CHARACTERISTICS OF SKILLED NEGOTIATORS:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

BY

FILIPE AZEVEDO SOBRAL ([email protected])

CENTRO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO EM GESTÃO (CIG) / MANAGEMENT RESERCH CENTER

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA CARVALHO ([email protected])

CENTRO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO EM GESTÃO (CIG) / MANAGEMENT RESERCH CENTER

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA, PORTUGAL

 ABSTRACT

Negotiation is an activity with a critical importance in the competitive performance of

companies. As consequence, managers need to possess and to continuously improve its

negotiation skills and for that investigation should contribute with the identification of the

variables that more decisively explain its performance. Our study tries to identify which of

the individual characteristics of the negotiators have a more preponderant role in the

negotiator performance in the business environment. We directed our study to the executives

of the 500 larger Portuguese companies with two main objectives: first, to guarantee that the

answers would belong to individuals with experience and knowledge in managerial and

negotiation environment; and second, to frame the study in the managerial environment, with

special emphasis in the negotiations that happen at the level of the administration of

companies.

We received 231 valid answers that allowed us to identify, from a group of 52

characteristics, those distinguished as more important. Afterwards, we conducted a factor

analysis to the results, which allowed us to identify fifteen dimensions of the negotiator

profile: (1) preparation; (2) performance; (3) image; (4) demography; (5) cognitive

complexity; (6) aggressiveness; (7) collaboration; (8) verbal communication; (9)

perseverance; (10) expertise; (11) perspective taking; (12) non verbal communication; (13)

defensiveness; (14) emotiveness; (15) competitiveness.

Key Word Topics: Negotiators; Characteristics; Portugal;

2
 INTRODUCTION

Negotiations occur in all levels and types of organizations. They can involve formal

contracts, but generically, they happen whenever individuals or groups try to acquire

organizational privileges or resources, be them tangible or intangible. All companies are

inserted in a relational network with suppliers, customers, competitors, employees and other

partners that were constructed through time by negotiations. It is difficult to think any

business initiative that doesn't need any form of negotiation. Alderson (1957) refers that the

negotiation is the crowning of the managerial effort. However, in spite of the result of an

individual negotiation may not have a decisive impact in the company, the thousands of

negotiations in which typically a company intervenes have, together, an enormous impact in

the implementation of its strategy and consequently in its success.

Bazerman and Neale (1992) agree that the organizational negotiations are not only

more frequent than previously, but also that they are more and more complex and crucial due

to the growing ambiguity and acceleration of the change in the managerial contexts. That’s

why executives need to dominate the “art of the negotiation” to face the numerous challenges

that a complex and dynamic managerial world places them (Rand, 1987). For all these, Ertel

(2000) defends that it is crucial to all companies, in an atmosphere increasingly competitive,

dynamic, uncertain and globalized, to treat negotiation as a central competence of the

organization.

In our study we define the term “negotiation” with five basic characteristics that

distinguish any negotiation situation (Rubin and Brown 1975): (a) two or more parties; (b) a

conflict of interests; (c) the parties are interdependent; (d) it is a voluntary process that

involves the exchanges of one or more resources, or the resolution of a subject or intangible

subjects; (e) the parts expect there will be concessions among them involved to resolve their

conflict.

3
 The purpose of the study reported in this paper is to present an Interorganizational

Negotiation Model (INEMO). We rely on ours model because it is nor overly complex and it

allow us an objective approach on the principal factors that influence the outcomes of most of

real life business negotiations. More precisely we intend to examine the characteristics of

superior business negotiators to identify the underlying dimensions of skilled negotiator’s

profile.

INTERORGANIZACIONAL NEGOTIATION MODEL (INEMO)

The negotiation research has been trying to answer numerous questions. However,

there is no doubts that the central question is the explanation of the negotiation outcomes.

Zartman (1994) has called it the “basic analytic question for any negotiation analysis” (p.

222). Underdal (1991) confirms this idea, adding: “the ultimate aim of negotiation analysis is

to predict, explain, or find ways of influencing the outcome... [that is] the ultimate dependent

variable” (p. 100). For its time, negotiation outcome is the consequence or the product of the

negotiation process (Thompson, 1990), that is, results from the interaction among the

negotiators, namely among its strategies, tactics, behaviors and reactions.

Several researchers have been trying to find explanatory models for the negotiation

outcomes. Lewicki, Weiss and Lewin (1992) make an excellent revision on more than 20

negotiation models, approaching several aspects as negotiators' characteristics, the situational

environment, the intervention of third parties, the existence of more than two negotiators or

the constituents' pressure, among others. The model we propose relies that the negotiation

process is influenced by four factors: (1) the negotiators' individual characteristics; (2) the

intraorganizational activity; (3) the contextual environment; and (4) the situational

environment (see figure 2).

4
 FIGURE 2 –INTERORGANIZACIONAL NEGOTIATION MODEL (INEMO)

CHARACTERISTICS OF
NEGOTIATORS
- Personality, attitudes and
motivations
- Cultural background
- Experiences and perspectives

INTRAORGANIZACIONAL
ACTIVITY
- Authority e Autonomy
- Organization’ objectives
NEGOTIATION PROCESS NEGOTIATION OUTCOME
- Organization’ pressures
- Incentive structure

SITUATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT
- Available information
- Relative power
- Time pressure
- Available alternatives

CONTEXTUAL
ENVIRONMENT
- Laws and regulations
- Social and cultural norms
- Standard of business ethics
- Governmental pressures

Although recognizing the existence of more complex models, INEMO allows a

methodical and objective approach on the several factors that influence the negotiation

outcome, not being, however, excessively complex. In our understanding, this model allows

us to retract the negotiations that happen in business atmosphere without introducing other

complexities that we didn't intend to analyze in our research. From now on we will center our

study in one of the identified factors: the negotiators' individual characteristics. Our

fundamental proposition is that the negotiators' characteristics are crucial to surpass the

complexity and dynamism of interorganizational negotiations.

5
 LITERATURE REVIEW

How do the negotiators' characteristics influence the bargaining? Instinctively the

answer to this question is that the negotiator's personal characteristics (or opponent) must

come to play. Negotiators come to the bargaining table from different cultural contexts, their

experiences, like their perspectives on the different subjects differ. Its propensity to assume

risks vary, and their personalities, intelligence, attitudes and motivations are also quite

diverse. Their ability to manage the chaos and to deal with the ambiguity of the complex

managerial atmospheres where the negotiations occur are equally different. These differences

then should have a substantial impact on the negotiation.

Along many decades of negotiation research, it has been widely assumed that the

personal characteristics of individual bargainers have a relevant role for the explanation of

the negotiation process, as well as of its outcomes (Gilkey and Greenhalgh, 1986; Peterson,

1998). Corroborating this proposition, the great majority of the theoretical models of

negotiation include the negotiators' characteristics as one of the explanatory factors of the

process and, consequently, of the negotiation outcomes.

Unfortunately, the literature on the influence of the personal characteristics doesn't

give consistent support to any characteristic that has a decisive impact on the outcomes,

leading some researchers to question whether such differences are important determinants of

negotiation behavior, arguing that its effects are diluted by the other explanatory factors

(Bazerman, Curhan, and Valley 2000). However, others argue that studies have not been

producing concrete results because the simulations have been badly conducted and the

studied characteristics have not been the most important, but those for which measure

instruments already exist (Barry and Friedman, 1998). For many researchers the individual

differences do have a significant impact in the negotiation outcomes, in spite of the traits that

distinguish a superior negotiator have not been found. They suggest that some researchers

6
may have closed the book prematurely, suggesting that the negotiators' individual

characteristics have a fundamental role in the explanation of the negotiation process and,

consequently, in its outcomes (Lewicki, Saunders and Minton, 2000). These researchers

interpret the contradictory, inconsistent and inconclusive empiric results due to a diversity of

reasons:

1. Variations in the simulations and experimental methods among the several studies;

2. Simulations insufficiently complex and rich (a lot of times just and only a version of

the Prisoner's Dilemma, without face-to-face interaction between the negotiators);

3. Instruments of measure of the individual characteristics inconsistent between studies

and some times antiquated;

4. Study of isolated personality traits, usually those for which a measure instrument

already exists and not necessarily the most pertinent;

5. Little importance given to the bargaining situations, namely if it is distributive or

integrative situation, what can imply different characteristics;

6. Use of samples only composed by students, usually in programs of MBA, that are too

homogeneous to allow them to withdraw the necessary conclusions;

In spite of the inconsistent results, reasons exist to believe that the personal

characteristics are important to explain how skilled negotiators manage conflict situations.

Chester Karrass (1968) was one of the pioneers of the investigations on the negotiators'

characteristics. After identifying the characteristics that distinguished a successful negotiator,

Karrass demonstrated that individuals with greater negotiation ability obtained better

outcomes. Also, Sternberg et al demonstrated that there are consistencies among the styles of

conflict resolution and the results obtained so much in hypothetical situations (Stenberg and

Soriano, 1984), as in real situations (Sternberg and Dobson, 1987). Also, Rackam (1980)

studied several negotiators' behavior in 102 real negotiations having reached several

7
important conclusions relatively to the behavior of successful negotiators. Also Greenhalgh,

Neslin and Gilkey (1985) demonstrated the effect of 31 personality variables in a negotiation

using laboratorial simulations. More recently, Barry and Friedman (1998), using two

bargaining situations, one distributive and another with integrative potential, concluded that

not only the negotiators' characteristics are important to explain its behavior and the results of

the negotiation, as well as that depending on the negotiation situation the impact of the

individual characteristics is different.

PROPOSED STUDY AND METHODOLOGY

The main objective of our investigation consists in the clarification of this discussion,

identifying the characteristics that in the opinion of skilled negotiators are necessary to

negotiate with effectiveness in complex and uncertain managerial atmospheres. Thus, the

objectives of our investigation can be synthesized in:

1. Identify the characteristics requested to a individuals that negotiate in complex and

dynamic managerial atmospheres, as those that characterize the negotiations that

occur at the highest managerial level;

2. Analyze the existent relationships among the studied variables, to identify the

dimensions of the negotiator profile underlying the results obtained on the negotiators'

characteristics importance.

As starting point we decided to group the 52 characteristics under study in ten

different sets of variables: (1) communication; (2) relationship; (3) aggressiveness; (4)

perception of the negotiation environment; (5) personal accomplishment; (6) attitude towards

to the negotiation; (7) cognitive complexity; (8) personality; (9) professional performance;

and (10) demography.

8
 The traditional research methodology in this area consists in identifying one or several

characteristics to test, select a concrete situation, and, after measuring the characteristics of

the intervenient in the simulation (usually students of masters degrees), test its effect in the

process and in the outcomes of the negotiation. However, we wanted to avoid some of the

critics that have been pointed to the investigation in this scientific area. For that, instead of a

experimental simulation we used for an exploratory study. This investigation type allowed us:

(1) to test a larger number of characteristics that could influence the negotiation and not just

those for which already existed measuring instruments; (2) not to use a specific bargaining

situation, where other factors could influence the outcome, but the generic situation of the

negotiations that take place at the higher level of the administration of companies; and (3) to

obtain answers from individuals with a large negotiation experience.

The need to obtain business executives' opinions that have a rich and varied

bargaining experience in several managerial contexts, forced us to choose as subject

population of this study, the managers and executives of the top Portuguese companies. As

we intended opinions on the importance of the negotiators' characteristics to negotiate in

complex atmospheres, as the ones that they happen the highest managerial level, we restricted

the subject population to the study to superior ranks of companies. To guarantee the

representativiness and to validate our study we used as sample the executives of the 500

larger Portuguese companies. Besides increasing the credibility and coherence of the obtained

answers, once the top managers of these organizations have, almost always, a personal career

marked by several negotiation situations which allows them to give a more valid contribute

on these subjects, the 500 larger Portuguese companies include companies of several

dimensions and several activity sectors, being that, in ours understanding, representative of

the Portuguese managerial reality.

9
 As reference for the selection of the characteristics that define a skilled negotiator we

used an inquiry developed by Chester Karrass (1968), as well as a posterior adaptation of

John Hammond's responsibility (1979). These authors drove investigations with different

objectives, but with the same base preposition: the negotiators need to possess a certain set of

characteristics because these have a decisive influence in the process and, consequently, in

the outcomes of the negotiation.

The results of the invoice of 764 inquiries were the following: 255 received answers of

which 24 were annulled due to the detection of irregularities. Summarizing, in the end of the

fieldwork we obtained 231 valid answers. As we can observe, the rate of answers is

particularly elevated for this type of inquiry, 33,4% for the received answers and 30,2% for

valid answers.

RESULTS

The 231 received valid answers of the inquiry to the business executives and

managers of the 500 larger Portuguese companies allowed us a first analysis of some

demographic characteristics that define this sample to frame the study in a wider and broader

perspective. The high number of answers, associated to an answer rate of 30% attests not

only the importance and relevance attributed to this investigation itself, but also it guarantees

the representatively of our study. The business executives of our sample have, in average,

50,17 year-old and 25,21 years of professional experience. So they are individuals with a

maturity and knowledge consolidated in a long career. As they were selected among

managers of the largest Portuguese companies this seems to us as an acceptable and normal

result, because to achieve a top place in these companies it is necessary to demonstrate their

competence along several years of activity. Relatively to gender of those inquired the sample

10
presents a predominance of males. Among the 224 inquired that indicated the gender, just 20

(less than 9%) were female, while the smashing majority was of the masculine gender.

The main objective of our investigation was the identification of the characteristics

that, in the Portuguese managers and business executives’ opinion, was required to negotiate

with effectiveness and efficacy in business negotiations. According to the analysis of the

collected data from business executives and managers, we will identify the decisive

characteristics for the success in the negotiation, and in consequence, we will define the

successful negotiator's profile. Table 1 synthesizes the Portuguese business executives'

opinion about the importance of the 52 pre-defined characteristics, rated on the five-point

scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important).

TABLE 1 –CHARACTERISTICS OF SKILLED NEGOTIATORS (SCALE FROM 1 TO 5)

RATING
CHARACTERISTIC (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) MEAN

1. Listening skill - - 5 70 156 4,65

2. Decisiveness - 4 16 48 163 4,60

3. Knowledge of the subjects being negotiated - 2 12 69 148 4,57

4. Ability to think with clearly and rapidly under pressure / uncertainty - 1 13 74 143 4,55

5. Argumentation skill 1 2 10 76 142 4,54

6. Ability to persuade others 1 - 16 76 138 4,52

7. Creativity to surpass obstacles and difficulties - 1 10 95 125 4,49

8. Persistence and determination - 1 16 92 122 4,45

9. Ability to express thoughts verbally - - 18 99 114 4,42

10. Integrity - 3 31 66 131 4,41

11. Judgment and general intelligence - - 19 99 113 4,41

12. Insight into others’ feelings and needs - - 21 100 110 4,39

13. Preparation and planning skill - 4 21 92 114 4,37

14. Ability to win respect and confidence of opponent - 1 16 114 100 4,35

15. Debating skill - - 29 94 108 4,34

16. Analytical capacity and general problem solving skills - 5 16 111 99 4,32

17. Ability to lead and control members of own team or group - 4 29 86 112 4,32

11
18. Ability to identify the right timings for decision making - 2 21 111 97 4,31

19. Skill in communicating and coordinating various objectives - 3 34 95 99 4,26

20. Insight into hidden needs/reactions of own and opponent organizat. - - 32 110 89 4,25

21. Ability to perceive and exploit available power to achieve objective - 4 27 112 88 4,23

22. Degree of individual initiative - 3 26 126 79 4,20

23. Ability to maintain a rational attitude (rationality) - 2 29 131 69 4,16

24. Self-control, especially of emotions and their visibility 1 6 36 115 73 4,10

25. Reputation 2 8 44 92 85 4,08

26. Patience 1 2 48 112 68 4,06

27. Competitiveness 1 6 45 108 71 4,05

28. Ability to analyze the problems from a broad perspective - 1 39 139 52 4,05

29. Tolerance to uncertainty and ambiguity 3 7 45 110 66 3,99

30. Self-confidence and self-esteem 2 3 50 118 58 3,98

31. Compromising temperament - 3 55 117 56 3,98

32. Tact and discretion - 5 49 127 50 3,96

33. Previous negotiation experience - 8 51 120 52 3,94

34. Ability to act out skillfully a variety of negotiation roles - 1 39 139 52 3,92

35. Tolerance of other viewpoints 1 2 72 114 42 3,84

36. Ability to analyze problems in a detailed way 1 9 63 127 31 3,77

37. Willingness to take above-average career or business risks 2 12 68 121 28 3,70

38. Time management skill 4 9 70 117 31 3,70

39. Appearance 1 9 80 114 27 3,68

40. Attractive personality and sense of humor 2 13 79 104 33 3,66

41. Skill in communicating by nonverbal language 10 16 88 85 32 3,49

42. Status or rank in organization 6 24 74 109 18 3,47

43. Training in negotiation 4 26 100 83 18 3,37

44. Trusting temperament 5 29 103 77 17 3,31

45. Willingness to risk being disliked 10 32 87 83 19 3,30

46. Willingness to employ force or threat to avoid being exploited 17 34 77 78 25 3,26

47. Social and cultural background 22 42 85 72 10 3,03

48. Formal educational level 17 43 112 54 5 2,94

49. Ability to use emotions 24 47 101 48 11 2,89

50. Distrusting temperament 34 47 97 50 3 2,74

12
 51. Age 39 72 93 26 1 2,47

52. Gender 98 69 58 6 - 1,88

The main conclusion that we can withdraw from this analysis of the results about the

importance of the negotiators' characteristics is that, thwarting what some researchers believe,

they seem to corroborate those that affirm that these have a very important impact in the

negotiation that doesn't owe, nor it cannot, to be despised. Although there are characteristics

that have great importance and another that are considered as not very important, we can

conclude that in the overall set the negotiators' characteristics represent a fundamental part in

the negotiating process and, consequently, in the obtained results. More concretely, we can

refer some of those characteristics that stand out relatively to the remaining ones:

1. All the verbal communication variables are considered very important for the

success of the negotiation. Such result didn't surprise us because the communication is the

process through which the negotiators interact, share opinions and suggest alternatives that

will allow them to obtain an agreement. Therefore, the best communicative process results in

better outcomes (Putnam and Poole, 1987; Olekalns, Smith and Walsh, 1996).

2. Another set of fundamental variables for the negotiation process is the variables of

perception of the negotiating atmosphere. The negotiator should have strong conceptual

skills, i.e., to be able to interpret all the received signs from the complex and dynamic

environment to create an enlarged vision of the subjects and to react efficaciously. In this

search of information of the business environment we found another communication

characteristic –listening skill. In fact, this is the characteristic more valued by those inquired.

In some way these results corroborate an investigation of Kemp and Smith (1994) where they

concluded that the individuals with greater perspective taking ability got better global

outcomes.

13
 3. The preparation and planning skill and the knowledge of the subjects being

negotiated are another two characteristics considered for almost everybody as very important.

It is in the preparation phase that the available information is collected to clarify the subjects,

the environment and the opponents. Then they can define a strategy that allows the negotiator

to achieve his objectives. Curiously, and although of the importance that they attribute it,

Leight Thompson (2001) refers that few are the negotiators that prepare properly for a

negotiation.

4. All the characteristics related with the negotiators' cognitive capacity are also

referred as fundamental. The intelligence, the creativity, the analytical ability and, with some

evidence, the ability to think clearly and rapidly under pressure and uncertainty are

characteristics that all respondents consider very important to negotiate with success.

Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge and Goff (1988) and more recently Barry and Friedman (1998)

confirm this idea, concluding that individuals with larger cognitive complexity are better

acquiring important information that facilitates the resolution of problems and consequently

get better negotiated outcomes.

5. Relatively to the negotiator's profile it is important to refer the importance

attributed to the leadership, the decisiveness and the skill in communication and coordination

several objectives of its organization. All these characteristics have a strong leadership or

executive sense in common.

6. The integrity and the reputation also receive, almost unanimously, a very high

importance. The Portuguese business executives value an integrate posture, that have as

consequence a positive reputation.

7. Self-confidence, self-control, determination and the patience are other valued

characteristics.

14
 8. Somewhat surprisingly, the negotiator's competitiveness is also recognized as a

very important characteristic. In spite of the negative consequences that a competitive attitude

can bring to the relationship between parties, Portuguese business executives give it a larger

importance than to the compromising temperament.

9. To finish, another characteristic considered as fundamental for a negotiator to reach

its’ objectives is the ability to win respect and confidence of its opponent. One of the phases

of the negotiation is the construction of a relationship with the other party. If a negotiator

cannot create a close rapport with its opponent, hardly can he succeed in the negotiation

(Greenhalgh and Chapman, 1998; Greenhalgh, 2000).

Some of the studied characteristics divided the opinions of those inquired:

1. The importance of the ability of nonverbal expression doesn't receive the unanimity

of the respondents. They attribute it a moderate importance, which contradict the literature,

that suggests that the using of nonverbal language, as gestures, posture, silence, etc. plays a

very important role in the construction of a relationship with the other party, as in the

detection of suspicious behaviors (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998).

2. An against-intuitive result was the little importance attributed to the ability to use

emotions. When the research suggests that the emotional intelligence can perform a more

important role than the cognitive complexity in the communication and in the interpersonal

relationships (Kemper, 1999), this result comes, in some way, to thwart the importance of the

emotions’ management in the relationships with other. Although they considered that the

cognitive complexity is very important, the respondents don't recognize the same importance

to the capacity of using emotions in negotiation. This result it is still more curious once it

thwarts the literature that refers that the expression of negative or positive feelings can have

positive and negative results (Kumar, 1997; Davidson and Greenhalgh, 1999; Barry, 1999).

15
 3. In relation to the predisposition to trust or to distrust of the other party, respondents

opted for the middle term. These results confirm the opinion of Rubin and Brown (1975) that

suggest “to sustain the bargaining relationship, each party must select a middle course

between the extremes of complete openness toward, and deception of, the other. Each must

be able to convince the other of its integrity, while not at the same time endangering his

bargaining position.” (p. 15).

4. Also in relation to the negotiator aggressiveness, some of the respondents consider

that it is important to use coercive techniques or to take risks, while others don't agree with

this vision. This dispersion of opinions seems to confirm the results of investigation of

Shapiro and Bies, 1994, once these authors concluded that the negotiators that use threats are

perceived as not very cooperative, leading them to obtain worse outcomes than the ones that

don't use force or any other coercive tactics.

Finally, we would like to refer the little importance given to the demographic

characteristics. Gender, age, formal educational level are not considered as fundamental

characteristics to negotiate with success, which, in some way, thwarts the results of

experiences driven to test the impact, of some of these variables, in the process and outcomes

of the negotiation (Neu, Graham and Gilly, 1988; Ayres and Siegelman 1995).

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTORIAL ANALYSIS

The factorial analysis of principal components allows us to identify the underlying

dimensions of the negotiators’ profile. Before beginning the factorial analysis of principal

components, we checked its pertinence through the Test of Sphericity of Bartlett and of

indicative Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO).

16
 TABLE 2 – KMO AND TEST OF SPHERICITY OF BARTLETT

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
,849

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 4634,047

df 1326
Sig. ,000

Table 2 shows that the test of Bartlett has been associating a significance level of

0,000 less than 0,5, which justifies the factorization of the correlation coefficients matrix.

Another indicator of the pertinence of the use of this statistical method is Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin. In this case KMO is 0,849 value that considers the factorial analysis as quite good,

checking all its pertinence. In global it was found fifteen factors with eigenvalue greater than

1 that explains 64,744% of the total variance. Table 4 presents the results of this analysis.

TABLE 3 –PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH VARIMAX ROTATION

ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS
CHARACTERISTICS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Knowledge of the subjects being negotiated 0,696
Analytical capacity and general problem solving skills 0,640 0,391
Preparation and planning skill 0,636
Ability to maintain a rational attitude (rationality) 0,534
Judgment and general intelligence 0,475 0,305
Ability to analyze problems in a detailed way 0,473 0,315
Ability to win respect and confidence of opponent 0,446
Ability to analyze the problems from a broad perspective 0,393 0,343
Ability to lead and control members of own team or group 0,778
Skill in communicating and coordinating various objectives
0,690
within own organization
Ability to identify the right timings for decision making 0,490
Time management skill 0,489
Decisiveness 0,477
Reputation 0,784

17
 Tact and discretion. 0,682
Appearance 0,626
Attractive personality and sense of humor. 0,427
Gender 0,794
Age 0,725
Social and cultural background 0,630
Ability to think clearly/rapidly under pressure/uncertainty 0,701
Creativity to surpass obstacles and difficulties 0,624
Willingness to risk being disliked 0,771
Willingness to employ force or threat to exploitation 0,689
Willingness to above-average career or business risks 0,622
Tolerance of other viewpoints 0,694
Compromising temperament 0,593
Ability to act out skillfully a variety of negotiation roles 0,557

The first extracted factor is associated to characteristics related with the preparation of

the negotiation. To define a strategy that allows achieving the negotiating objectives, the

negotiator, besides knowing the subjects specifically being negotiated, should have the ability

to analyze correctly the environment. So, this factor includes several characteristics like the

analytical capacity, the judgment and general intelligence, the ability to analyze from a broad

and in a detailed way the negotiating situation, the rationality, the preparation and planning

skill, the knowledge of the subjects being negotiated, among others. All these characteristics,

with the exception of the ability to win respect and confidence of opponent (with a not very

significant weight of 0,446), are related with the way that negotiators analyze the available

information to prepare the negotiation. So, we defined this factor as Preparation. Comparing

with our initial classification proposal, we verify that this factor joins variables of

professional performance (preparation and knowledge of the subjects) with variables of

cognitive complexity (analytical capacity, intelligence, etc.), introducing richer elements, that

allow the identification of one profile dimension extremely important for the negotiators'

performance, the Preparation of the negotiation.

18
 The second factor is related with the executive characteristics of top managers, like

leadership, skill in communicating and coordinating various objectives within own

organization, time management and decisiveness. So, we defined this factor as Performance.

This factor joins to the performance variables previously identified a personality

characteristic (decisiveness), allowing a more precise interpretation of the negotiator's

executive competences.

The third factor is related with the transmitted image by the negotiator to the other

party. Reputation, discretion, appearance and the personal attractiveness help to define the

way as the opponent looks at the negotiator. So, we defined this factor as Image. Once again,

this factor joins three relationship variables to a personality characteristic (tact and

discretion). This combination helps to define with clarity other dimension of personality

negotiating, the negotiator's Image.

Factor 4 joins all negotiators’ demographic variables. So, we will identify it as

Demography. This factor doesn't raise any doubt once it includes whole the variables

classified as demographic in our initial proposal. Nevertheless, it reinforces a dimension of

the negotiator profile that we will call Demography.

The fifth factor is related with the way that negotiators interpret and react to the

available information to generate it alternatives and solutions that allow achieving their

negotiating objectives. The variables with larger weight in the factor are thinking under

pressure and the creativity. So, we define this factor as Cognitive Complexity. Unlike of the

first factor, that also included characteristics of analysis of the negotiating situation, this

factor seems to us more related with the ability to interpret and to analyze the information

during the negotiating interaction and not in the phase of preparation of the negotiation.

Factor 6 seems to be related with an aggressive attitude. It has an elevated weight in

the disposition for the use of threats or force and in the disposition to take risks. That is, in

19
the tactical use of aggressive and coercive behaviors. So, we called this factor

Aggressiveness. Relatively to our initial proposal, this factor excludes in this aggressiveness

way, the persistence and the determination. Curiously, that exclusion allows an identification

more objective of an aggressive negotiating posture, allowing the identification of one more

dimension of negotiating profile, the Aggressiveness.

TABLE 4 –PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH VARIMAX ROTATION

ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

CHARACTERISTICS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Debating skill 0,773

Argumentation skill 0,689

Ability to persuade others 0,453
Ability to express thoughts verbally 0,439
Persistence and determination 0,723
Patience 0,661
Degree of individual initiative 0,476
Negotiation training 0,799
Previous negotiation experience 0,602
Status or rank in organization 0,465
Formal educational level 0,389
Listening skill 0,772
Insight into others’ feelings and needs 0,515
Insight into hidden needs and reactions of own 0,422
organization and opponent’s organization
Skill in communicating by nonverbal language 0,707
Trusting temperament -0,424
Tolerance to uncertainty and ambiguity 0,412
Self-confidence and self-esteem. 0,355
Distrusting temperament 0,663
Integrity -0,534
Self-control 0,475
Ability to use emotions 0,790
Competitiveness (desire to compete and win) 0,679

20
 Factor 7 seems to be related with an understanding and collaboration attitude towards

the other party. Since the negotiation is an activity that requests a compromise to solve the

existing conflict, it is important for the negotiators to maintain a tolerant attitude, giving in

some subjects to arrive to a commitment that is acceptable for both. This factor includes the

tolerance and the compromising temperament, which reveals a collaborative attitude.

However, the ability to act different roles and postures variable doesn't fit in this explanation.

In spite of everything we will designate this factor as Collaborative attitude.

Whole the variables included in the factor 8 are related with the verbal

communication that happens during the negotiation. In some way they are whole correlated

with each other in the common objective of communicating a message to the other party. As

so, we designated this factor as Verbal Communication. Once again, the variables that

initially had been proposed as communication variables, appear divided. This time, just those

that are related with the verbal communication appear in this factor.

Factor 9 includes the characteristics that represent the perseverance and the dedication

how negotiator approaches the negotiation, like determination, patience and personal

initiative. Seems that the negotiators should not follow an inflexible road obstinately.

However, they should be determined, patient and pawned in the search of a solution that

satisfies its objectives. That is why we designated this factor as Perseverance. It is of noticing

that this factor appears related to a personality characteristic (patience), because it is perfectly

acceptable that the persistence and the patience are characteristics that define the same

dimension of the negotiator profile.

The variables included in the factor 10 are related with the learning of the techniques

during the negotiator's career. That learning includes not only the specific training in

negotiation, as the practical experience in real negotiations and the educational level. The

hierarchical level appears as a consequence of the negotiator's learning. That specialist

21
negotiator would be somebody that, for merit and fruit of its personal experience, have the

necessary competences to reach its objectives. For all this, we identified this factor as

Expertise. This factor includes some of the variables initially identified as personal

accomplishment.

The eleventh factor seems related with the way like negotiator perceives opponent

information, as well as negotiation environment, to understand and, consequently, to react to

its opponent's real motivations and interests. This factor that we defined as Perspective

Taking Ability, includes all the characteristics that allow the negotiator to identify its

opponent's perspective. For that, more than to speak negotiators should know how to hear and

to interpret correctly the content of the messages and to perceive, through the attitudes and

signs its opponent point of view. Once again, this factor includes communication variables

(listening ability) and perception of the negotiation environment variables, conferring a more

logical and coherent interpretation of the reality.

Factor 12, that we denominated as Nonverbal Communication, raises some problems

in its interpretation. It seems to be related with the negotiator's expressivities during the

negotiation process. This includes nonverbal expression (i.e., the capacity to communicate

through nonverbal language, as gestures, silence, posture, etc.), and tolerance to uncertainty

and ambiguity. These characteristics are related with the communication of signs, controlled

or not by the negotiator. Strange is the negative weight of the predisposition to trust. The

nonverbal communication can increase or decrease the trust among the negotiators. A

possible interpretation is that negotiators that use the nonverbal communication to transmit,

or to hide, its real feelings to reach their objectives are individuals unwilling to trust in the

other ones, once them own manipulate the expression of their feelings.

The factor 13 is one of the most interesting. Seemingly it is related with a defensive

attitude of the negotiator. Some negotiators maintain a defensive attitude, not trusting almost

22
anything that others says, to avoid being deceived, not expressing emotions that can reveal

information to avoid falling in a vulnerable situation. Curious is the negative weight of the

variable integrity. Probably, behaviors too much defensive are associated with a unethical

conduct, that is, not very open, hiding pertinent information to the other party, and using

dishonest tactics. For example, the bluff or threats. For all this, we denominated this factor as

Defensiveness.

Factor 14 is clear once it just includes one variable. The ability to use emotions is

related with a negotiator's capacity to get, through the expression of its emotions (positive or

negatives), reactions in its opponent that allow reaching its objectives. This factor seems to be

related with the negotiator's emotional intelligence. The emotional intelligence refers to the

ability to manage the emotions in the interpersonal relationships, and therefore can have a

decisive impact in the negotiation, defining a very important dimension of the negotiator

profile.

To finish, the fifteenth factor also includes just one variable, the competitiveness, that

is to say, the will that a negotiator has to compete and to win in any situation. Together with

the collaboration (factor 7), this is one of the most studied characteristic by the literature,

defining a dimension of profile negocial, the Competitiveness.

The principal components factor analysis allowed us to find fifteen dimensions of the

negotiator profile: (1) Preparation; (2) Performance; (3) Image; (4) Demography; (5)

Cognitive complexity; (6) Aggressiveness; (7) Collaboration; (8) Verbal communication; (9)

Perseverance; (10) Expertise; (11) Perspective taking ability; (12) Nonverbal communication;

(13) Defensiveness; (14) Emotiveness; (15) Competitiveness. Having begun our work with a

proposal of ten dimensions of the negotiator's profile, we found that the factori analysis was a

valuable contribution, because conjugating variables of different groups and subdividing

others in two or more factors, it provided a more rich and coherent interpretation of reality.

23
 In a general way we can end that the variables for us considered as “personality” or as

“attitude towards negotiation” always appeared tied up with other variables with which they

link and not in an individual way. This means that it doesn't exist a dimension personality or

attitude. However, personality traits or the different attitudes considered by us appear linked

to factors with which they are more related, increasing a lot the richness of the interpretation

of this complex reality.

CONCLUSION

Our study corroborates the general idea that negotiation skills are a core competence

to every business top managers. Judging from our sample composed by executives with a

high average of experience (25 years) and age (50 years), we can conclude that there are a set

of special characteristics that allow them to be a more effective negotiators in the complex,

dynamic and uncertain environment that characterize real-life business negotiations.

From the factor analysis conducted to responses to the importance of 52

characteristics we identified 15 dimensions of skilled negotiator’s profile: (1) Preparation; (2)

Performance; (3) Image; (4) Demography; (5) Cognitive complexity; (6) Aggressiveness; (7)

Collaboration; (8) Verbal communication; (9) Perseverance; (10) Expertise; (11) Perspective

taking ability; (12) Nonverbal communication; (13) Defensiveness; (14) Emotiveness; (15)

Competitiveness.

We think that the significance and the interest of all these profile dimensions justify

more deep studies, in order to determinate how each one really influences negotiators’ skills.

Further research may use these dimensions to study how negotiators’ characteristics influence

the negotiation process, and as a consequence, improve its outcome.

In this paper we only addressed the results obtained about negotiators characteristics,

but in our research we also studied ethics conduct in negotiation and behavioral attitude

24
towards negotiation of Portuguese executives which will allow us in the future to have a

better understanding of complex negotiations.

Finally, we suggest that future research should study the others components of

INEMO, in order to obtain a global understanding of the interdependence of all model

components as an integrated process.

25
REFERENCES

Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: A fundamentalist approach

to marketing theory. Hornewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in retail car negotiations.

American Economic Review, 85, pp. 304-321.

Barry, B. (1999). The tactical use of emotion in negotiation. In R. Bies, R. Lewicki & B.

Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 7, pp. 93-121.

Greenwich: JAI Press.

Barry, B., & Friedman, R. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative

negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, pp. 345-359.

Bazerman, M., & Neale, M. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press.

Bazerman, M., Curhan, J., & Valley, K. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology,

51, pp. 279-314.

Davidson, M., & Greenhalgh, L. (1999). The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of

anger and rage. In R. Bies, R. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in

Organizations, Vol. 7, pp. 3-26. 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.

Gilkey, R., & Greenhalgh, L. (1986). The role of personality in successful negotiation.

Negotiation Journal, 2, pp. 247-256.

26
Greenhalgh, L., & Chapman, D. (1998). Negotiator relationships, construct measurement, and

demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. Group

Decision and Negotiation, 7, pp. 465-489.

Greenhalgh, L. (2000). Managing Strategic Relationships: The Key to Business Success. New

York: The Free Press.

Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S., & Gilkey, R. (1985). The effects of negotiator preferences,

situacional power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations.

Academy of Management Journal, 28, pp. 9-33.

Hammond, J. (1979). Characteristics of an effective negotiator. Harvard Business School

Note.

Karrass, C. (1968). A study of the relationship of negotiator skill and power as determinants

of negotiation outcome. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.

Kemp, C., & Smith, W. (1994). Information exchange, toughness, and integrative bargaining:

The roles of explicit cues and perspective-taking. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 5, pp. 5-21.

Kemper, C. (1999). EQ vs. IQ. Communication World, Vol. 16, Issue 9, pp:15-20.

Kumar, R. (1997). The role of affect in negotiations: An integrative overview. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 33 (1), pp. 84-100.

Lewicki, R., Weiss, S., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party

intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, pp. 209-

252.

Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2000). Negotiation (3rd Ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill

International Editions.

Neu, J., Graham, J., & Gilly, M. (1988). The influence of gender on behaviors and outcomes

in a retail buyer-seller negotiation simulation. Journal of Retailing, 64, pp. 427-451.

27
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.

Peterson, R. (1998). Assessing the impact of individual characteristics and bargaining

strategy selection on negotiation planning and preparation behaviors. Doctoral

Dissertation, The University of Memphis.

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.

Rackam, N. (1980). The behavior of successful negotiators. Huthwaite Research Group.

Reprinted in R. Lewicki, D. Saunders, & J. Minton (Eds.), Negotiation: Readings,

exercises and cases (3rd Ed.) Chicago: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Rand, J. (1987). Negotiating: Master the possibilities. Personnel Journal, 66, pp. 91-95.

Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New

York: Academic Press.

Schmidt, F., Hunter, J., Outerbridge, A., & Goff, S. (1988). Joint relation of experience and

cognitive ability with job performance: Test of three hypotheses. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73, pp. 46-57.

Shapiro, D., & Bies, R. (1994). Threats, bluffs, and disclaimers in negotiation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, pp. 14-35.

Stenberg, R., & Soriano, L. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47, 115-126.

Sternberg, R., & Dobson, D. (1987). Resolving interpersonal conflict: An analysis of stylistic

consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, pp. 794-812.

28
Thompson, L. (1990) Negotiator behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical

issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, pp. 515-532.

Thompson, L. (2001). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle Rive:

Prentice-Hall.

Underdal, A. (1991). The outcomes of negotiation. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International

negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues, pp. 100-115. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zartman, I. (1994). The elephant and the holograph: Toward a theoretical synthesis and a

paradigm. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), International multilateral negotiation, pp. 213-222.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

29