Some people are better negotiators than others. How do the best negotiators behave differently from average negotiators? Researchers have been searching for factors that determine effective negotiation behaviors ever since the early research efforts to investigate negotiation began in the late 1950s (for detailed reviews see Bazerman et al., 2001; Thompson, 1990). Many have argued that negotiation behaviors are predicated upon conflict management styles (Kirkbride et al., 1991; Ma, 2006a; Volkema and Bergmann, 1995), however, surprisingly few studies have attempted to examine this relationship (Volkema and Bergmann, 1995), and even fewer have done so within a cross-cultural context. With the increasingly globalized world economy, cross-cultural studies of negotiation and conflict management styles have received more and more attention from both academics and practitioners (Gelfand and Dyer, 2000; Graham and Mintu-Wimsat, 1997; Tinsley, 1998). Sensitivity to cultural differences in negotiations becomes an important success factor for today's business. As a result, it is necessary to study whether conflict management styles predict actual behaviors during negotiation and, if so, whether such relationship exists within a cross-cultural context in order to understand the dynamics of international negotiations.
Conflict Managing Styles
Because problems and conflict occur widely in team-oriented organizations the way in which conflict is managed may determine the success or failure of team outcomes. Organizations are constantly relying on teams to increase competitiveness and solve conflict and so team members must be able to manage intragroup conflict effectively and constructively (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Ilgen, 1999; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001).
At a basic level, a conflict exists when confronting interests or incompatible activities exist between the parties involved in social situations (Deutsch, 1973). Thomas (1992) emphasized three basic themes underlying common definitions of conflict. First, a conflict exists only if it is perceived as conflict by the actors involved. Second, there is a level of interdependence between the actors such that they have the ability to influence each other. Finally, in any conflict, scarcity of resources (such as money, power, and prestige) may generate tensions among the actors.
Different theoretical models have been proposed to analyze the way in which individuals approach and handle conflict. Taxonomies and meta taxonomies have been anticipated using a unidimensional approach of cooperation and competition styles (Deutsch, 1949; Tjosvold, 1998), a bidimensional approach involving four styles of conflict management behavior (Pruitt, 1983), a bidimensional approach involving five styles (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979), and even a tridimensional model of moving away, moving toward and moving against (Horney, 1945).
The most extended model is that of Blake and Mouton (1964) who proposed a bidimensional grid for classifying the modes in which individuals handle interpersonal conflict. These two dimensions relate to the extent that individuals show high or low concern "for production" and "for people." Later, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) and Rahim (1983), using this theoretical approach, redefined the dimensions as "concern for self and "concern for others." The "concern for self" dimension reflects the degree in which an individual tries to satisfy his/her personal concerns or needs. The "concern for others" dimension has the same meaning but is centred on others' needs or concerns. Combining these two dimensions, five different styles of managing interpersonal conflict are obtained.
The Dominating style involves high concern for self and low concern for others reflecting win-lose behavior involving efforts to obtain favourable solutions for oneself regardless of others. The Integrating style involves high concern for self and high concern for others, reflecting a collaborating style between the parties in conflict where individuals seek to exchange information, examine differences, understand the problem, and show openness to each other. An integrative solution that is acceptable for both parties is sought in this style which echoes the problem solving strategy proposed by Van de Vliert and Euwema (1994) as well as the approach to integration in group dilemmas proposed by Trompenaars (2004). The Avoiding style is related to low concern for self and low concern for others. This style is related with withdrawal behavior, hiding disagreement, and sidestepping confrontations with the other party involved in the conflict. The Obliging style reflects low concern for self and high concern for the other party in the conflict. This style is related to behavior that tries to satisfy the needs of others and make concessions during the course of the conflict. Both Obliging and Avoiding styles seek to reduce discrepancies between parties but in a very different manner. While Obliging shows a high concern for others and attitudes to accommodate and accept their wishes, Avoiding does not judge the other party as deserving any concern and thus it may hide higher levels of aggressiveness. The Avoiding style may also be used when there is a lack of awareness of interdependency and it may hide a lack of interest. Finally, Compromising depicts a moderate concern for self and for others. It takes a middle ground in solving conflict where both parties should "give something" in order to "take something" (Rahim & Magner, 1995, p. 123). This bidimensional approach of five styles has been widely supported (Chanin & Schneer, 1984; Goodwin, 2002; King & Miles, 1990; Lee, 1990; Rahim, Antonioni, & Psenicka, 2001; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990).
Common Backgrounds
If high performing teams are to be built, the way in which conflict is handled in teams is of fundamental importance. Highly interdependent contexts are defined by constant controversy. Controversy may be constructive or destructive depending on the cooperative or competitive goal structure of the team (Tjosvold, 1998). However, if other factors influencing behavior are considered, the way in which individuals manage conflict in a team may be determined by their personal preferences (Drenth, Thierry, Willems, & Wolf, 1984).
From this point of view, previous studies have related team role preferences to the exercise of control in interpersonal relations. Fisher, et al. (2001) found that some team roles showed a higher propensity to exert control than others. Shapers and Resource Investigators, for example, displayed behavior related to attempts to control more so than accepting control.
Similarly, team role preferences have been related to the cognitive styles that individuals possess while making decisions and solving problems (Aritzeta et al., 2005; Fisher et al., 1998). These studies, reported that team roles like Resource Investigator, Shaper, and Plant showed a positive relationship with an innovative cognitive style. While solving problems, individuals high in innovative cognitive style tend to manipulate problems and challenge rules and do not need consensus to maintain confidence in the face of opposition. High innovators are defined as abrasive, creating dissonance, unsound, and who are prepared to shock their opposites (Kirton, 1989). On the other hand, team roles like Team Worker, Completer Finisher, and Implementer show a positive correlation with an adaptive cognitive style. This style is described as being methodical, prudent, disciplined, conforming, and dependable. Generally, a high adaptor is a person concerned with reducing problems and seeking solutions in tried and understood ways. They are vulnerable to social pressure and authority and have a greater need for clarity.
Studies on control and cognitive styles show that different team roles can be differentially related to ways in which team members seek power in groups and approach problem solving. If a team role is related to exerting control behavior it is likely to be related to dominating conflict management behavior. Similarly, if control is accepted then avoiding conflict managing behavior will be more likely. The same can be said for different cognitive styles. As innovative cognitive style is defined by abrasive and shocking behavior, dominating rather than obliging behavior should be expected. In the same way, as adaptive cognitive style is defined by being conforming and dependable, avoiding rather than dominating styles can be predicted. Therefore, as team roles have shown to be differentially related to control behavior and cognitive styles, it can be expected that different team role preferences will also show different correlations with conflict management style.
The theoretical background developed above shows that both team role preferences and conflict management styles share common ground regarding the ways in which individuals relate to one another in a work team context. As conflict will occur in any team and as individuals have preferences regarding the way in which they approach work and interpersonal relations, it should be possible to predict how team role preferences relate to conflict managing styles.
Conflict management style and negotiation
Scholars have been studying the best way to manage conflict, resulting in impressive literature on conflict management styles (cf. Thompson, 1990; Van de Vliert, 1997; Wall and Blum, 1991). The dominant conflict management model in this literature is the dual-concern model. Originated from the work of Blake and Mouton (1964) and further developed by many other theorists (e.g. Deutsch, 1994; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1976; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974), the dual-concern model has several variations, all of which assume that individuals choose different modes, strategies, or styles for handling conflict based on some variations of two primary concerns/interests — "concern for self" and "concern for other". These two dimensions define five conflict management styles: competing or dominating (high concern for self, low concern for other); collaborating or integrating (high concern for self and for other); compromising (moderate concern for self and for other); accommodating or obliging (low concern for self and high concern for other); and avoiding (low concern for self and low concern for other). The defined five styles reflect an individual's behavioral intentions when facing conflict situations (Womack, 1988). Subsequent studies suggest that the interrelationships among the constructs are consistent with those depicted in the model (Van de Vliert and Euwema, 1994; Van de Vliert and Kabanoff, 1990) and that the two dimensions provide the basis for choice of conflict mode (Sorenson et al., 1999).
Among the instruments developed for assessing conflict management styles, Hall's (1969) conflict management survey, Rahim's (1983) organizational conflict inventory, and Thomas and Kilmann's (1974) conflict MODE instrument have been used extensively in academic research, training seminars, and organizational intervention and development, yet few studies have linked the conflict management styles measured by these instruments with actual behaviors (Ma, 2006a; Volkema and Bergmann, 1995), which makes it difficult to assess the usefulness of these instruments in predicting actual conflict-resolving behaviors such as in business negotiation. This study will explore whether the conflict management styles measured by the Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument are valid indicators of behavioral pattern in business negotiation and further whether such relationship between conflict management styles and actual behaviors hold across cultures.
Conflict management has been defined as a culturally bound event (Hocker and Wilmot, 1991) and consequently, the relationship between conflict management styles and actual behaviors are affected by cultural values. The most relevant cultural dimension that is likely to affect this relationship is contextualism, also the dimension that has been widely examined in cross-cultural negotiation literature. Contextualism reflects the degree of sensitivity to communication context (Hall, 1976; Kirkbride et al., 1991). People from low context cultures, such as Canadian culture, use explicit and direct language, whereas those from high context cultures such as Chinese culture use implicit and indirect language in which words and phrases derive their meanings from contextual clues.
Negotiation behaviors and outcomes
Negotiation behaviors involves the dynamic interaction between negotiators by which the two parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon an exchange rate by resolving incompatible goals (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992; Wall, 1985; Wall and Blum, 1991). Among other behaviors, first offer, assertiveness, and distributiveness have been found to play important roles during negotiations and thus have often been examined in numerous negotiation and conflict management studies (Barry and Friedman, 1998; Lewicki and Litterer, 1985; Greenhalgh et al., 1985). Their relationship with conflict management styles and with the negotiation outcomes will be examined in this study.
As one of the central dimensions of negotiation behavior, the level of assertiveness during negotiation has been examined and proved to be an important factor that affects negotiation outcomes and therefore its role in negotiation process cannot be overrated (Greenhalgh et al., 1985; Jaeger et al., 1999; Mnookin et al., 1996). Similarly, the level of distributiveness or "win-lose" intent of negotiation behavior has also been closely related to negotiation outcomes (Lewicki and Litterer, 1985; Lewicki et al., 1994). In this study, their relationship with conflict management styles will be examined.
The effect of first offer will also be investigated in this study. In any negotiation, the decision to put the first offer on the table is a double-edged sword (Barry and Friedman, 1998). To the offerer's potential disadvantage, an initial offer conveys information about aspirations and utilities (Rubin and Brown, 1975). Depending on the underlying structure of reservation prices, this information may reduce the range of potential agreements, to the disadvantage of the offerer. On the other hand, an opening offer may lead the opponent to perceive that settlements will favor the party making the first offer. This is more likely to happen when the first offer is an extreme one (Siegel and Fouraker, 1960). For example, a seller who initially demands a high price may induce the buyer to believe that the range of potential agreements is closer to the seller's reservation price than originally thought. Moreover, extreme initial offers can signal that the party making the offer is hard bargainer who will not be induced to retreat (Lewicki et al., 1994). When this occurs, the recipient of such an offer may moderate his or her negotiation objectives and be more inclined to offer concessions. Therefore, bargainers who make the first move may be better off starting with a relatively extreme offer, though there are limits to the effectiveness of extreme offers (e.g. offers so extreme that they discredit the bargainer who made the offer or reduce hope on the other side to the point of withdrawal) (Barry and Friedman, 1998).
Inclusion of the level of assertiveness, the level of distributiveness, and the level of first offer in this study shows an internal relationship among these variables. The level of assertiveness reflects the extent to which individuals are not afraid to express their needs/desires and willing to defend their own interests, while the level of distributiveness assesses the extent to which individuals believe the current situation to be a win-lose situation versus a win-win situation. The interaction of these two leads to choice of different approaches of conflict resolving or negotiating. The level of first offer sets a tone for the whole negotiation process, which is the manifestation of such choice.
Implications for management
The results of this study will have important implications for management practices. The first important implications is that negotiation researchers and practitioners cannot rely on self-reported conflict management styles to predict actual behaviors and therefore the training seminars and practice-oriented workshops should be adjusted accordingly since most of these interventions and organizational development are based on self-administered paper-and-pencil tests. Due to the difference in cultural contextualism the usefulness of the self-reported conflict management styles in predicting negotiation behaviors largely depends on the sensitivity to context clues. In low context cultures such as that of Canada, negotiators' preferred conflict management styles predict their behaviors very well, which indicates that practitioners can count on these styles to plan and prepare for business negotiation. In high context cultures such as Chinese culture, contexts play a much more important role in determining negotiators' behaviors, and therefore, negotiators should closely examine the features of negotiation tasks in order to make accurate predictions on negotiation behaviors.
The second implication is about the usefulness of high level of first offer. Evidence about the important role that first offer plays in business negotiation emerges from this study. The level of first offer is found to be the key process factor that predicts individual profits both in Canada and in China. This might be an important message to negotiation practitioners. As discussed previously, high first offer is a double-edged sword. Relatively extreme first offer can be favorable to the offerer as it sends a message that the party making the offer is a hard bargainer and thus the recipient of such an offer will be more likely to offer concessions, but too extreme offer will discredit the offerer to the point of breaking the negotiation. The current result supports an extreme first offer for obtaining the best individual results, which is encouraging news for the use extreme first offer in actual business negotiations.
Reference:
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), "The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Barry, B. and Friedman, R.A. (1998), "Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 345-59.
Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R. and Moore, D.A. (2001), "The death and rebirth of the social psychology of negotiation", in Clark, M. and Fletcher, G. (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 196-228.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Calhoun, P.S. and Smith, W.P. (1999), "Integrative bargaining: does gender make a difference?", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 203-24.
Carnevale, P.J. and Lawer, E.J. (1986), "Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations", Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30, pp. 636-56.
Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt, D.G. (1992), "Negotiation and mediation", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 531-82.
Deutsch, M. (1994), "Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training, and research", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13-32.
Fiske, A.P. (2002), "Using individualism and collectivism to compare culture — a critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 78-88.
Gelfand, M. and Dyer, N. (2000), "A cultural perspective on negotiation: progress, pitfalls, and prospects", Annual Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 62-99.
Graham, J. and Mintu-Wimsat, A. (1997), "Culture's influence on business negotiations in four countries", Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 6, pp. 483-502.
Greenhalgh, L., Nelsin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W. (1985), "The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 9-33.
Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor, Garden City, NY.
Hall, J. (1969), Conflict Management Survey: A Survey of One's Characteristic Reaction to and Handling of Conflict between Himself and Others, Teleometrics International, Conroe, TX.
Hirokawa, R. and Miyahara, A. (1986), "A comparison of influence strategies utilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations", Communication Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 250-65.
Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, F.Y. and Westwood, R.I. (1991), "Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behavior: cultural and psychological influence", Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 365-89.
Leung, K. (1988), "Some determinants of conflict avoidance", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 125-36.
Leung, K. and Tjosvold, D. (1998), Conflict Management in the Asian Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches in Diverse Cultures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Lewicki, R.J. and Litterer, J.A. (1985), Negotiation, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Minton, J.W. and Saunders, D.M. (1994), Negotiation, 2nd ed., Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Ma, Z. (2004), "West meets Muslim: comparing Canadian and Pakistani conflict styles in business negotiations", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Ma, Z. (2006a), "Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral pattern in business negotiations", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
eu, J., Graham, J.L. and Gilly, M.C. (1988), "The influence of gender on behaviors and outcomes in a retail buyer-seller negotiation simulation", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 427-51.
Ohbuchi, K. and Tedeschi, J.T. (1994), "Cultural styles of conflict", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 1345-66.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), "Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumption and meta-analyses", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Rahim, M.A. (1983), "A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-76.
Tinsley, C. (1998), "Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German, and American cultures", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 316-23.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S. and Lin, S.L. (1991), "The influence of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles", International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 15, pp. 65-84.
Van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997), "Methods and data analysis of comparative research", in Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H. and Pandey, J. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, pp. 257-300.
Van de Vliert, E. (1997), Complex Interpersonal Behavior: Theoretical Frontiers, Psychology Press, Hove.
Van de Vliert, E. and Euwema, M.C. (1994), "Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 674-87.
Weldon, E. and Jehn, K.A. (1995), "Examining cross-cultural differences in conflict management behavior: a strategy for future research", International Journal Conflict Management, Vol. 6, pp. 387-403.
Womack, D.F. (1988), "Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model survey", Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 321-49.
No comments:
Post a Comment