The Importance of Communication Skills in Negotiation an Empirical Study

8/16/2019 The Importance of Communication Skills in Negotiation an Empirical Study

1/30

150 1

1

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATIONSKILLS IN NEGOTIATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA CARVALHO

ECONOMICS, U NIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL

[email protected]

AND

FELIPE

SOBRAL

ECONOMICS, U NIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL

[email protected]


2/30

150 2

2

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


3/30

150 3

3

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


4/30

150 4

4

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 R EVIEW

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


5/30

150 5

5

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 party’s 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


6/30

150 6

6

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 non-

verbal 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 one’s 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 doesn’t 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


7/30

150 7

7

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 Direct speech

Excessive smiling; sheepish smiles Open behavior and gestures

Excessively serious tone of voice; lack of emotion Smiling

Lack of eye-to-eye contact (averting eyes) Pointing

Excessively quiet attitude Close proximity

Source: Adapted from Thompson (2001).

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 1—not important at all to 5 – very important).

TABLE 2 – IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN NEGOTIATION

S KILL R ELATIVE POSITION BETWEEN 34

SKILLS STUDIED

AVG.

( FROM 1 TO 5)

Ability to express thoughts verbally 4th 4,4

Listening skill 5th 4,4

Ability to persuade others 8th 4,1

Debating skill (skill in parrying questions and

answers across the table)24

th 3,2

Skill in communicating through non-verbal

language (gestures, signs or silence)29th 2,7

Source: Adapted from Hammond (1979).


8/30

150 8

8

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


9/30

150 9

9

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:


10/30


11/30

150 11

11

DATA ANALYSIS AND R ESULTS

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


12/30

150 12

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 –COMMUNICATIONVARIABLES STATISTICS

CHARACTERISTIC CASES AVG. MEDIAN MODE ST. DEVIAT.

1. Listening skill 231 4.65 5.00 5 .52

2. Ability to form an argument 231 4.54 5.00 5 .66

3. Ability to persuade others 231 4.52 5.00 5 .66

4. Ability to express thoughts verbally 231 4.42 4.00 5 .63

5. Debating skill 231 4.34 4.00 5 .69

6. Ability to communicate non-verbally 231 3.49 4.00 3 .96

TABLE 4 –COMMUNICATIONVARIABLES FREQUENCIES

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

CHARACTERISTIC

n % n % n % n % n %AVG.

1. Listening skill - - - - 5 2% 70 30% 156 68% 4.65

2. Ability to form an argument 1 1% 2 1% 10 4% 76 33% 142 62% 4.54

3. Ability to persuade others 1 1% - - 16 7% 76 33% 138 60% 4.52

4. Ability to express thoughts

verbally- - - - 18 8% 99 43% 114 49% 4.42

5. Debating skill - - - - 29 12% 94 41% 108 47% 4.34

6. Ability to communicate non-

verbally10 4% 16 7% 88 38% 85 37% 32 14% 3.49

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


13/30

150 13

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


14/30

150 14

14

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

executives.

COMMUNICATION ANDDEMOGRAPHICCHARACTERISTICS OF THER ESPONDENTS

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.

G ENDER

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

C OMMUNICATION T RAITS AVG. MEN

(204 RESPONSES )

AVG. WOMEN

(20 RESPONSES )

O NE -W AY

A NOVA ( SIG.)

K RUSKAL

W ALLIS ( SIG.)

1- Ability to form an argument 4.54 4.55 0.945 0.871

2- Debating skill 4.35 4.20 0.350 0.310

3- Ability to persuade others 4.50 4.60 0.546 0.764

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 4.41 4.55 0.351 0.340

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 3.41 4.00 0.008 0.009

6- Listening skill 4.64 4.75 0.359 0.395


15/30


16/30

150 16

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 negotiator’s ability to persuade others by executives who

didn’t 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.

P ROFESSIONAL E XPERIENCE

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.


17/30

150 17

17

TABLE 7 – PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

C OMMUNICATION T RAITS

AVG.

E XP . 25 ANOS

(110 RESPONSES )

O NE -W AY

A NOVA ( SIG.)

K RUSKAL W ALLIS

( SIG.)


2- Debating skill 4.26 4.38 0.227 0.193




6- Listening skill 4.55 4.77 0.028 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 party’s 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.


18/30

150 18

18

I NDUSTRY

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

C OMMUNICATION T RAITS O NE -W AY A NOVA ( SIG.) K RUSKAL W ALLIS ( SIG.)

1- Ability to form an argument 0.812 0.898

2- Debating skill 0.992 0.994

3- Ability to persuade others 0.233 0.122

4- Ability to express thoughts verbally 0.764 0.857

5- Ability to communicate non-verbally 0.281 0.199

6- Listening skill 0.312 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.


19/30

150 19

19

COMMUNICATION ANDNEGOTIATING 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 OFPORTUGUESEEXECUTIVES

FACTOR LOADINGS

The best outcome in a negotiation is one that is fair to all parties. 0.842

Most of the negotiation results can be reached through cooperation between the parties. 0.811

Honesty and openness are necessary to reach an equitable agreement. 0.688

The most important thing in a negotiation is to win. -0.303 0.681

A good negotiator should be aggressive, i.e., he/she should take the initiative if he/she

wants to accomplish his/her own objectives.0.652

An unanswered threat will be interpreted by the counterpart as a sign of weakness. 0.605

Principles are “a very nice thing to have”, but sometimes a negotiator needs to

compromise his/her values and principles to achieve his/her objectives. 0.433

A negotiator should remain expressionless (poker faced): one must not show one’s

emotions until the deal is concluded.0.432

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


20/30

150 20

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 non-

parametric test of Kruskal-Wallis.


21/30

150 21

21

TABLE 9 – NEGOTIATING STYLE (COMPETITIVE VS. COLLABORATIVE)

AGGRESSIVE T RAITS

G ROUP 1 AVG.

C OMPETITIVE

(162 A NSWERS )

G ROUP 2 AVG.

C OLLABORATIVE

(69 A NSWERS )

O NE -W AY

A NOVA ( SIG.)

K RUSKAL W ALLIS

( SIG.)


2- Debating skill 4.47 4.12 0.002 0.004




6- Listening skill 4.49 4.80 0.027 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.


22/30

150 22

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.

0.809

Hiding and/or omitting pertinent information are ethically accepted attitudes in a negotiating

context.

0.747

Honesty means openness, sincerity, telling all and not withholding pertinent information to an

opponent during a negotiation.

-0.721

It is not reproachable to lie to an opponent in a negotiating situation as long as you don’t get

caught.

0.627

Bluffing is a mandatory behavior in a successful negotiation. 0.483

There is no need for a negotiator to be completely open towards the opponent. In negotiation, as

in life, what they don’t know won’t hurt them.

0.451

Fear is a stronger persuader than trust. 0.735

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.

0.643

Imposing personal discomfort on an opponent is not too high price to pay for success in

negotiation.

0.609


23/30

150 23

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


24/30

150 24

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

C LUSTER N O. OF C ASES T OUGH T ACTICS M ISINFORMATION T ACTICS D ESCRIPTION

1 95 Ethical Neutral Tough

2 68 Non ethical Non ethical Honest

3 68 Non ethical Ethical 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.


25/30

150 25

25

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

AGGRESSIVENESS T RAITS

G ROUP 2 AVG.

AGGRESSIVE

(95 A NSWERS )

G ROUP 2 AVG.

H ONEST

(68 A NSWERS )

G ROUP 3 AVG.

D ECEITFUL

(68 A NSWERS )

O NE -W AY A NOVA

( SIG.)


2- Debating skill 4.27 4.38 4.40 0.454




6- Listening skill 4.55 4.82 4.58 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 don’t 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


26/30

150 26

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


27/30

150 27

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 doesn’t 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.


28/30

150 28

28

R EFERENCES

Axtell, R. E. (1991). Gestures: do’s 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.) New-

York: 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 negotiator’s repertoire.

Negotiation Journal, April 1987 , pp: 117-122.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Como Conduzir uma Negociação ? (Portuguese

edition of Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in). Porto: Edições

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.


29/30

150 29

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. (2000 b). 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.


30/30

150 30

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979 b). 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.

Documents

The Importance of Communication Skills in Negotiation an Empirical Study