TASK 2

Question:-

How might personality, gender and culture affect the negotiation process?

1.0 Culture

The impact of culture on the negotiating process has intrigued both scholars and practitioners.
(e.g. Weiss 1994, Faure and Sjostedt 1993; Binnendijk 1987; Fisher 1980; Graham, J. L. et. al.
1988; Campbell et al. 1988). Their research and observations indicate fairly clearly that
negotiation practices differ from culture to culture and that culture can influence "negotiating
style, the way persons from different cultures conduct themselves in negotiating sessions.

Definitions of culture are as numerous and often as vague as definitions of negotiation

itself. (Moran and Stripp 1991, p. 43-56. Zartman 1993, p. 19). Some scholars would confine the
concept of culture to the realm of ideas, feelings, and thoughts. For example, one working
definition offered by two experts is that "Culture is a set of shared and enduring meanings,
values, and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic, and other groups and orient their behavior."
(Faure and Sjostedt 1993, p.3) Others would have culture also encompass behavior patterns and
institutions common to a given group or community. E. Adamson Hoebel, a noted
anthropologist, defined culture as "the integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are
characteristic of the members of a society and which are not the result of biological inheritance."
(Hoebel 1972, p.7).

It seeks to identify certain basic elements in negotiating style and to determine how they are
reflected in various cultures. The great diversity of the world's cultures makes it impossible for
any negotiator, no matter how skilled and experienced, to understand fully all the cultures that he
or she may encounter. How then should an executive prepare to cope with culture in making
deals in Singapore this week and Seoul the next? One approach is to identify important areas
where cultural differences may arise during the negotiation process. Knowledge of those factors
may help a negotiator to understand a counterpart from another culture and to anticipate possible
sources of friction and misunderstandings. Toward this end, scholars have developed a variety of
frameworks and checklists that may be applied cross culturally. ( e.g. Weiss 1985; Moran and
Stripp, 1991; Salacuse 1991).

Different cultures affect how individuals will behave in international negotiations. One's
own assumptions appear to be normal and realistic, because they are familiar and unquestioned
when negotiating domestically (Kimmel, 180). Therefore, to some extent the negotiators are
prisoners of their culture, which in turn act as a regulator of social interaction (Faure 2). This can
lead to a sense of naivety that people are pretty much the same everywhere.

The cultural differences that must be taken into account may turn out to be as important
as that found in certain contrasting sets of values that determine the hierarchy of negotiating
objectives themselves, or as trivial as behavior mannerisms or non-verbal cues that subtly block
confidence and trust. Even gestures and other non-verbal behavior may contribute to a
psychological unease that makes communication more difficult (Fisher, 7). To understand these
variables further illustration is required.

Though we live in a globalized world where culture seems irrelevant as international ties
increase, the battle for cross-cultural negotiation consensus is far from over. Indeed, as the circle
of international actors widens to include individuals from all walks of life, the possibility of
misunderstanding and miscommunication may actually increase (Cohen, 7). Discourse among
national cultures vary and reveal that a large body of opinion exists within nations. Here national
ideology and tradition are linked with the tone of the governing body, determines the role of
culture in international negotiations (Lang, 41).

While there are certain differences in negotiation style that are attributable to culture, much of
what we explain in terms of culture can probably be traced more accurately to an amalgam of
culture, situation, personality, and interaction. But because we want to believe in the
overwhelming important of culture, negotiators tend to view behaviors selectively, through the
prism of their stereotypical perceptions and biases (Rubin, 98).
 Therefore, cultural factors may hinder relations in general, and even complicate, prolong,
and even frustrate particular negations where there otherwise exists an identifiable basis for
cooperation. However, the skill and experience of diplomats will often prevent incipient
misunderstandings from getting out of hand. To use cross-cultural approaches effectively
requires training, education and experience to discover how to get beyond ones own cultural
stereotypes and misconceptions (Kimmel, 191). By providing training in cultural diplomacy,
many of the significant challenges revealed thus far could be prevented. Without such training,
international negotiators are likely to rely on their own subjective cultural assumptions. They
will minimize rather than take account of cultural differences, attribute motivations typical in
their common culture rather than empathizing with other cultures, ignore rather than explore
values and assumptions, and essentially negotiate with themselves

2.0 Gender

Do men and women negotiate differently? Considering there is an almost universal assumption
that men and women are different in more than just the biological sense, it seems that the answer
would be a simple yes. However, the question is much more complicated than it first appears.
This field of study is filled with contradictory research results, a wide spectrum of theories, and a
deeply-felt sense that there are, or at least should be, answers to questions like these. It is
commonly believed that in formal (i.e. competitive) negotiations women are poor negotiators
because they are more cooperative and emotional than their more aggressive, competitive male
counterparts. However, the characteristics that supposedly make women poor negotiators in the
formal context are the very skills that are required of a successful collaborative negotiator in the
alternate (or appropriate) dispute resolution setting. This suggests that due to gender
differences, men should do well in formal negotiations, but poorly in collaboration while the
opposite should be true for women. While such a distinction seems simple, research on gender
and negotiations is inconclusive. Formal negotiation research suggests that gender is not a highly
predictive variable and that power is the predominant factor in determining whether an
individual will be a strong competitive negotiator. Collaborative negotiation studying on the
other hand shows gender as a powerful predictor of negotiation behaviors. We suggest that the
benefits of collaborative negotiating are only apparent when both parties are acting
collaboratively. This benefit disappears when one party is collaborative and the other is
competitive. Therefore it may be that when a woman is in a formal negotiation setting where
competitive behaviors are expected, or when the other party is negotiating in a strictly
competitive manner, she will adopt the competitive approach because she knows from
experience that collaboration will be fruitless in that situation. Therefore, by adopting a
competitive male approach in formal negotiations the gender differences disappear and other
factors such as power become predominant. While this theory may explain the contradictory
research results in formal and collaborative negotiations, it is problematic in that it only explains
female negotiation behavior. If this theory is correct, then women are flexible negotiators and can
adapt to different circumstances by assuming the prescribed negotiation behaviors for each
situation. But male negotiation behavior remains unexplained. The answer may be that men are
simply much more rigid than women and use competitive techniques in all situations regardless
of the appropriate behavior that is required. However, it is unreasonable to conclude that women
are just better collaborators than men, and when it is required they are flexible enough to be
equally good formal negotiators. Realistically men should also be able to be good collaborative
negotiators when the situation requires it, even if it is against their natural tendencies
(references to gender tendencies or inclinations refers to gender socialized behaviors). It is
suggested here that men have the ability to collaboratively negotiate just as well as women but
there may be several reasons why mens collaborative skills are not commonly observed. First,
men have been socialized to behave competitively and aggressively; negotiations are for the
most part framed in competitive terms and for a man to step outside of this framework may be
risky. Others may perceive him to be weak, a sissy, incompetent, or feminine. Another reason a
mans ability to work collaboratively is not often observed may be the way in which negotiation
skills are measured. Because of the competitive frame for negotiations, success is often measured
in terms of competitiveness the more competitive the negotiator the more successful he or she
is. Those studies that do measure collaborative negotiation skills typically do so indirectly. That
is, researchers may present a negotiation setting which may be resolved both competitively and
collaboratively and then observe who negotiates in what way. Since men may not be inclined to
negotiate collaboratively they will behave in a competitive fashion. Women on the other hand
may lean towards their tendency for behaving collaboratively, or if they feel the situation
requires it, they may switch to competitive negotiating. These studies which present negotiation-
style options are not designed to measure success in collaborative negotiations; what is measured
is who negotiates collaboratively and who does not. The aim of this paper is to clarify some of
the confusion surrounding the issue of gender and negotiation with a focus on whether there are
gender differences in negotiations. This writing will begin with a brief outline of what gender
differences are presumed to exist in traditional or formal competitive negotiations followed by a
short summary of the theoretical perspectives on gender differences in competitive negotiations.
This will be followed by a description of the collaborative alternative (or appropriate) dispute
resolution approach to negotiations and the skills which are required in this setting. Next
empirical evidence of gender differences will be reviewed with a comparison of research in
formal versus collaborative negotiations. Finally, there will be an attempt to explain and
reconcile the conflicting evidence of gender differences.

The use of negotiation is an important tool to resolve conflicts. The outcomes of a

negotiation can be said to result from the personal characteristics of each person, the
interpersonal relationships of the participants and situational factors. One important factor is
gender. There have been a countless number of studies on gender differences in negotiation, but
generally the results are uncertain. Competitive negotiation research and theories maintain that
power is a significant predictor of behavior and success in negotiation while research in
collaborative negotiations maintains that there are strong gender differences. However, these
differences can be reconciled. Women may naturally be inclined to negotiate collaboratively but
because of experience in competitive negotiations they have learned to be flexible and negotiate
both ways depending on the circumstances. Men may be naturally inclined to negotiate
competitively, and while they may have the skills to collaborate, the way in which negotiations
are framed may be the reason mens collaborative skills are not so readily observed in research
and negotiation theory. Admittedly, the recent research cited above suggests that there may be
some truth in some of the stereotypes, at least under certain conditions. Specifically men may be
more inclined to behave competitively and women more collaboratively. But these inclinations
are nothing more than the result of gender socialization and are not strict rules governing gender
behavior. Moreover, more men and women are breaking these gender stereotypes everyday and
behaving in non-gender congruent ways. This is why it is so important to recognize that
negotiations are typically framed, taught, researched and theorized from the perspective that
gender-socialized male characteristics are superior to so-called female characteristics. Not only
does this devalue women, but it traps men into masculine frames that deny them the ability to
explore alternative and more productive forms of negotiation. His goal then should be to shift the
negotiation perspective away from male-female characteristics to situation-appropriate skills that
can be used successfully by both men and women. Both genders can be highly skilled at any type
of negotiation; it is not gender, but societys frame that holds us back.

3.0 Personality

Effective communication is essential in a negotiation. Sincerity is the power behind the delivery
of a point or proposal during a dispute resolution settlement conference. Using your natural
personality to color or add dimension to your delivery is your best means of making your
statements come across as sincere. Getting comfortable with your innate personal style will help
you become more believable; more trustworthy in the eyes of others.

Everyone has different personality traits. Some are hard-driving, get to the meat of the
matter forces. Others are more relaxed, preferring to develop relationships before focusing on the
issues. Still others use humor as a defensive or offensive tactic.

How do you come to understand your basic personality traits? Observe how you act
around those you are comfortable with; family, close friends, school chums. Are you the one
cracking the jokes? Do they look to you to decide what to do? Are you always trying to keep
everyone happy? How you act with these groups is a mirror as to your natural personality. You
are relaxed and at ease. It is this personality that is "you".

Knowing that you have a primary personality does not mean that it is the only one you
can deploy during a negotiation. But it does let you understand your most sincere delivery style.
As your mix the four negotiating styles in any negotiating situation you should find that you shift
back to your primary style when trying to make an especially important point or close a deal. It is
the strong under-current of sincerity you emit in this mode that signals the other person that this
is your final concession, your highest bid or the point at which you are about to walk away from
the table.
In business perspective, we use buyer and sales man to understand how personality affects
negotiation process in this situation. People negotiate differently and behave differently during
the negotiation process. We can observe different styles of negotiation and how different types of
behavior can affect the outcome of negotiations. In commercial negotiations, some people
negotiate quickly and take risks others take their time and try to avoid risk. Some buyers are very
loyal, others will automatically shop around. Some negotiators can be quite intimidating to the
point of being rude; others are quite passive and easily manipulated. This makes selling and
negotiating a real challenge. To negotiate with all these different buyer types we need to be able
to adapt our behavior and be flexible in our approach. To begin this process we can look at two
aspects of buyer behavior; assertiveness and responsiveness. People who are assertive are
confident and know what they want. They are not afraid to put forward opinions and are willing
to listen to the opinions of others. They are not afraid of conflict and will be more than happy to
argue their case. People who are highly assertive can be seen as being aggressive while people
who lack assertiveness are often passive and get taken advantage of. There are times when it is
appropriate to be more or less assertive and we need to recognize when these times are.
Responsiveness means the extent to which people are willing to respond to us and our questions.
Some people are highly responsive and will give lots of information about themselves, their
problems and needs. Others are unwilling or unable to respond in this way and we see these
people often as being negative or difficult. We are all different and some of us are naturally
assertive and some of us are not. Salespeople tend to be quite responsive, but sometimes we lack
assertion. An example of this is during negotiations. When customers put us under pressure to
reduce prices or give discounts we find it difficult and uncomfortable and worry about damaging
the relationship with the buyer.