IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i6d10.1007_s10726-012-9306-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Initiating Negotiations: The Role of Machiavellianism, Risk Propensity, and Bargaining Power

Author

Listed:
  • Ilias Kapoutsis

    (Athens University of Economics and Business)

  • Roger J. Volkema

    (American University and IAG/PUC-Rio de Janeiro)

  • Andreas G. Nikolopoulos

    (Athens University of Economics and Business)

Abstract

Initiation is an often-overlooked yet essential stage of the negotiation process. This study examined the effects of two measures of personality—Machiavellianism and risk propensity—and relative bargaining power (as based on multiple situational factors) on three phases of the initiation process—engaging a counterpart, making a request, and optimizing the request. Using a multi-scenario approach, one hundred fifteen participants indicated their initiation preferences for three distinct negotiations. The results of repeated measures ANOVAs indicate that bargaining power influences an individual’s decision to initiate negotiations. In addition, those high in Machiavellianism choose to initiate negotiations even when relative bargaining power is low, whereas those high in risk propensity tend to optimize their requests. The implications of these findings for practitioners and future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilias Kapoutsis & Roger J. Volkema & Andreas G. Nikolopoulos, 2013. "Initiating Negotiations: The Role of Machiavellianism, Risk Propensity, and Bargaining Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1081-1101, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9306-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9306-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9306-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-012-9306-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Matthew V. Champagne, 2000. "The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 471-491, November.
    2. Carr, Jon C. & Sequeira, Jennifer M., 2007. "Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(10), pages 1090-1098, October.
    3. Liu, Leigh Anne & Friedman, Raymond A. & Chi, Shu-cheng, 2005. "‘Ren Qing” versus the ‘Big Five’ The Role of Culturally Sensitive Measures of Individual Difference in Distributive Negotiations," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 225-247, July.
    4. De Cannière, Marie Hélène & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Geuens, Maggie, 2009. "Relationship Quality and the Theory of Planned Behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 82-92, January.
    5. Horton, Keith S., 2003. "Strategy, practice, and the dynamics of power," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 121-126, February.
    6. Huber, Vandra L. & Neale, Margaret A., 1986. "Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiator performance and subsequent goal setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 342-365, December.
    7. Smith, Anne & Houghton, Susan M. & Hood, Jacqueline N. & Ryman, Joel A., 2006. "Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 622-629, May.
    8. Leigh Anne Liu & Raymond A. Friedman & Shu-cheng Chi, 2005. "'Ren Qing' versus the 'Big Five': The Role of Culturally Sensitive Measures of Individual Difference in Distributive Negotiations," Management and Organization Review, International Association of Chinese Management Research, vol. 1(2), pages 225-247, July.
    9. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda & Lai, Lei, 2007. "Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 84-103, May.
    10. Jochen Reb, 2010. "The Influence of Past Negotiations on Negotiation Counterpart Preferences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 457-477, September.
    11. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2001. "Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-140, March.
    12. Ping Ping Fu & Jeff Kennedy & Jasmine Tata & Gary Yukl & Michael Harris Bond & Tai-Kuang Peng & Ekkirala S Srinivas & Jon P Howell & Leonel Prieto & Paul Koopman & Jaap J Boonstra & Selda Pasa & Marie, 2004. "The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 35(4), pages 284-305, July.
    13. Cho, Jinsook & Lee, Jinkook, 2006. "An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 112-120, January.
    14. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2010. "The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 809-816, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    2. Zait Adriana, 2016. "Conceptualization and Operationalisation of Specific Variables in Exploratory Researches – An Example for Business Negotiation," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 63(1), pages 117-123, March.
    3. Adriana ZAIT, 2016. "Conceptualization And Operationalisation Of Specific Variables In Exploratory Researches €“ An Example For Business Negotiation," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business (continues Analele Stiintifice), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 63(1), pages 125-131, March.
    4. James Cunningham & Alistair R. Anderson, 2018. "Inspired or Foolhardy: Sensemaking, Confidence and Entrepreneurs’ Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 393-415, June.
    5. Sabina Ramona Trif & Petru Lucian Curșeu & Oana Cătălina Fodor, 2023. "Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 209-232, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kwok Leung & Zhenjiao Chen & Fan Zhou & Kai Lim, 2014. "The role of relational orientation as measured by face and renqing in innovative behavior in China: An indigenous analysis," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 105-126, March.
    2. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: The economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Daniel Ji & Pablo Guillen, 2010. "Trust, discrimination and acculturation Experimental evidence on Asian international and Australian domestic university students," ThE Papers 09/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    4. Guillen, Pablo & Ji, Daniel, 2011. "Trust, discrimination and acculturation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 594-608.
    5. Zhenzhong Ma & Weiwei Dong & Jie Wu & Dapeng Liang & Xiaopeng Yin, 2015. "Confucian Ideal Personality and Chinese Business Negotiation Styles: An Indigenous Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 383-400, May.
    6. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    7. Muethel, Miriam & Hoegl, Martin, 2012. "The influence of social institutions on managers’ concept of trust: Implications for trust-building in Sino-German relationships," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 420-434.
    8. Ingmar Geiger, 2014. "Media Effects on the Formation of Negotiator Satisfaction: The Example of Face-to-Face and Text Based Electronically Mediated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 735-763, July.
    9. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    10. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    11. Jenny Lukito Setiawan & Azilah Kasim & Elia Ardyan, 2022. "Understanding the Consumers of Entrepreneurial Education: Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation among Youths," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Anthony Goerzen & Stephen Sapp & Andrew Delios, 2010. "Investor Response to Environmental Risk in Foreign Direct Investment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 683-708, December.
    13. Hsu, Dan K. & Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin & Simmons, Sharon A. & Foo, Maw-Der & Hong, Michelle C. & Pipes, Jesse D., 2019. "“I know I can, but I don't fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 311-326.
    14. Krzysztof Zięba & Jakub Golik, 2018. "Testing Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as an Early Predictor of Entrepreneurial Activities. Evidence From the SEAS Project," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 14(1), pages 91-108.
    15. Petra Dickel & Monika Sienknecht & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The early bird catches the worm: an empirical analysis of imprinting in social entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 127-150, March.
    16. Entrialgo M. & Iglesias V., 2018. "Are the Intentions to Entrepreneurship of Men and Women Shaped Differently? The Impact of Entrepreneurial Role-Model Exposure and Entrepreneurship Education," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Antonella Biscione & Dorothée Boccanfuso & Raul Caruso & Annunziata Felice, 2022. "The innovation gender gap in transition countries," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(2), pages 493-516, July.
    18. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    19. Grund, Christian, 2015. "Gender pay gaps among highly educated professionals — Compensation components do matter," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 118-126.
    20. Adnan, Wifag & Arin, K. Peren & Charness, Gary & Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco, 2022. "Which social categories matter to people: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 125-145.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9306-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.