150

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN NEGOTIATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA CARVALHO ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL
FC@FE.UC.PT AND

FELIPE SOBRAL ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL

FSOBRAL@FE.UC.PT

150

ABSTRACT

In an increasingly competitive, dynamic and ambiguous business environment, negotiation is critically important to the success and, ultimately, to the survival of companies. Consequently, managers need to possess and constantly improve their negotiating capabilities. Among the most important traits needed to negotiate successfully are several communication skills. The main objective of our study is to identify and analyze the importance that managers and executives of the 500 largest Portuguese companies attribute to some communication characteristics, necessaries to negotiate effectively and efficiently in uncertain and complex business environments. The 231 answers received demonstrate that the studied communication skills are regarded as requirements of the highest importance in a superior negotiator. However, we find some discrepancies when we cross-analyze the results with demographic characteristics of those surveyed. For example, the most experienced executives and those who have formal negotiation training recognize a greater importance to the ability to listen, while women give a greater emphasis to non-verbal communication (body language, posture, etc.). In addition, the negotiating styles (collaborative vs. competitive) and the ethical behavior in negotiation of those surveyed seem to cause significantly statistical differences concerning the importance they attribute to some of the referred communication traits.

Keywords: Communication; Negotiation; Portugal; Business Administration

150

INTRODUCTION Negotiation is a daily corporate reality of increasingly decisive importance to the success of companies. Executives negotiate daily with clients and suppliers, with shareholders, creditors, potential partners, and employees, among many others. The great majority of tasks that take place in a business environment involve the exchange of information and/or resources between departments or divisions, or between managers and representatives of other organizations. All these types of exchanges require that managers without formal power or authority over each other negotiate agreements that fulfill the interests and needs of both parties. The capability to reach those agreements to negotiate effectively is therefore, increasingly so, considered as a critical competence in modern management (Ertel, 2000). It is estimated that managers spend approximately 20% of their time negotiating and that, probably, those 20% impact the remaining 80% of their activities (Baron, 1989). As a result, it is not surprising that the ability to negotiate successfully is recognized as a necessary skill in any individual interested in a position of power, status or responsibility (Mintzberg, 1973). While using the definition of negotiation advanced by Walton and McKersie (1965) as being the deliberate interaction of two or more complex social units which are attempting to define or redefine the terms of their interdependence (page 35), we understand how communication is, likely, one of the most fundamental elements of negotiation. Given that negotiation is a reciprocal communication process with the intent to reach a common decision, it is easy to understand why communication is the central tool of the negotiation process (Chatman, Putnam and Sondak, 1991). It is through communication that the parties establish or not a relationship of trust, clarify their preferences, perspectives and opinions, try to understand the real interests and motivations of the other party and, above all, ratify the

150

terms of an agreement that will resolve an existing dispute. In order to accomplish that, negotiators must: (1) be able to express themselves in a clear and precise manner; (2) be able to encourage dialog, by asking question and giving answers; (3) be able to use and detect non-verbal language; (4) be able to listen, preferably in a pro-active manner, clarifying and rephrasing in their own words the content of the message; and (5) be able to persuade the other party of their ideas, arguments and viewpoints. This study, while a part of a wider investigation about the characteristics regarded as fundamental traits to negotiators, has as its main objective the identification and analysis of the importance ascribed to some communication skills, which, in the opinion of Portuguese managers and executives, are necessary to negotiate successfully in complex and uncertain business environments. We would also like to examine the relationships between the communication skills that the surveyed perceive as important, their demographic characteristics (gender, formal negotiation training, professional experience and industry) and their negotiating profile (favored negotiating strategies and their ethical conduct).

LITERATURE REVIEW Communication, verbal and non-verbal, is fundamental in reaching negotiation results and in resolving conflicts. As Lewicki, Minton and Saunders (2000a) refer communication is at the heart of the negotiating process (page 141). Although planning, preparation and the definition of a strategy are critical elements to the success of a negotiation, it is through communication that they are integrated in an overall logic and implemented. According to Putnam and Poole (1987): the activity of having or managing a conflict occurs through communication. More specifically, communication undergirds the setting and reframing of goals; the defining and narrowing of conflicting issues; the developing of relationships between disputants and among constituents; the selecting and implementing of strategies and

150

tactics; the generating, attacking, and defending of alternative solutions; and the reaching and confirming of agreements. (page 550). One of the major questions that communication and negotiation researchers have attempted to answer is what is communicated during a negotiation. Considering that, it is certain that the content of that communication is, at least partially, responsible for the accomplished results (Olekalns, Smith and Walsh, 1996). To Tutzauer (1992) perhaps the most important communication in a bargaining session are those in which the parties make offers and counter-offers (page 67). However, communication in negotiation is not restricted to the exchange of proposals. Negotiators also communicate to clarify their preferences, viewpoints and perspectives, to exchange information and to persuade the other party of their ideas and convictions. For these reasons, the ability to communicate has been considered as a critical skill in a negotiator. As Fisher and Davis (1987) indicate, a successful negotiator needs to know how to express himself/herself clearly, to capture the other partys attention and know how to question and listen effectively. Being information one of the main sources of negotiating power, it is up to the negotiator to know how to ask questions and how to listen to the other party in order to try to improve his/her negotiating approach and, consequently, his/her outcomes. To Nierenberg (1976) knowing how to ask a question is an essential component of negotiation, as through it, one can obtain information about the positions, arguments and needs of the other party. The ability to listen is also unanimously recognized as one of the major traits required in top negotiator. Shell (1999) considers that great negotiators are good listeners and ask a lot of questions. To him, average negotiators are focused on themselves their problems, their objectives, their perceptions. A superior negotiator prepares at home and brings a series of questions in his/her head. He arguments that anything can be questioned and that the most

150

important attribute in a great negotiator is his/her willingness to be ignorant or play the role of ignorant. But communication in negotiation is not restricted to verbal communication. It is important to consider all the non-verbal communication that takes place in a bargaining session. Gestures and body language communicate just as effectively as words maybe even more so. (Axtell, 1991, page 8). Shell (1999) also concurs that the ability for nonverbal expression is an important trait in managers, considering, however, that attention should be focused on content and not on the form of communication. Thompson (2001) considers non-verbal communication: (1) tone and pitch of voice; (2) facial expressions; (3) eye contact; (4) interpersonal space; (5) posture; (6) body movements; (7) gestures; and (8) touching. Non-verbal language is important because it conveys a series of clues about the real feelings and intentions of the other side, giving relevant information to the negotiator. Knowing how to use that type of communication to ones advantage is an attribute of only superior negotiators. Thompson (2001), conducted a survey to 50 MBA students who had concluded a negotiation simulation. The majority of students followed non-verbal clues, namely: (1) eye contact people who lie avoid looking the other party straight in the eyes; (2) close body posture tends to create more trust between the parties; and (3) movements indicative of some tension, such biting of lips or playing with a pen, as a sign of nervousness and anxiety. Other indicators were mentioned, such as the absence of gestures and emotional outbursts. Table 1 shows some of the non-verbal behaviors that make people trust or distrust their negotiation opponent; which doesnt mean that there is necessarily a direct relationship between these behaviors and trust or distrust attitudes from the intervening negotiators. In terms of the ability to use nonverbal communication, scientific evidences suggest that women are more skilled than men (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998). Women are typically considered more expressive, and men are viewed as more composed (Hall, 1987). However, in terms of

150

nonverbal interpretation and reception there are some differences. When their opponents are being truthful, women are more accurate than men, but when they are deceptive, women tend to be less accurate than men (Rosenthal and DePaulo, 1979a). TABLE 1 NON-VERBAL LANGUAGE IN NEGOTIATION
BEHAVIORS THAT CREATE DISTRUST BEHAVIORS THAT CREATE TRUST

Signs of nervousness, impatience; fidgeting Excessive smiling; sheepish smiles Excessively serious tone of voice; lack of emotion Lack of eye-to-eye contact (averting eyes) Excessively quiet attitude Source: Adapted from Thompson (2001).

Direct speech Open behavior and gestures Smiling Pointing Close proximity

John Hammond (1979) was one of the pioneers in attempting to identify the importance of the traits that distinguish a superior negotiator. Starting from a list of 34 characteristics, he performed a survey to 32 upper managers from one of the major American banks about the relative importance of each one of those characteristics. Table 2 illustrates the results concerning the different communication skills that this researcher included in his study (scale from 1not important at all to 5 very important). TABLE 2 IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN NEGOTIATION
RELATIVE POSITION BETWEEN 34 SKILL
SKILLS STUDIED

AVG. (FROM 1 TO 5) 4,4 4,4 4,1 3,2

Ability to express thoughts verbally Listening skill Ability to persuade others Debating skill (skill in parrying questions and answers across the table) Skill in communicating through non-verbal language (gestures, signs or silence) Source: Adapted from Hammond (1979).

4th 5th 8th 24th

29th

2,7

150

As we can verify, the characteristics related to communication skills always have a high importance and are included in the main competences required for negotiators, namely the ability to communicate verbally (4th most important, with 4.4 average of 5), knowing how to listen (5th also with 4.4 average) and the ability to persuade others (8th with 4.1 average). Nevertheless, the ability to debate and the ability to communicate non-verbally are not rated by these executives as critical, with an average importance of 3.2 and 2.7, respectively.

PROPOSED STUDY AND METHODOLOGY The main objective of our investigation is to identify the importance of some communication skills, which, in the opinion of Portuguese managers and executives, are necessary to negotiate successfully in complex and uncertain business environments. Thus, the objectives of our study are: (1) to identify the communication traits required for executives who negotiate in complex and dynamic business situations; (2) to analyze we the relationships between the perceived importance of the communication skills and the demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, formal negotiation training, professional experience and industry); (3) to analyze we the relationships between the perceived importance of the communication skills and their negotiating profile. The traditional research methodology in this area is one of identifying one or more characteristics to test, selecting a concrete situation, and then measuring the characteristics of the participants in the simulation (usually students studying for Masters degrees). This is then usually followed by testing its effect on the process and on the outcomes of the negotiation. However, we wanted to avoid some of the criticisms that have previously been made of investigations in this scientific area. With this in mind, instead of an experimental simulation we used an exploratory study. This enabled us: (1) to test a larger number of communication skills that could have an influence on negotiation and not just those for which measuring

150

instruments exist; (2) to avoid using a specific bargaining situation, where other factors could influence the outcome. Instead we used the generic situation of negotiations that take place at the highest levels of administration in companies; and (3) to obtain results from individuals who have a great deal of experience in negotiation. The need to obtain the opinions of business executives that have a rich and varied experience of bargaining in several managerial contexts obliged us to choose the managers and executives of top Portuguese companies as the subject population of this study. As we wanted opinions on the importance of negotiators' characteristics in negotiating in complex situations, such as those that occur at the highest levels of management, we restricted the subject population to executives from the board of directors. To validate our study and make it representative we used executives from the 500 largest Portuguese companies as our sample. Also increasing the credibility and coherence of our results is the fact that almost all of the top managers of these organizations have had personal careers marked by several negotiation situations, which enabled each one to give a more valid contribution. The 500 largest Portuguese companies include companies of various sizes coming from several activity sectors, thus making our study representative of real Portuguese management. We divided the survey into two sections. In the first we looked for opinions of Portuguese managers and executives about the importance of a set of characteristics required in effective negotiation in uncertain and complex situations. As a reference in selecting a set of characteristics that define a successful negotiator, we used a survey originally developed by Chester Karrass (1968), as well as John Hammond's adapted version (1979). These authors carried out investigations with different objectives, but with the same base preposition: negotiators need to have a certain set of characteristics which have a decisive influence on the process and, consequently, on the outcomes of negotiation. We used the following communication variables:

150

10

1. Ability to express thoughts verbally ability to convey a certain message in a clear and objective manner; 2. Ability to persuade others ability to convince and influence the opponent of ones ideas and convictions; 3. Ability to form an argument ability to communicate verbally and intelligibly complex or abstract thoughts to the other party; 4. Debating skill ability to stimulate the exchange of questions and answers with the other side of the table, obtaining this way missing information and testing previously formulated alternatives; 5. Ability to communicate non-verbally ability to communicate and detect nonverbal behaviors, such as use of body language, silence, posture, tone and pitch of voice, etc. 6. Listening skill ability to actively listen to the other party, questioning them when there are doubts, and summarizing the main ideas in ones own words. In the second part of the questionnaire, we looked for the opinion of the surveyed regarding a series of behaviors, attitudes and perceptions in diverse negotiating situations. Based on those answers we wanted to define their negotiating profile, that is, how they think negotiation should be approached (their negotiating style), and the degree of openness and trust that they should have towards the other party, the pertinence of utilizing a series of tactics, etc (ethical profile). To formulate this questionnaire we adapted a survey developed by Lewicki, Saunders and Minton (2000b). Of the 764 questionnaires sent to the executives of the 500 largest Portuguese companies in May of 2001, we received 255 responses, of which 24 were eliminated due to the detection of irregularities. This corresponded to a response rate of 33.4% for received responses and 30.2% for valid ones.

10

150

11

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The 231 valid replies to our research on the business executives and managers of the 500 largest Portuguese companies provided us with a first analysis of some demographic characteristics that define this sample and frame the study in a wider and broader perspective. The high number of replies received, representing a reply rate of 30%, not only attests to the importance and relevance attributed to this investigation itself, but also guarantees that our study is representative. The business executives in our sample have an average age of 50 and on average 25 years of professional experience. Therefore, they are individuals with the maturity and knowledge that comes with a long career. As they were selected from the managers of the largest Portuguese companies, in our opinion this represents a normal and acceptable result, because to achieve a top place in one of these companies it is necessary to demonstrate competence over several years of activity. As for the gender of those questioned the sample presents a predominance of males. Of the 224 that indicated gender, just 20 (less than 9%) were female, while the overwhelming majority was male. From the analysis of the data gathered from the Portuguese executives and managers who often deal with wide-ranging negotiating situations, we intend to identify the determining traits of a successful negotiation and consequently, to define the profile of the successful negotiator. Tables 3 and 4 synthesize the views of Portuguese executives relative to the importance of the six identified communication traits, rated by a scale of 5 points (from 1 not important at all to 5- very important). The main conclusion we draw from the analysis of these data is that the respondents generally regard communication traits as very important. We can also conclude that the most important communication skill, according to the opinion of executives from the 500 largest Portuguese companies, is the ability to know how-to-listen (average 4.65 of 5), although the remaining communication skills are also perceived as very important. The exception is the

11

150

12

ability to communicate by non-verbal language. Regarding this characteristic, the surveyed give it a moderate importance, with some divergence of opinion (standard deviation of .96). TABLE 3 COMMUNICATION VARIABLES STATISTICS
CHARACTERISTIC 1. Listening skill 2. Ability to form an argument 3. Ability to persuade others 4. Ability to express thoughts verbally 5. Debating skill 6. Ability to communicate non-verbally CASES 231 231 231 231 231 231
AVG.

MEDIAN 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

MODE 5 5 5 5 5 3

ST. DEVIAT. .52 .66 .66 .63 .69 .96

4.65 4.54 4.52 4.42 4.34 3.49

TABLE 4 COMMUNICATION VARIABLES FREQUENCIES

(1) CHARACTERISTIC n 1. Listening skill 2. Ability to form an argument 3. Ability to persuade others 4. Ability to express thoughts verbally 5. Debating skill 6. Ability to communicate non10 verbally 4% 16 7% 88 38% 85 37% 32 14% 3.49 29 12% 94 41% 108 47% 4.34 18 8% 99 43% 114 49% 4.42 1 1 % 1% 1% n 2 % 1% n 5 10 16 % 2% 4% 7% n 70 76 76 % 30% 33% 33% n 156 142 138 % 68% 62% 60% 4.65 4.54 4.52 (2) (3) (4) (5)
AVG.

From analyzing the frequency table (table 4) we confirm our initial conclusions. The great majority of respondents attribute a rather high importance to communication skills (98% to listening skill, 95% to ability to form an argument, 93% to ability to persuade, 92% to ability to express thoughts verbally and 88% to ability to debate). The exception is, as we

12

150

13

saw above, the ability to communicate non-verbally. Relative to this, opinions are divided, some considering that non-verbal language is not very important (49%), while others state that, in reality, non-verbal communication has influence in negotiation (51%) although only 14% perceive it as very important. According to Portuguese managers, the ability to communicate effectively is very important in negotiating. This conclusion seems to confirm that, also to Portuguese executives, communication is the heart of the negotiating process. It is through communication that negotiators make their offers and their demands, attempt to identify the interests and motivations of the other side in order to reconcile their differences, try to convince and influence their opponents with their ideas and points of view and, above all, agree on the terms of a solution that will resolve the conflict of interests. As a result, all the traits that improve the quality of communication are significant in improving the negotiating process and in obtaining better outcomes. These include (1) knowing how to listen actively, to gather data about the interests and motivations of the other party; (2) the ability to form arguments; (3) the ability to persuade, to convince the opponent of own viewpoints; (4) the ability to express clearly; and (5) the ability to debate, to create a dynamic of exchange of questions and answers with the other side of the table. The only trait that seems to divide the opinions of managers is the ability to communicate non-verbally, that is, the capacity to communicate through body language, gestures, signs, tone and pitch of voice, posture, silence, among others. In spite of the literature recognition of the importance of this trait since it allows, for instance, to win the trust of the other party (be by eye-to-eye contact, be by close proximity) or to detect suspicious behavior (anxiety and nervousness), the surveyed are not unanimous in believing that this characteristic has a critical impact in the negotiating process (only 14% consider it very important). It should be noted that because we questioned executives of the 500 largest Portuguese companies, we can admit that the influence of power

13

150

14

in negotiation may determine or explain the less significant influence of this variable in top executives.

COMMUNICATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS To understand the existing relationship between the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their perceptions about the communication traits that single out an effective negotiator, we cross-analyzed the individual traits and the results of the rating of the significance of communication traits required in effective business negotiators.

GENDER A first analysis took place about the impact of the respondents gender in their perceptions about the importance of communication characteristics in negotiation. As referred above, because our sample included just 9% of women (20 answers) the results should be accepted cautiously. The results of the variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test are shown in table 5. TABLE 5 GENDER
COMMUNICATION TRAITS 1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill
AVG. MEN AVG. WOMEN

ONE-WAY ANOVA (SIG.)

KRUSKAL WALLIS (SIG.)

(204 RESPONSES)

(20 RESPONSES)

4.54 4.35 4.50 4.41 3.41 4.64

4.55 4.20 4.60 4.55 4.00 4.75

0.945 0.350 0.546 0.351 0.008 0.359

0.871 0.310 0.764 0.340 0.009 0.395

14

150

15

Relatively to the six communication characteristics examined, the only statistically significant differences are detected in the area of non-verbal communication skills (Kruskal Wallis with sig. .0009). Apparently, women place a higher value in non-verbal communication and give more importance to the detection of non-explicit signals such as posture, eye contact or silence, among others, which may lead to a greater trust or distrust between the parties. This result seems to confirm the greater feminine sensitivity towards others, giving a larger importance to all the non-verbal communication that takes place during the negotiating process (Hall, 1984; Rosenthal and DePaulo, 1979b).

NEGOTIATION TRAINING Training in negotiation can also trigger changes in the perceptions of the respondents, namely in the importance attributed to the observed communication characteristics. Of the 221 answers about frequency of negotiation training, 121 (55% of the sample) are affirmative. Table 6 shows the results of average importance of each one of the traits in relation to the negotiation training of the inquired, as well as the respective variance analysis and the non- parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. TABLE 6 NEGOTIATION TRAINING
COMMUNICATION TRAITS 1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill
AVG. TRAINED AVG. NOT TRAINED

ONE-WAY ANOVA (SIG.)

KRUSKAL WALLIS (SIG.)

(121 RESPONSES)

(100 RESPONSES)

4.54 4.31 4.42 4.40 3.36 4.78

4.54 4.39 4.62 4.45 3.58 4.50

0.975 0.375 0.028 0.534 0.168 0.000

0.453 0.507 0.039 0.683 0.053 0.000

15

150

16

The main difference resides in the importance that those who had already attended training sessions attribute to listening ability. Training helps to emphasize the importance of perceiving the opposing perspective as a determining variable in negotiation, both in competitive and collaborative situations. Therefore, more than trying to dissuade the other, it is important to understand their perspective and to listen to them actively. It is by listening that one gathers information about the interests and motivations of the other party, which will allow reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement. However, in spite of the statistically significant difference we came across, both groups consider this skill fundamental in a successful negotiator (average of 4.78 and 4.5 out of 5). The other difference lies in the greater importance given to the negotiators ability to persuade others by executives who didnt attend training sessions. Here, the results are inverted. Training may have influenced this result considering that training greatly emphasizes the preparation for a negotiation. Therefore, the surveyed that had already attended training sessions in this area may have minimized the importance of persuasiveness in benefit of a good preparation. That is, they may have considered that the success of a negotiator relies more on preparation than on the ability to persuade the other party of own ideas and convictions.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE The professional experience of the inquired is another characteristic that may influence their perceptions. As we saw before, the average professional experience in our sample is approximately 25 years; therefore, we subdivided the group into two groups, one with individuals with under 25 years and another above 25 years of professional experience. The results are those presented in table 7.

16

150

17

TABLE 7 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

AVG. AVG. ONE-WAY EXP.< 25 ANOS (102 RESPNSES) EXP.> 25 ANOS ANOVA (SIG.) (110 RESPONSES) (SIG.) KRUSKAL WALLIS

COMMUNICATION TRAITS

1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill

4.48 4.26 4.50 4.41 3.51 4.55

4.57 4.38 4.52 4.44 3.49 4.77

0.323 0.227 0.844 0.775 0.888 0.028

0.219 0.193 0.959 0.567 0.933 0.031

From the results shown in table 7 we can conclude that generally the executives with the longest professional experience give the same importance to the communication traits required from negotiators. The only skill where significant statistical differences arise (test of F sig. = .028) is the listening ability. The most experienced negotiators value more the ability to listen than the least experienced ones (4.77 average versus 4.55). This result, similar to that of negotiation training, leads us to believe that professional experience and training have the same impact in recognizing the importance of perceiving the other partys perspective. To negotiators, listening actively to the other party, questioning them when there are doubts and summarizing the main ideas in their own words to confirm their interpretation of the main ideas, is a source of competitive advantage. These results confirm the relevance of this skill to the success of a negotiation.

17

150

18

INDUSTRY Finally, we intended to establish if executives from different industries perceive differently the importance of the communication traits required from negotiators. In our study we opted for a division into five industries: 1 Manufacturing (50 responses, 24.5% of sample), 2 Commerce (68 responses, 33.3% of sample), 3 Services (47 responses, 23% of sample), 4 Telecommunications, New Technologies and Media (18 responses, 8% of sample) and 5 Construction (21 responses, 10.3% of sample). This separation appears to be the most accurate, considering that all these areas have a different dynamic that may, or not, influence the negotiation process and, consequently, require different skills from the negotiators. The results are those presented in table 8. TABLE 8 INDUSTRY
COMMUNICATION TRAITS 1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill ONE-WAY ANOVA (SIG.) 0.812 0.992 0.233 0.764 0.281 0.312 KRUSKAL WALLIS (SIG.) 0.898 0.994 0.122 0.857 0.199 0.249

As we can verify, for each one of the traits the level of significance of F test is higher than .05. The non-existence of statistically significant differences between the perceptions of individuals from different industries leads us to conclude that independently of the sector of activity, the perceived communication skills of a superior negotiator are the same. That is, the communication skills that define an effective negotiator has absolutely no relationship to his/her industry.

18

150

19

COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATING STYLES: COMPETITIVE VS. COLLABORATIVE The second part of the questionnaire used a set of statements of negotiating attitudes and behaviors for which we asked the agreement or disagreement of the respondents. The purpose was to identify the respondents perceived correct negotiation posture in different negotiating situations. More specifically, our objective was to identify the negotiation strategies more widely adopted and/or defended by executives of the largest Portuguese companies, in order to establish relationships between those styles and the selected communication variables.

TABLE 8 NEGOTIATING STYLES OF PORTUGUESE EXECUTIVES

FACTOR LOADINGS The best outcome in a negotiation is one that is fair to all parties. Most of the negotiation results can be reached through cooperation between the parties. Honesty and openness are necessary to reach an equitable agreement. The most important thing in a negotiation is to win. A good negotiator should be aggressive, i.e., he/she should take the initiative if he/she 0.652 wants to accomplish his/her own objectives. An unanswered threat will be interpreted by the counterpart as a sign of weakness. Principles are a very nice thing to have, but sometimes a negotiator needs to 0.433 compromise his/her values and principles to achieve his/her objectives. A negotiator should remain expressionless (poker faced): one must not show ones 0.432 emotions until the deal is concluded. 0.605 0.842 0.811 0.688 -0.303 0.681

From the factorial analysis of principal components of the data obtained regarding eight negotiating situations it was possible to identify two typical negotiating styles (see table

19

150

20

8). Factor 1, which we designated Collaborative Style, combines the variables associated with a cooperative attitude from negotiators, namely openness, trust and cooperation to guarantee a fair and satisfactory outcome for both parties. This type of approach requires from negotiators not that they maximize their own individual outcomes but a joint effort in finding a solution which, once conflicts of interests are solved, maximizes the results of both parties. The negative loading attributed to negotiators competitiveness and the desire to win supports our interpretation. On its turn, factor 2 (Competitive Style) accumulates the variables that characterize a competitive negotiating approach, which are competitiveness and aggressiveness. Two additional variables emerge, of less weight but confirming this interpretation: (1) control of emotions and (2) the preoccupation to maximize results, even if at the cost of compromising some principles. Once identified the variables that characterize negotiating collaborative and competitive styles, we proceeded to perform the clusters analysis that enabled us to find homogeneous groups of individuals in their approach to negotiation. From this analysis we obtained two groups: the first one with 162 individuals and the second with 69. Cluster 1 shows a negative average regarding factor 1 (average -.206) and positive regarding factor 2 (average .484). The opposite takes place with cluster 2 (average of factor 1 is .460 and average of factor 2 is 1.079). We believe that the individuals that compose cluster 1 are the most competitive, and those of cluster 2 the most collaborative. In table 9 we illustrate the results of the average importance of each one of the communication traits, relative to the negotiating profile of the surveyed, as well as the respective variance analysis and the nonparametric test of Kruskal-Wallis.

20

150

21

TABLE 9 NEGOTIATING STYLE (COMPETITIVE VS. COLLABORATIVE)

GROUP 1 AVG. GROUP 2 AVG. ONE-WAY COMPETITIVE (162 ANSWERS) COLLABORATIVE ANOVA (SIG.) (69 ANSWERS) (SIG.) KRUSKAL WALLIS

AGGRESSIVE TRAITS

1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill

4.61 4.47 4.54 4.41 3.48 4.49

4.38 4.12 4.46 4.43 3.52 4.80

0.041 0.002 0.445 0.764 0.738 0.027

0.037 0.004 0.657 0.767 0.978 0.019

As we can observe, there are statistically significant differences in three of the six studied communication traits. The most competitive negotiators give a greater importance both to the ability to form an argument and the ability to debate. This result confirms, in our view, the definition itself of a competitive negotiator, that is, the greater concern with imposing his/her points of view and a lesser concern with the opposing interests. Curiously, although they place a higher value the ability to persuade, the difference is not statistically significant. Lastly, the listening skill is more valued by the collaborative ones. It is, actually, almost unanimously considered by them to be a very important trait (average of 4.8 of 5). This result seems reasonable considering that it is by listening that negotiators can understand the opinions of others, feel their emotions and their anxieties, something that is indispensable in reaching an advantageous agreement to both parties. This typically collaborative approach has just been supported by the results.

21

150

22

COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATING ETHICS The ethical conduct of managers in negotiations may also influence their perceptions of the importance of communication traits. Therefore, we questioned the respondents about a series of negotiating tactics with the objective of identifying different ethical approaches. After the factorial analysis of principal components of the data gathered regarding nine negotiating tactics, it was possible to subdivide them into two sets of typical negotiating tactics (see table 10).

TABLE 10 ETHICAL CONDUCT OF PORTUGUESE EXECUTIVES

FACTOR LOADINGS
Leading the opponent into error by distorting important information is perfectly acceptable as long as the intended outcome is reached. Hiding and/or omitting pertinent information are ethically accepted attitudes in a negotiating context. Honesty means openness, sincerity, telling all and not withholding pertinent information to an opponent during a negotiation. It is not reproachable to lie to an opponent in a negotiating situation as long as you dont get caught. Bluffing is a mandatory behavior in a successful negotiation. There is no need for a negotiator to be completely open towards the opponent. In negotiation, as in life, what they dont know wont hurt them. Fear is a stronger persuader than trust. Making an initial offer that is so high (or low) that may seriously compromise the trust and points of reference of the opponent is an acceptable negotiating tactic. Imposing personal discomfort on an opponent is not too high price to pay for success in negotiation.

0.809

0.747

-0.721

0.627

0.483

0.451

0.735

0.643

0.609

22

150

23

The first extracted factor is associated to ethical consideration about the sharing of information among negotiators. All included variables have in common a posture that translates into manipulation and distortion of the information transmitted to the other party. Consequently, the high significance of variables such as distortions, lies, omissions and bluffing when sharing information with the other party. Reinforcing this idea, the negative weight of honesty as meaning sincerity and openness towards the other party. This result is logical since the individuals who consider ethically acceptable to lie, omit and distort could not share the opinion that honesty means total openness and sharing of information with the opponent. For all these reasons, we have named this factor Deceptive Tactics. To these respondents honesty is not synonymous of complete sharing of available information, since their concept of ethical negotiating behavior includes lying, bluffing, etc. as acceptable negotiating tactics. On the other hand, the second factor includes tactics relative to an aggressive negotiating approach, that is, what some authors consider to be traditional competitive bargaining strategies (Lewicki and Robinson, 1998). Two examples are the use of forceful tactics (such as fear) as a negotiating weapon, or offers excessively high or low that may compromise the trust of the opponent. Usually, this negotiating style causes discomfort to the opponent. For all these reasons we designate this factor Tough Negotiating Tactics. Afterward, we conducted a clusters analysis with the purpose of finding homogeneous groups of individuals regarding their concept of ethical negotiating conduct. The results revealed the existence of three groups: one with 95 individuals and two others with 68 each. The three groups have distinct behaviors regarding the two identified factors. Group 1 consists of the individuals who consider that using tough negotiating tactics (average of factor 2 = .878) is an acceptable behavior, even if that implies causing personal discomfort to the opponent. The other two do not agree with the use of this type of tactics. As far as sharing

23

150

24

information with the other side, group 1 maintains a neutral stance; they are not adamantly against or pro the use of tactics of deception. Group 3 distinguishes from the others because they consider that it is ethic to use this kind of tactics. They believe that an attitude of little openness is perfectly acceptable and that, therefore, it is legitimate to use tactics such as bluffing, lying or distortion of information to increase their advantage towards their opponent or to devalue their negotiating position. Group 2 includes those individuals who consider that the use of any of these tactics is reprehensible. That is, they believe that it is not ethical to use tactics that manipulate information or that are too aggressive towards the other party. Table 11 summarizes the profile of each one of the established groups.

TABLE 11 CLUSTER ANALYSIS

CLUSTER 1 2 3 NO. OF CASES 95 68 68 TOUGH TACTICS Ethical Non ethical Non ethical MISINFORMATION TACTICS Neutral Non ethical Ethical DESCRIPTION Tough Honest Deceitful

We can verify that we identified three groups of individuals, one of 95 and the other two of 68. Cluster 1 is composed of tough negotiators, who consider ethical the use of aggressive negotiating tactics such as threats or blackmail. Cluster 2 is composed of the most open and trustworthy negotiators. They believe that both the use of aggressive tactics and misinformation are not ethical. Lastly, cluster 3 is composed of the deceitful individuals. These, while considering that aggressiveness is not ethical negotiation behavior, believe that is acceptable to misinform, lie, bluff or omit pertinent information to their negotiating rival. In table 12 we present the results of the variance analysis and of the Kruskal-Wallis test regarding each one of the clusters.

24

150

25

TABLE 12 NEGOTIATION ETHICS (TOUGH VS. HONEST VS. DECEITFUL)

GROUP 2 AVG. GROUP 2 AVG. HONEST (68 ANSWERS) GROUP 3 AVG. ONE-WAY ANOVA AGGRESSIVE (95 ANSWERS) DECEITFUL (SIG.) (68 ANSWERS)

AGGRESSIVENESS TRAITS

1- Ability to form an argument 2- Debating skill 3- Ability to persuade others 4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 6- Listening skill

4.47 4.27 4.46 4.34 3.45 4.55

4.49 4.38 4.50 4.47 3.47 4.82

4.69 4.40 4.60 4.47 3.56 4.58

0.084 0.454 0.408 0.288 0.774 0.006

We can conclude that, out of all the studied communication variables, the only one where we find statistically significant differences between the groups demonstrating different ethical behaviors is in listening ability (sig. = .006). The executives belonging to the honesty cluster value this characteristic more highly than the rest. This result is perfectly understandable since knowing how to listen fits into the profile of a negotiator who is totally concerned with the clarity and total disclosure of the real interests and motivations of both parts. The fact that we dont find statistically meaningful differences in the remaining variables seems to corroborate the idea that, independently of the ethical posture adopted, communication variables are always highly important, regardless of the desired objectives.

CONCLUSION Confirming some of the conclusions of prior studies about the importance of communication skills in obtaining the best results in any negotiating process, our study of the most able and experienced executives of Portugal demonstrated that the variables most

25

150

26

directly connected to communication are considered among the most important out of the 52 traits examined. The six communication variables we studied are classified in the following relative positions: Listening skill (1st), Ability to form an argument (5th), Ability to persuade others (6th), Ability to express thoughts verbally (9th), Debating skill (15th) and Ability to communicate non-verbally (41st). It is worth emphasizing that Listening skill was considered the most important among the 52 traits we studied, and this result proves that knowing to listen is a fundamental skill for any executive performing in complex and competitive business environments. As Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) support, the need to listen is fundamental, particularly in very stressful situations, such as a negotiation. In the present study we attempted also to understand the relationships between the importance of the referred six traits in the profile of a superior negotiator and some individual characteristics of the surveyed executives. Listening skill is the trait considered as the most important out of all that are desirable in a negotiator, and where we found the most significant statistical differences between the trained and non-trained, and those with the longest and shortest amount of professional experience. This result reveals, in our understanding, the need to try to provide all the executives, from early on, with a superior active listening ability in order to empower their individual negotiation competence and that of their organizations. The inexistence of significant differences in the importance of all the communication variables throughout different industries further enhances this conclusion. A more in-depth study about the different relevance that female and male executives assign to non-verbal communication skills is warranted. While it was considered one of the least important variables in our study, it seems to be of a significantly higher importance to the female executives than to the male ones. This may uncover new research clues towards improving our knowledge about the relationship between communication and negotiation processes. The study conducted by Gruenfeld and Berger (2002), which tries to analyze the

26

150

27

influence of power in communication, appears to be a very enriching approach in understanding this issue. Finally, we concluded that the importance attributed to the communication variables is substantially more influenced by the negotiating approach of the respondents than by their ethical behavior. In fact, we saw that competitive negotiators tend to value more the ability to from arguments and to debate than the collaborative negotiators, even considering the ability to form an argument as the main communication trait. On the contrary, collaborative negotiators consider knowing how to listen as the main communication trait, giving it a much larger importance than the competitive managers. The concept of negotiating ethics of executives doesnt seem to affect the importance they attribute to the communication variables studied, with the exception of the ability to listen. This trait is considered significantly more important by truthful negotiators than by the aggressive and the deceiving ones.

27

150

28

REFERENCES Axtell, R. E. (1991). Gestures: dos and taboos of body language around the world. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of Type A behavior and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, pp. 281-296. Chatman, J., Putnam, L., & Solnak, H. (1991). Integrating Communication and Negotiation Research. In M. Bazerman, R. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 3, pp. 139-164. Greenwich: JAI Press. DePaulo, B., & Friedman, H. (1998). Non-verbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th Ed.) NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Ertel, D. (2000). Turning negotiation into a corporate capability. In Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, pp. 101-127. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fisher, R., & Davis, W. (1987). Six basic interpersonal skills for a negotiators repertoire. Negotiation Journal, April 1987, pp: 117-122. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Como Conduzir uma Negociao ? (Portuguese edition of Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in). Porto: Edies Asa. Gruenfeld, D., & Berger, G. (2002). Power and communication: Semantic vs. pragmatic messages. Working- Paper. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Salt Lake City, USA. Hall, J. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

28

150

29

Hall, J. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of nonverbal communication. In P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender: Review of personality and social psychology (vol. 7, pp. 177-200). Newbury Park: Sage. Hammond, J. S. (1979). Characteristics of an effective negotiator. Harvard Business School Note #179-029. Karrass, C. (1968). A study of the relationship of negotiator skill and power as determinants of negotiation outcome. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California. Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2000a). Negotiation (3rd Ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Editions. Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2000b). Negotiation: Readings, exercises and cases (3rd Ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Editions. Lewicki, R., & Robinson, R. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, pp. 665-682. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Nierenberg, G. (1976). The Complete Negotiator. New York: Nierenberg & Zeif Publishers. Olekalns, M., Smith, P., & Walsh, T. (1996). The process of negotiation: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, pp: 68-77. Putnam, L, & Poole, M. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An

interdisciplinary perspective (pp: 549-599). Newbury Park: Sage. Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979a). Sex diferences in accomodation in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication: Individual differences (pp. 68-103). Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain.

29

150

30

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979b). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (2), 273-285. Shell, G. (1999). Expert negotiating. Harvard Management Communication Letter, December 1999, pp: 3-4. Shell, G. (1999). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. London: Penguin. Thompson, L. (2001). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle Rive: Prentice-Hall. Tutzauer, F. (1992). The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In L. Putnam & M. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp: 67-82). Newbury Park: Sage. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.

30