effort will lead to a desirable outcome (high internal locus of control) butthat he or she is not capable of putting forth the necessary effort (a low sense ofself-efficacy).

Self-efficacy has been described as a measure of personality ( Judge et al., 2002) butalso a function of personal experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, andphysiological factors (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Since negotiation is a skill, it can be

IJCMA23,3

274

acquired through personal experience or practice. Individuals also can become moreconfident in asking for what they want through vicarious experience (i.e. observing thebehavior of skilled others) (Nadler et al., 2003). Social persuasion in the form of supportand encouragement from colleagues and other confederates can affect confidence andperformance generally, and initiation behavior more specifically (Bluen andJubiler-Lurie, 1990; London et al., 1999).

Self-efficacy can be viewed in general terms as well as within the context of aspecific task (Yeo and Neal, 2006). In either case, the stronger an individual’s belief inhis/her ability to accomplish a goal (e.g. a negotiated outcome), the less risk theindividual 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 searchor reduction of stakes/investment. An individual with high self-efficacy was morelikely to view a situation as low in risk, and to eschew risk-reducing strategies such asinformation 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 weremore assertive. Since initiation involves engagement and requesting, two forms ofsocial assertiveness, we might expect a similar relationship between self-efficacy andthe likelihood of initiating a negotiation.

Specifically:

H4. An individual with high self-efficacy will be more likely to initiate anegotiation than will an individual with low self-efficacy.

Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism refers to an individual’s tendency to deceive andmanipulate others for personal gain (Mudrack, 1990). High Machiavellians generallydo not believe that integrative outcomes are easily achieved and, consequently, theytend 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 goalorientation of an individual can significantly affect this process. Several scholars havereported high Machiavellians as being particularly goal oriented: motivated to succeed(Reimers and Barbuto, 2002), showing a strong commitment to self-set goals (Huberand 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 andachievement, we might expect these individuals to be assertive with other parties inpursuit of their desires. Barbuto and Moss (2006), for example, in a meta-analysis of 11studies of Machiavellianism and influence tactics, found a positive correlation betweenMachiavellianism and assertiveness. Sakalaki et al.’s (2007) contention that highMachiavellians are concerned with maximizing their own profits suggests a potentialfor optimization of requests as well.

Therefore:

H5. An individual with high Machiavellianism will be more likely to initiate anegotiation than will an individual with low Machiavellianism.

Understandingpropensity

275

The studyParticipantsThe participants in this study were individuals taking graduate business courses intheir home countries of Brazil and the US, countries that are diverse with respect to thesix dimensions of culture discussed above[3]. Questionnaires were administered inEnglish (the language of the courses) in these two countries. Participants were asked tolist their nationality, and only those participants indicating a single country (Brazil orthe US) were included in the study. A total of 77 usable sets of questionnaires wereobtained (40 from Brazil, 37 from the US). If these participants, 45 (58.4 percent) weremales, and the final sample had a mean age of 27.5 years ðsd ¼ 5:5Þ with a mean of 5.2years ðsd ¼ 5:0Þ of work experience.

ProcedureEach participant was asked to complete a set of questionnaires which focused onpersonality and assertiveness/initiation propensity, as well as to provide demographicinformation (age, gender, work experience, nationality). The series of questionnairesfocused 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 anegotiation focus). The Cronbach alphas for these three questionnaires were 0.71, 0.78,and 0.66, respectively. Machiavellianism was measured using the Mach IVquestionnaire (Christie and Geis, 1970), a questionnaire that had been used in priornegotiation research (cf. Amanatullah et al., 2008). The Cronbach alpha was 0.67 forthis questionnaire.

Since there is not, as of yet, a single universally accepted measure of initiationbehavior, multiple dependent measures were employed in this study. The firstconsisted of 12 questions that assessed three dimensions of propensity to initiatenegotiations (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 ¼0:86Þ; and three for entitlement ða ¼ 0:49Þ – was rated by participants on aseven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Anoverall propensity to initiate score also was calculated by averaging the ratings for therecognition 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 personresponds in a negotiation, as the individual attempts to answer the question: How hardshould I push? The behavioral response to this question can range from avoidance andpassivity at one extreme to aggression and hostility at the other. Thus, assertivenessmight be viewed as a proxy for negotiation initiation. Therefore, the second dependentmeasure employed in this study was the Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; Rathus,1973), a 30-item questionnaire that employs a six-point scale. Initiation by definitioninvolves several forms of assertiveness (e.g. engaging, asking). The RAS has been usedin a number of studies, and generally has evidenced acceptable validity (with respect to

IJCMA23,3

276

other self-report and observational measures of assertiveness) as well as test-retest andsplit half reliabilities (Elliott and Gramling, 1990; Quillen et al., 1977). For the dataprovided by participants in this study, the Cronbach alpha was 0.86.

The third measure consisted of three scenarios employed by Ames (2008), eachscenario presenting three alternatives to the participants. The scenarios consisted of asalary negotiation (in which one can propose different salary counteroffers), a requestfor assistance while under a deadline (with choices ranging from using one’s leverageto avoiding confrontation altogether), and a disagreement during a team meeting (inwhich one’s behavior can vary from vocal disagreement to quiet contemplation).(Scenario texts are available in Ames, 2008.) The alternatives, presented incounterbalanced order, represented high, medium, and low assertive behaviors(rated 3, 2, and 1 in value, respectively, with 3 representing the maximum responsewith respect to assertiveness). Participants were asked to rank the alternatives for eachscenario, with the value of the alternative ranked first in each scenario being used inthis analysis.

AnalysisThe hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyzes, including asindependent variables each of the factors shown in the five hypotheses – culturalpropriety or appropriateness ð1 ¼ Brazil; 2 ¼ USÞ; risk propensity, internal locus ofcontrol, self-efficacy, and Machiavellianism. Interaction effects were included forcountry culture and each of the four personality variables. The analyzes controlled forgender and age, which has been found to be related to assertiveness and initiationbehavior (cf. Babcock et al., 2006; Rizzo and Mendez, 1988; Small et al., 2007; Thomasand Thomas, 2008). Separate analyzes were run for each of the dependent variables:propensity to initiate a negotiation (i.e. recognition of negotiable situations, entitlementof a favorable outcome, and apprehension upon initiating a negotiation), Rathus’assertiveness, and assertiveness as determined by the average value for the threescenarios.

ResultsTable I shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the independentvariables and dependent variables in this study. Each of the four personality variables(risk propensity, internal locus of control, self-efficacy, and Machiavellianism) wassignificantly correlated with at least one of the primary dependent variables. Country(Brazil vs US), on the other hand, was only significantly correlated with a singledimension of one of the primary dependent variables – a positive correlation withrecognizing 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 toinitiate negotiations ðr ¼ 0:57; p , 0.001), as well as with two of the dimensions ofpropensity 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

Understandingpropensity

277

Var

iab

leM

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

Indep

enden

t1.

Ag

e27

.55.

52.

Gen

der

a1.

40.

52

0.07

3.C

oun

try

b1.

50.

50.

030.

174.

Ris

kp

rop

ensi

ty8.

12.

00.

042

0.34

**

*0.

01(0

.71)

5.L

ocu

sof

con

trol

(in

t.)

37.6

4.9

0.07

20.

162

0.01

0.03

(0.7

8)6.

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy10

.82.

52

0.12

20.

102

0.12

0.30

**

*0.

28*

*(0

.66)

7.M

ach

iav

elli

anis

m77

.212

.12

0.05

0.08

0.22

*2

0.06

20.

27*

*2

0.12

(0.6

7)

Dep

enden

t8.

Pro

pen

sity

toin

itia

ten

egot

iati

ons

(PIN

)4.

20.

72

0.21

*2

0.06

0.15

0.34

**

*0.

150.

28*

*0.

25*

*(0

.69)

9.P

IN–

opp

ortu

nit

yre

cog

nit

ion

5.2

0.9

20.

19*

0.04

0.20

*0.

20*

0.17

0.10

0.02

0.59

**

**

(0.6

4)10

.P

IN–

app

reh

ensi

on4.

01.

30.

180.

092

0.10

20.

19*

20.

29*

*2

0.33

**

*0.

062

0.66

**

**

20.

11(.8

6)11

.P

IN2

enti

tlem

ent

3.5

1.2

20.

042

0.05

0.01

0.24

**

20.

20*

0.06

0.50

**

**

0.61

**

**

0.18

0.02

(0.4

9)12

.A

sser

tiv

enes

s(R

ath

us)

16.5

24.7

20.

122

0.08

20.

060.

170.

20*

0.33

**

*0.

020.

57*

**

*0.

44*

**

*2

0.44

**

**

0.19

(0.8

6)13

.A

sser

tiv

enes

ssc

enar

ios

2.3

0.4

20.

190.

012

0.03

0.13

0.23

**

0.17

20.

100.

23*

0.42

**

**

20.

040.

040.

33*

**

Notes:

n¼

77:

*p,

0.10

,*

*p,

0.05

,*

**p,

0.01

,*

**

*p,

0.00

1.aM

ale¼

1;F

emal

e¼

2bB

razi

l¼

1;U

nit

edS

tate

s¼

2

Table I.Descriptive statistics andcorrelation matrix forcountry, personality, andassertiveness/initiative

IJCMA23,3

278

significantly correlated with the assertiveness measures of the three scenarios ðr ¼0:33; p , 0.01 and r ¼ 0:23; p , 0.10, respectively).

The first regression analyzes focused on propensity to negotiate. In terms of theoverall measure, there were four significant findings, two of which involved statedhypotheses (Table II). Self-efficacy ðb ¼ 0:28; p , 0.05) and Machiavellianism ðb ¼0:24; p , 0.05) were positively associated with overall propensity to initiate anegotiation, consistent with H4 and H5, respectively. Thus, the greater one’sself-efficacy and Machiavellianism, the greater his/her propensity to initiatenegotiations. In addition, there was a significant interaction effect for countryculture and risk propensity ðb ¼ 0:22; p , 0.05): Individuals from the US with a highrisk propensity had a higher overall propensity to initiate than individuals from Brazilwith a low risk propensity. This would be consistent with H1 and H2. Finally, age wasnegatively associated with propensity to initiate ðb ¼ 20:19; p , 0.10), suggestingthat younger participants had a greater propensity towards initiating negotiationsthan did older participants.

Separate regression analyzes were conducted for each of the three dimensions ofpropensity to initiate. For the first of these dimensions – recognition of negotiableopportunities – the regression analysis revealed one significant finding: Theinteraction effect for country culture and risk propensity was statistically significantðb ¼ 0:33; p , 0.01). As with overall propensity to initiate, individuals from the USwith a high-risk propensity had a higher recognition of negotiable opportunities thandid individuals from Brazil with a low risk propensity, consistent with H1 and H2. Inaddition, age was negatively associated with recognition of opportunities ðb ¼ 20:20;p , 0.10), suggesting that younger participants were better than older participants atperceiving situations to be negotiable.

For the second dimension of propensity to initiate – apprehension regardinginitiating a negotiation – there was a single significant factor. Self-efficacy wasnegatively 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 ofperforming in a certain manner or attaining certain goals), the less apprehensive he/shewas expected to be regarding initiating a negotiation.

For the third dimension of propensity to initiate – entitlement of a favorableoutcome – there were two significant findings. The more significant of these concernedMachiavellianism 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, whilethe positive association for risk propensity was consistent with H2.

Regressing the independent and control variables against assertiveness asmeasured 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 theindividual indicated he/she would be. This result is consistent with H4.

Finally, there were three significant findings related to assertiveness as measuredby 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 withassertiveness in the scenarios, consistent with H3 and H2, respectively. The greaterone’s internal locus of control (i.e. belief that one’s own behavior and actions determinelife’s events) and one’s risk propensity, the more assertive the individual was expected

Understandingpropensity

279

Pro

pen

sity

toin

itia

te

Ind

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

Rec

ogn

itio

nA

pp

reh

ensi

onE

nti

tlem

ent

Ov

eral

lR

ath

us’

asse

rtiv

enes

ssc

hed

ule

Ass

erti

ven

ess

(sce

nar

ios)

Ag

e2

0.20

*0.

152

0.02

20.

19*

20.

082

0.20

*

Gen

der

a0.

070.

082

0.01

20.

062

0.04

0.13

Cou

ntr

yb

20.

252

0.13

20.

142

0.22

20.

022

0.03

Ris

kp

rop

ensi

ty0.

052

0.02

0.25

**

0.15

0.09

0.22

*

Inte

rnal

locu

sof

con

trol

0.17

20.

182

0.04

0.14

0.08

0.23

*

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy0.

052

0.32

**

*0.

070.

28*

*0.

31*

*0.

01M

ach

iav

elli

anis

m2

0.06

0.02

0.52

**

**

0.24

**

0.06

20.

05C

oun

try£

risk

pro

pen

sity

0.33

**

*2

0.10

20.

170.

22*

*0.

062

0.03

Cou

ntr

y£

inte

rnal

locu

sof

con

trol

0.01

20.

172

0.14

20.

050.

032

0.04

Cou

ntr

y£

self

-effi

cacy

0.03

20.

072

0.08

20.

300.

010.

03C

oun

try£

Mac

hia

vel

lian

ism

20.

272

0.08

20.

112

0.28

0.00

20.

06R

20.

150.

150.

320.

260.

110.

12D

R2

0.11

0.10

0.31

0.20

0.09

0.09

F3.

96*

*3.

94*

*7.

92*

**

*4.

62*

**

*2.

76*

*2.

42*

Notes:

n¼

77:

Sta

nd

ard

ized

coef

fici

ents

are

show

nfo

rco

ntr

olv

aria

ble

s(A

ge,

Gen

der

),m

ain

effe

cts,

and

inte

ract

ion

effe

cts.

*p,

0.10

,*

*p,

0.05

,*

**p,

0.01

,*

**

*p,

0.00

1.aM

ale¼

1;F

emal

e¼

2;bB

razi

l¼

1;U

nit

edS

tate

s¼

2

Table II.Results of hierarchicalregression analyses ofassertiveness/initiationbehavior on country andpersonality factors

IJCMA23,3

280

to be in these three situations. In addition, younger participants indicated that theywould be more assertive than older participants ðb ¼ 20:20; p , 0.10).

DiscussionFor many individuals, initiation is one of the most difficult aspects of negotiation. Sinceit is both a voluntary and public act in many cases, “asking” can bring on considerableangst, even if the outcome is favorable. Unfortunately, asking is generally one of thethings 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 orher counterpart as well (e.g. the exceptional employee who chooses to pursue anotherjob opportunity rather than ask for a raise, the company representative who choosesnot to propose a joint venture, etc.).

Most of us have had years of experience negotiating in a variety of personal andprofessional situations. Those experiences, and the lessons taken from them, arecaptured in the cognitive scripts stored in memory (Miles, 2010). While the vastmajority of these scripts may serve us well, some can limit our ability to ask for whatwe want in pursuit of otherwise highly-achievable goals. And even effective scripts areof 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 thefactors that influence an individual’s decision making in this stage of the process. Thispaper introduced a model (Figure 1) that sought to delineate the initiation process, withparticular focus on six cultural dimensions (individualism-collectivism, uncertaintyavoidance, masculinity-femininity, power distance, temporal orientation, culturalcontext) and four personality factors (risk propensity, locus of control, self-efficacy,Machiavellianism) that can influence intentionality and behavior. Using a set ofestablished questionnaires, individuals from two culturally diverse countries weresurveyed to determine which of these factors are related to initiation likelihood orpropensity.

The analyzes found that personality factors were the more significant factorsassociated with initiation propensity/assertiveness. Self-efficacy, for example, waspositively associated with overall propensity to initiate (and negatively associated withapprehension regarding initiation behavior), as well as positively associated withassertiveness as measured by Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule. Thus, the more anindividual believes that he/she is capable of performing in a certain manner orattaining certain goals, the less apprehensive and more assertive that individual will bewith respect to negotiation.

This has potential implications for practitioners, since self-efficacy can be affectedby personal and vicarious experience (Bandura, 2001): The more positive consequencesan individual observes or experiences relative to goal/task achievement, the moreconfident he/she becomes (Nadler et al., 2003). This would suggest that first observingothers skilled in the art of social engagement and asking, followed by trying toreplicate the observed behavior under favorable circumstances (e.g. with counterpartswho are familiar and/or known to be accommodating, and in situations whereachieving the desired outcome is not critical) could improve a negotiator’s initiationpropensity.

Understandingpropensity

281

Machiavellianism also was found to be positively associated with the overallmeasure of propensity to initiate. More specifically, Machiavellianism was positivelycorrelated with the entitlement dimension of propensity to initiate. Risk propensity alsowas positively correlated with entitlement (as well as with the level of assertiveness ofthe behavioral options selected in the three scenarios). The relationship between thesetwo personality dimensions and entitlement is worth further comment. The threedimensions of propensity to initiate – recognition, apprehension, and entitlement –can be viewed as related to a logical sequencing of the initiation process. Once anindividual recognizes a negotiable situation, he/she must overcome any naturalapprehension about engaging the counterpart and verbalizing a request. Entitlement,conceivably, allows the individual to push beyond any perceived resistance (verbal ornonverbal) encountered during the engagement or requesting phases of initiation. Thesignificant positive correlations between Machiavellianism and entitlement andbetween risk propensity and entitlement suggest that individuals with thesepersonality characteristics might be more inclined to overcome perceived resistancefrom a counterpart. In contrast, individuals with low risk propensity might be moreinclined 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’srequest). 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 gauginghow a particular initiation is likely to unfold and end.

For individuals whose characteristics or profiles indicate that they could havedifficulty initiating negotiations, a graduated approach to improving initiationconfidence and skills might be considered. That is, rather than seeking to engage,request, and optimize, even with a favorable counterpart, a negotiator might simplyengage a counterpart (without asking) as a first step, and progress to making a requestover 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 positiveexperience (e.g. choosing a private location for initiating a negotiation).

As indicated in Table I, country was positively correlated with recognition ofnegotiable opportunities, but this was not found to be the case when regressingopportunity recognition on all the independent variables. Furthermore, country (Brazilvs US) was not found to be significant as a main effect in any of the hierarchicalregression analyzes. There was, however, a significant interaction effect involvingcountry and risk propensity: Individuals from the US who reported high riskpropensity indicated a higher likelihood of initiating a negotiation (and also a higherlikelihood of recognizing a negotiable situation) than did individuals from Brazil whoreported a low risk propensity. This suggests that in a culture where, relativelyspeaking, initiation is seen as an appropriate behavior, individuals with a propensity totake risks will recognize more opportunities for initiating a negotiation, while thecombination of cultural inappropriateness and low risk propensity significantlyreduces the likelihood of seeing a situation as negotiable. In most cases, recognition iscritical to getting the initiation process started (unless one’s counterpart perceives asituation as such and takes the lead). As with self-efficacy, risk propensity can changeover time with experiences of success. However, an individual’s culture is not soquickly altered, which suggests a potentially strong impediment to initiation forindividuals from cultures that do not encourage initiation. This applies not only to

IJCMA23,3

282

individuals who would seek to begin a negotiation for their own purposes, but thosewho would benefit from knowing the initiation limitations of a counterpart with ideasthat might be valuable to both parties.

One explanation of these findings is that personality factors simply have a greaterinfluence than do cultural factors on propensity to initiate negotiations/assertiveness.Taras et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis, in fact, found the relative predictive power ofcultural values, personality, and demographics to vary for different outcomes. Anotherpossibility is that the “globalization” process (i.e. the internet, cable television) hasreduced some level of cultural distinctiveness among countries. In terms of businesseducation, many of the textbooks and cases used in Brazil, particularly those written inEnglish, are authored by North American scholars and based on research conducted inthe US. Further, it is more and more common for students to spend some weeks ormonths studying in other countries. It is also possible that masters-level businessstudents 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 ranksmedium-low overall for the six cultural dimensions identified in this paper, it might beworthwhile to examine one or more Asian countries (e.g. China, Japan), which haveeven lower rankings than Brazil (Volkema, 2011). Likewise, while the US ranksmedium-high overall for these six dimensions, other countries with similar rankingssuch as Great Britain and Germany might also be worth examining.

In addition, although we chose to treat culture as a single variable, it is conceivablethat separate measures for each of the six cultural variables might be examined. Thiswould require a considerably larger and still diverse sample of countries, but it wouldallow for another level of analysis with respect to the role of culture in determininginitiation behavior. It might also allow certain cultural variables to be examinedthrough scenario modifications (for example, varying the relative power of the partiesto examine the nuances of power distance, or varying the in-group versus out-grouprelationship of the parties for the individualism-collectivism variable).

In addition, laboratory studies would be appropriate for testing the effects of cultureand personality factors on actual behavior. That is, future studies might putindividuals in situations where initiation constitutes a viable yet uncomfortableopportunity and measure actual behavior. Since negotiations often consist of a numberof opportunities to initiate a request or demand, even near final-stage closure (Lewickiet al., 2009; Thompson, 2009), there might be multiple opportunities for measurementand analysis.

The significant correlations between all the dependent variables – propensity toinitiate negotiations, Rathus’ Assertiveness Schedule, and the assertiveness scenarios– lends some validity to these measures. At the same time, it also suggests that futurestudies may not need to employ all measures. The modest Cronbach alpha forentitlement, which was based on only three statements, suggests some additionaldevelopment work might be conducted on this dimension of propensity to initiate.

Another change in these dependent measures that might also be considered infuture research is to further modify Ames’ scenarios so that the options reflect thespecific levels of the initiation process rather than just varying levels of assertiveness.That is, the choices for each scenario could include:

Understandingpropensity

283

. 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 andresistance, as well as the contributions of each personality factor to overcoming thesepoints of resistance.

As with many interpersonal processes (e.g. group/team development, problemsolving), the early stages of the negotiation process can have a profound influence onhow succeeding stages will unfold and, ultimately, the outcome of an encounter. Whenone or more parties fail in the initiation process, there is a good chance thatopportunities will be lost. By better understanding the factors that can influence theinitiation stage of negotiation, we can expect to improve the effectiveness of the processand, 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 purposeof completeness. However, these factors were held constant in this study, and therefore werenot included in any measures or analyses.

2. The Big Five personality measures also were considered for this study. However, Hofstedeand McCrae (2004) found significant relationships between each of the Big Five personalityvariables and one or more of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions –individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and powerdistance. 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, andnormalized values for cultural context reported in VanEverdingen and Waarts (2003),Volkema (2011) calculated propensity to initiate indices for various countries, includingBrazil and the United States. For the six cultural dimensions listed in Hypothesis 1, theindices for Brazil and the US are 37.3 and 76.3, respectively (mean values for the sixdimensions). These indices are among the lowest (Brazil) and highest (the US) for thecountries examined by Hofstede, and therefore represent significantly different cultures withrespect to propensity to initiate negotiations.

4. Babcock et al. (2006) list the statements employed for each dimension. They reportcomparable 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: theUnited 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 andJapanese 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.

IJCMA23,3

284

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1972), “Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencingbehavioral 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: unmitigatedcommunion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrativebargaining”, 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 theconsequences 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 andinterpersonal dynamics”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 111-33.

Arisohn, B., Bruch, M.A. and Heimberg, R.G. (1988), “Influence of assessment methods onself-efficacy and outcome expectancy ratings of assertive behavior”, Journal of CounselingPsychology, 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 toinitiate negotiations”, in De Cremer, D., Zeelenberg, M. and Murnighan, J.K. (Eds), SocialPsychology and Economics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 239-59.

Babcock, L., Laschever, S., Gelfand, M. and Small, D. (2003), “Nice girls don’t ask”, HarvardBusiness 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 ofPsychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.

Barbuto, J.E. Jr and Moss, J.A. (2006), “Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influencetactics: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12No. 3, pp. 30-52.

Barron, L.A. (2003), “Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs aboutrequests 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-directedaggression: 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 uponbargaining 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-managementnegotiations: laboratory and field studies”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 105-18.

Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L. and Lai, L. (2007), “Social incentives for gender differences in thepropensity to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask”, Organizational Behaviorand 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 theconsumer 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, sexrole, and conversational assertiveness”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 130 No. 2,pp. 263-5.

Understandingpropensity

285

Cho, J. and Lee, J. (2006), “An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies”, Journal ofBusiness 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 femalecollege students”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 85-7.

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 ofManagement Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 763-76.

Curhan, J.R. and Pentland, A. (2007), “Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes fromconversational 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 supportamong 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”, Journalof 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 bargainingoutcomes 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 theperceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 284-305.

Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S. (1991), “Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by maleand 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, FreePress, 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”, PsychologicalReports, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 1345-6.

Harvey, M., Buckley, M.R., Novicevic, M.M. and Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2004), “The Abilene paradoxafter 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, NewYork, NY.

Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, andOrganizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G.H. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits anddimensions 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.

IJCMA23,3

286

Huber, V.L. and Neale, M.A. (1986), “Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiatorperformance and subsequent goal setting”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 342-65.

Huppertz, J.H. (2003), “An effort model of first-stage complaining behavior”, Journal of ConsumerSatisfaction, 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 coreconstruct?”, 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, andbehavior: 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 indefinition and classification”, in Parsons, T. and Shils, E. (Eds), Toward a General Theoryof Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 388-433.

Lau, V.P. and Shaffer, M.A. (1999), “Career success: the effects of personality”, CareerDevelopment International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 225-31.

Lee, C. (1984), “Accuracy of efficacy and outcome expectations in predicting performance in asimulated 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 andbehavioral 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 andself-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, andmoving first in competitive interactions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33No. 2, pp. 200-12.

Marsland, S. and Beer, M. (1983), “The evolution of Japanese management: lessons for USmanagers”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 49-67.

Miles, E. (2010), “The role of face in the decision not to negotiate”, International Journal ofConflict Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 400-14.

Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2002), “Personality and negotiation style: the moderating effects of culturalcontext”, 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 feedbackseeking: a comparison of the United States and Hong Kong”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 53No. 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 countrystudy 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 ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 125-6.

Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. (2003), “Learning negotiation skills: four models ofknowledge creation and transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 529-40.

Understandingpropensity

287

Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. and Ting-Toomey, S. (2008), “An analysis of the relationships among faceconcerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: a four-cultureinvestigation”, 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- culturalempirical 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 negotiationinteraction on bargaining processes and outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63No. 8, pp. 809-16.

Quillen, J., Besing, S. and Dinning, D. (1977), “Standardization of the Rathus AssertivenessSchedule”, 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 Machiavelliandisposition on the relationship between motivation and influence tactics”, Journal ofLeadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 29-43.

Rizzo, A. and Mendez, C. (1988), “Making things happen in organizations: does gender make adifference?”, 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: automaticthreat defense”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 798-813.

Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C. and Thepaut, Y. (2007), “Machiavellianism and economicopportunism”, 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 toconflict-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’sdispositional 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 ModeInstrument 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 andSocial Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 600-13.

Stolte, J.F. (1983), “Self-efficacy: sources and consequences in negotiation networks”, The Journalof Social Psychology, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 69-75.

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. and Steel, P. (2010), “Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: athree-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 405-39.

IJCMA23,3

288

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), “Cultureand 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 organizationlevels”, 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, UpperSaddle 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 ofinnovations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-32.

Volkema, R.J. (2009), “Why Dick and Jane don’t ask: getting past initiation barriers innegotiations”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 595-604.

Volkema, R.J. (2011), “Why people don’t ask: understanding initiation behavior in internationalnegotiations”, Thunderbird International Business Review, forthcoming.

Weber, B.J. and Chapman, G.B. (2005), “The combined effects of risk and time on choice: doesuncertainty 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. 20No. 2, pp. 153-69.

Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2006), “An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacyand performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1088-101.

Corresponding authorRoger J. Volkema can be contacted at: volkema@american.edu

Understandingpropensity

289

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints