Week 5 - Individual Differences - Know Yourself and Your Counterpart Flashcards
Gender differences in negotiation (1)
There may be no simple answer to the question of how gender influences negotiation, but recent studies are shedding light on differences that do exist and on why it can be hard to find them in broad-brush comparisons of male and female negotiators
Gender differences in negotiation (2)
Men and women conceive of negotiations differently
- Relationship vs task orientation
- Competition vs collaboration
Men and women communicate differently
Men and women are treated differently
Relationship vs task orientation
Women were more likely to perceive conflict episodes in relationship terms, whereas men were more likely to perceive the task characteristics of conflict episodes. No differences were found on emotional versus intellectual, and compromise versus win.
Competition vs collaboration
Gender differences are most evident when negotiation is portrayed as a competition rather than a collaborative effort
Men are more likely than women to intentionally use information that helps their own position but harms another’s position in a competitive negotiation context.’
However, in a collaborative negotiation context, this gender difference disappeared.
Women achieved poorer outcomes than men when negotiating on their own behalf but performed better than men when advocating on another’s behalf.
Together, these results suggest that women are disadvantaged in negotiations because they are expected to fill the social role of a deferential, co-operative female. Note that in both studies, the performance of male negotiators was unaffected by manipulations of context.
Propensity to negotiate
Women perceive negotiating for things more negatively than asking for things.
Aversion to negotiation may be a function of the fit between gender and the subject of the negotiation, rather than just gender alone
Men and women communicate differently
Society promotes competition among males yet discourages it among females.
Women perceived male behaviours as more assertive than men did.
And men were more likely to discuss positions than women, whereas women were more likely to reveal personal information and feelings than men.
Being treated differently
Women in negotiations are often treated worse than men.
Male negotiators lied more frequently to female opponents than they did to other men.
Similar tactics have different effects when used by men vs women
Exchange tactics: studies suggest that not only do men and women receive different outcomes during salary negotiations but that the same tactics may have opposite effects on salary negotiation outcomes
Exchange tactics (reminding supervisors of previous favours and offering to make sacrifices) had a positive effect on the outcome of salary negotiations of male employees and a negative effect on the outcome of salary negotiations of female employees.
Aggressive tactics: male and female candidates were less likely to be hired when they bargained aggressively. Females were far less likely than men to be hired when aggressive.
Gender stereotypes affect negotiator performance
Stereotypes undermine the performance of female negotiators - When stereotype threat is activated—by telling negotiators the bargaining task is diagnostic of their overall ability as negotiators—women do worse
The negative effect of stereotypes about gender differences can be overcome - negative stereotypes of women at the bargaining table can sometimes improve performance: Instead of fulfilling the negative connotations of the stereotype, the women in this experiment reacted against it
Motivational interventions
Activating a stereotype (i.e., making people consciously aware of them and their supposed effects on outcomes) may motivate a person to act in a manner consistent with that stereotype
Individuals will act to overcome stereotypes when they are motivated to make a positive impression on the other party
Cognitive interventions
Focus on things that negotiators have in common that transcend gender, such as common goals or identities
- Approaching the negotiation in a powerful frame of mind can lead to higher outcomes for female negotiators who might otherwise be at a disadvantage
Reframing the nature of the negotiation task itself - women do as well as men when they are negotiating outcomes on behalf of others, which suggests female negotiators may overcome some of their gender role disadvantage by reframing negotiation as something undertaken to serve larger team or organizational objectives.
Is the assumption that negotiators benefit when they exhibit stereotypically male attitudes and behaviours true?
The assumption that negotiators benefit when they exhibit stereotypically male attitudes and behaviours is built on a fundamentally false premise. Negotiation is not inherently an activity in which the parties excel through assertive or contentious behaviour.
Rather, in some negotiation situations, competitiveness is appropriate; in others, co-operation is essential; and in still others a blend of competitive and co-operative impulses and motives are needed.
Gender stereotypes and simplistic assumptions about gender roles get in the way of what really matters for effective negotiation—the ability to accurately perceive the situation and your counterpart and to make sound tactical choices that are not clouded by unwarranted stereotypes and irrelevant assumptions.
Approaches to studying personality in negotiation
- Conflict style
- Social value orientation
- Interpersonal trust
- Self-efficacy
- Self-monitoring
- Machiavellianism
- Face threat sensitivity
- “Big Five” personality traits
Conflict style
Two levels of concern underlie the five conflict management styles:
- Degree of assertiveness a party shows for his or her own outcomes
- Degree of cooperativeness of the party shows toward working for the other’s outcomes
Two personality dimensions represent these levels of concern:
- Degree of assertiveness
- Degree of cooperativeness
Conflict style (2)
Five major conflict management styles:
Competing style: high on assertiveness, low on coop
Accommodating style: low on assertiveness and high on coop
Avoiding style: low on both assertiveness and coop
Collaborating style: high on assertiveness and coop
Compromising style: moderate on both assertiveness and coop
*Conflict management styles result both from the strategic choices an individual makes and from individual tendencies to use certain styles regardless of the situation
Social value orientation
Preferences regarding the kinds of outcomes people prefer in social settings where interdependence with others is required
Two orientations:
- Pro-self or egoistic: primarily concerned with personal outcomes
- Pro-social or cooperative: preference for outcomes that benefit both self and others
Prosocial negotiators who are focused on themselves and the group have two sources of satisfaction, so they may be more easily satisfied than individualistic negotiators who are only focused on themselves and therefore have only one source of satisfaction.
With good alternatives mutually available, the differences between pro-social and pro-self negotiators tend to dissipate (when pro-socials have a good BATNA, they tend to make more threats and act more distributively etc.)
Interpersonal trust
Defined as “a generalized expectancy held by an individual of the word, promise, oral, or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon.”- Determined by the experiences that people have in dealing with others
Individuals differ in levels of interpersonal trust
- High trusters: believe that others will be trustworthy and that they need to be trustworthy themselves
- Low trusters: believe that others cannot be trusted to observe the rules and may feel less pressure themselves to trust others
Leads to self-fulfilling prophecy (If high-truster approaches the other person, in attitude and style, in a way that signals trust, other party will respond in kind and lead to co-operative negotiation.
Self-efficacy
- A judgement about one’s ability to behave effectively
- Plays an important role in complex interpersonal behaviour, including negotiation
- Higher levels of self-efficacy lead to higher outcomes and setting higher goals
- One’s perceived level of competence at negotiation may increase the likelihood that collaborative problem solving will occur
- Those who believe themselves more skilled at using distributive or integrative tactics employed these strategies more often and achieved higher outcomes in resolving distributive or integrative problems,
Self-monitoring
The extent to which people are responsive to the social cues that come from the social environment
High self-monitors:
- Attentive to external, interpersonal information
- Inclined to treat this information as cues to how one should behave (friendly, logrolling)
Low self-monitors:
- Less attentive to external information that may cue behaviour
- Guided more in their behavioural choices by inner, personal feelings
Not only is self-monitoring important during planning, but it may also interact with other factors during negotiation, such as exhibiting sensitivity to the other party’s behaviour and interests so as to influence the negotiation process and outcomes - motivation to be attuned to the social context
Machiavellianism: Those scoring high on it:
- Tend to be cynical about others’ motives
- More likely to behave un-altruistically and unsympathetically
- Less willing to change their convictions under social pressure
- More likely to tolerate behaviour that violates social norms
- More inclined to advocate the use of deception interpersonally
Machiavellianism: four conceptual elements theorized
- Distrust: high Machs are actively distrustful of others
- Amoral manipulation: High Machs are “selectively willing to deviate from moral standards when the opportunity for getting ahead presents itself.”
- Desire for control: Seeing other people as threatening, high Machs want to dominate interpersonal situations.
- Desire for status: High Machs are driven to “pursue goals such as wealth, power, and status”’ to feed ‘ta desire to accumulate external indicators of success.”
High Machs did better than low Machs in distributive negotiation.
- When negotiating with a high Mach, low Machs make fewer offers and are less effective negotiators than when negotiating with low Machs. High Machs did not change their negotiation style
Face threat sensitivity
The concept of “face” refers to the value people place on their public image or reputation
Some people are more susceptible to reacting in a negative way to threats to face
Threats to one’s image will make a negotiator competitive in a situation that might otherwise benefit from cooperative behaviour
- why? maybe because they see it as a threat, or maybe because other party sees them as high maintenance
The “Big Five” personality traits
*extroversion—being sociable, assertive, talkative
* agreeableness—being flexible, co-operative, trusting
* conscientiousness—being responsible, organized, achievement oriented *emotional stability—being secure, confident, not anxious
* openness—being imaginative, broad-minded, curious
The big five personality traits (2)
- Negotiators higher in extraversion and agreeableness were more likely to do worse in distributive bargaining
- Effects of personality were lessened when negotiators had high aspirations for their own performance (motivation overcame the liability of certain characteristics)
- These elements of personality did not affect how well negotiators did in complex integrative bargaining
Negotiators whose personality matches the situation experienced more physical arousal (a faster heart rate) and psychological arousal (positive emotion) - which in turn resulted in better outcomes
