No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Who asks and who receives in salary negotiation
Abstract
The influence of individual differences and negotiation strategies on starting salary outcomes was investigated. A sample of 149 newly hired employees in various industry settings participated in this study. Results indicated that those who chose to negotiate increased their starting salaries by an average of $5000. Individuals who negotiated by using competing and collaborating strategies, characterized by an open discussion of one's positions, issues, and perspectives, further increased their salaries as compared to those who used compromising and accommodating strategies. Individual differences, including risk-aversion and integrative attitudes, played a significant role in predicting whether or not individuals negotiated, and if so, what strategies they used. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... Future salary increases and benefit rates are commonly awarded based on starting rate of pay (Gerhart and Rynes 1991;Kugler et al. 2018;Rubin and Brown 1975;Thompson et al. 2010), and can have a drastic financial impact across a career. Assuming a five-percent wage increase over a 40-year career, an employee with a starting salary of $55,000 can earn nearly $635,000 more across their career compared to a counterpart with a starting salary of $50,000 (Marks and Harold 2009). Just a $5,000 difference in starting salary can drastically affect the financial trajectory of a young employee. ...
... Overall, women are less likely to initiate and participate in negotiations compared to men (Babcock et al. 2006;Gerhart and Rynes 1991;Hernandez-Arenaz and Iriberri 2019;Kugler et al. 2018;O'Shea and Bush 2002), and individual differences in the type of negotiation strategies used also account for who is likely to initiate and receive benefit from the negotiation attempt (Marks and Harold 2009). Social role theory explains that beliefs about assumed gender roles guide the perceptions of men's and women's social roles within society (Eagly and Wood 2012), which contributes to the assignment of gender-specific attitudes in negotiation situations. ...
... Though women have the ability to attain agentic attributes in a negotiation experience, they often face what is known as the "backlash effect": social retaliation for violating gender roles and norms (Amanatullah and Morris 2010;Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013;Kugler et al. 2018;Rudman 1998;Rudman and Fairchild 2004;Rudman and Glick 1999;Williams and Tiedens 2016). As a result, women tend to negotiate in ways that favor communal benefits rather than personal gain (Nelson et al. 2015;Saari et al. 2017), which often is less successful than agentic strategies (Hernandez-Arenaz and Iriberri 2019; Marks and Harold 2009;Nelson et al. 2015). ...
Early experiences in the home and at school provide opportunities for young workers to acquire foundational financial literacy knowledge and skills. Among adults, documented gender differences exist in terms of financial knowledge, remuneration, and negotiation in the workplace. The current study surveyed adolescent early workers (N = 268; 51% female) aged 18–19 years to assess gender differences in perceptions of and experiences with early work, remuneration, and negotiation. Key findings supported some patterns of gender disparities. Females reported learning less about finances in school compared to males and reported being paid less for casual jobs than their male counterparts. While few early workers had any previous negotiation experience, success rate of a negotiator was predicted by characteristics related to existing gender norms. The study provides evidence of some gender differences in financial knowledge and negotiation behavior among early workers and supports the need for additional educational support and opportunities in these domains.
... Whereas past studies on negotiation propensity were mostly conducted with negotiation simulations in the laboratory (cf. Gerhart & Rynes, 1991;Marks & Harold, 2011), our field studies have high ecological validity because we examined the negotiation propensity and outcomes of actual employees. Moreover, our 19-year MBA data set is among the first to reveal how negotiation propensity is influenced by industry negotiation norm (consulting industry vs. non-consulting industries), which remains understudied in the literature. ...
... "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate" is a well-known adage in negotiations, as evidenced by its many parallels ("You don't get what you don't ask for"; "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"; "If you don't ask, the answer is always no"). Consistent with this adage, much research has documented the economic benefits of negotiation (Marks & Harold, 2011;O'Shea & Bush, 2002). For example, a study of MBA graduates found that 56% of those who negotiated obtained higher salaries as a result (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991). ...
... In light of these reasons about relational concerns, we propose that EAs and SEAs may be less likely than SAs and Whites to negotiate starting salaries (an act of assertiveness). Given the economic benefits of negotiation (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991;Marks & Harold, 2011), EAs and SEAs may thus have lower starting salaries (net of other factors such as education level). ...
In the US, Asians are commonly viewed as the “model minority” because of their economic prosperity. We challenge this rosy view by revealing that certain Asian groups may be susceptible to lower starting salaries. In Study 1, we analyzed 19 class years of MBAs who accepted full-time job offers in the US. At first glance, Asians appeared to have starting salaries similarly high as Whites’. However, a striking gap emerged once we distinguished between East Asians (e.g., ethnic Chinese), Southeast Asians (e.g., ethnic Vietnamese), and South Asians (e.g., ethnic Indians): Whereas South Asians started with the highest salaries of all ethnicities, East/Southeast Asians were near the bottom. This salary gap was mediated by East/Southeast Asians’ propensity to not negotiate due to higher relational concerns. Importantly, negotiation predicted higher salary for each of the three groups (East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, and Whites). In further support of negotiation propensity as a mechanism, we identified industry as a boundary condition: The salary gap was not observed for consulting jobs, where MBA starting salaries are typically standard and non-negotiable. The non-consulting salary gap between East/Southeast and South Asians was estimated to be $4,002/year, a sizable difference that can compound over career life. Study 2 found similar results in a non-MBA sample while further accounting for individuals’ bargaining power (e.g., the number of alternative offers, the highest alternative offer). In revealing the differences between East/Southeast and South Asians, this research moves beyond the predominant West-vs-East paradigm, and reveals a more complex reality underneath Asian prosperity.
... E. Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000;Gelfand et al., 2006;Leigh Thompson & Deharpport, 1998). Second, an individual adopting a relational orientation is more likely to employ an accommodative negotiation strategy whereas an individual adopting a transactional orientation is more likely to negotiate competitively (Curhan et al., 2008), and accommodative approaches to salary negotiation have been shown to result in lower raises than competitive approaches (Marks & Harold, 2011). ...
... In terms of pay, I expect to find smaller within-job gender gaps in pay when jobs are entered through posting as compared to sponsorship. Survey research and lab experiments have consistently demonstrated that women are significantly less likely to engage in salary negotiations and are less successful when they do, largely because women tend to adopt a more relational approach to such negotiations (Babcock & Laschever, 2003;Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007;Marks & Harold, 2011). I argue that the transactional nature of the posting process, in contrast to more relational sponsorship process, will reduce gender differences in negotiating behavior by encouraging women both to initiate negotiations and to adopt a more competitive approach when they do negotiate. ...
... That requires shifting our attention to behavioral barriers resulting from individual-level differences in preferences or behaviors that are either innate or the product of such early socialization processes that they operate as if they were innate (Hull & Nelson, 2000, p. 232). Gender differences in negotiation are an important source of gender inequalities in pay, with lab and survey evidence indicating that women are less likely than men to initiate salary negotiations (Babcock & Laschever, 2003;Bowles et al., 2007;Greig, 2008) are more likely to use ineffective negotiation strategies when they do choose to negotiate (Marks & Harold, 2011). ...
Despite the fact that more than half of all jobs are filled internally, we know surprisingly little about the organizational process used to facilitate internal mobility. This dissertation addresses this gap by examining the different ways by which current employees are allocated to new jobs within organizations. Using personnel records and job application data from a large services organization, I examine how posting and sponsorship â?? the two mostly commonly used internal hiring processes â?? shape outcomes of importance to firms and workers. Posting is a formal, market-oriented process in which a manager posts a job and interested employees apply. Sponsorship is an informal, relationship-oriented process in which a manager fills a job with a candidate known through a personal connection. In the first study, I examine how posting and sponsorship shape value creation and capture, arguing that while posting will generate higher quality of internal hires by helping managers overcome challenges associated with identifying and evaluating internal candidates, the competitive nature of the process will lead workers to negotiate for higher salaries, limiting the value a firm is able to capture through improved decision-making. Consistent with these arguments, I find that posting results in better hires but at a higher cost, highlighting important tradeoffs associated with allocating human capital formally though markets or informally through managerial networks. In the second study, I examine how posting and sponsorship shape the organizational careers of women, arguing that posting has the potential to reduce gender inequalities in advancement and pay by overcoming structural barriers imposed by job segregation and minimizing gender differences in negotiating behaviors. I also argue, however, that the posting process is gendered in such a way as to discourage women from applying for posted jobs. In finding empirical support for these arguments, this study highlights how the ability of organizational processes to remediate gender inequalities depends on the extent to which they account for both gender differences in structural constraints and gender differences in preferences and behaviors. Packaged together, these studies provide a more complete understanding of the mechanisms facilitating worker mobility in contemporary labor markets.
... The authors found a significant difference in salary negotiation outcomes based on gender and found that the men in their study almost always asked for a higher salary. Marks and Harold (2009) hypothesize that for a salary increase to occur one must ask and since the women in this study tended to ask less in comparison to the men surveyed, salary increase outcomes were predominantly successful among the men in the study. ...
... Whether or not an individual would or would not negotiate was based on aversion or inclination towards risk. Marks and Harold (2009) deconstructed individual differences into two categories: ...
... If individuals possess integrative attitudes, they tend to use one of the following four strategies: (1) collaboration -reaching an agreement amenable to both parties, (2) competition -the use of persuasion, threat, or misrepresentation, (3) accommodationyielding, or (4) compromise -a mix of concern for one's self and the other party. Marks and Harold (2009) touch on the importance of emotion in negotiation and how perceived fairness during discussions formed attitudes of commitment and satisfaction which ultimately impact performance in the workplace. I would be interested to know the authors' opinions as to whether or not emotion is gendered. ...
This thesis explores negotiation processes for remuneration in the workplace. Drawing on a survey of 97 respondents and interviews with employees at a large private university on the East Coast of the United States, it analyzes the impact of gender on negotiation outcomes. It demonstrates that gender-based disparities persist, even when women enter into negotiation processes. The survey and interviews investigate six consequential aspects of workplace negotiation: (1) fear and assumptions in early career negotiations, (2) penalization and deviance, (3) the role of an advocate in the negotiation process, (4) generational differences in approaches to negotiation and in sharing information about remuneration, (5) drivers of negotiation, and (6) tactics and approaches to advance successful negotiation outcomes. In compiling shared experiences and identifying patterns in negotiation outcomes, constructive strategies for successful negotiation in the workplace are developed.
... Participants' view of negotiation as a zero-sum Bfixed pie^was assessed using two items (α = 0.698) drawn from Marks and Harold (2011). Participants indicated their (dis)agreement with these statements (e.g. ...
... We provide a second test of our prediction about entitlement and aspirations (hypothesis 1), examining whether these aspirations extend to the employment context. In salary negotiations, the willingness to ask for more leads to large career-long differences in earnings, as the benefits to negotiating repeat, accumulate and compound (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991;O'Shea & Bush, 2002;Marks & Harold, 2011). We also seek to replicate our finding from our two previous studies (hypothesis 5) that entitlement predicts the endorsement of unethical tactics in negotiation. ...
In this paper, we extend the literature on psychological entitlement to the domain of negotiation. Psychological entitlement describes a tendency to demand excessive and unearned rewards. For negotiators, entitlement is associated with individually beneficial attitudes like aspirations, first offer intentions, and self-efficacy, but also with contentious and unethical approaches to bargaining. As such, we argue that entitlement in negotiation may function as a social trap: The functional negotiation attitudes it engenders are likely to result in personally favourable outcomes for the entitled negotiator, reinforcing and exacerbating those attitudes. But these advantages are simultaneously accompanied by a suite of dysfunctional attitudes (unethicality, a "zero-sum" mindset, and a contentious style) that lead the entitled to seek advantage at others' cost. In three cross-sectional studies of recalled, hypothetical, and planned future negotiations (n=615), we show both the functional and dysfunctional consequences of entitlement in negotiation. Importantly, we establish the ability of entitlement to predict these consequences above and beyond traits robustly situated in the personality literature (e.g., narcissism, low agreeableness, neuroticism). Our findings indicate entitlement may have pernicious effects for negotiation ethics. We close by addressing the methodological limitations of our study, and by proposing a research agenda for management, personality, and negotiation researchers interested in mitigating the effects of entitlement in negotiating.
... Moreover, there is only a little understanding of the underlying mechanisms explaining how employers perceive former entrepreneurs in the recruitment and selection context . Therefore, a more dedicated inquiry of employers' perceptions is warranted as they may determine the number and quality of former entrepreneurs' job options (e.g., Feldman, 1996;Leana & Feldman, 1995;Marks & Harold, 2011). Accordingly, employers' perceptions initial career outcomes and alter former entrepreneurs' career trajectories toward their "upward, downward, or lateral mobility" (Burton et al., 2016, p. 241). ...
... Employability perceptions are important career indicators that determine the number and quality of job options (e.g., Feldman, 1996;Gerhart & Rynes, 1991;Leana & Feldman, 1995;Marks & Harold, 2011) and by that can alter entrepreneurs' career trajectories toward their "upward, downward, or lateral mobility" (Burton et al., 2016, p. 241). By conceptually informing employability perceptions, categorization theories also provide a new perspective toward the entrepreneurial careers literature that has predominantly dealt with post-hire administrative data estimating the economic returns from entrepreneurship in paid employment (e.g., . ...
Entrepreneurship is not a final career destination. Accordingly, there is an emerging debate in the entrepreneurial careers literature about the employability of former entrepreneurs in subsequent paid employment. By investigating income distributions, current research proposes both earning premiums and wage penalties for former entrepreneurs. Despite the meaningful contributions of this research, the literature occurs predominantly on the macro-economic level with large-scale administrative data, concentrates on post-hire performance measures for such individuals with a “successful” transition into paid employment, and is far away from a consistent picture on the employability of former entrepreneurs. Research on the pre-hire employability of former entrepreneurs is scattered, and it is not intuitively clear if former entrepreneurs are preferred job candidates in the eyes of future employers. Therefore, this dissertation addresses this void by zooming into employers’ subjective perceptions of former entrepreneurs’ employability. By that, this dissertation establishes a pre-hire and cognitive-based perspective grounded in categorization and attribution theories to contribute to the employability debate about former entrepreneurs. To achieve this, Chapter 1 describes the scientific relevance, the goals, and the intended contributions of this dissertation. Chapter 2 develops and tests a novel theory about the employability of former entrepreneurs by accounting for the heterogeneity in employers’ perceptions and the underlying mechanisms in two studies. Overall, employability perceptions are mediated by the positive and negative stereotypes and the inherent uncertainty employers possess about former entrepreneurs resulting in an overall negative perception of former entrepreneurs. Moreover, there is evidence that the entrepreneurship category has “neutral” employment implications if the job opening comes with personnel responsibility, if the entrepreneur has failure in the vita, or if employers are more similar to the entrepreneur. Chapter 3 addresses the stereotypes about former entrepreneurs more directly. Results from a priming experiment indicate that six negative stereotype factors (e.g., difficulties in following instructions) explain the negative employability perceptions and four stereotype factors that compensate for the general negative effect (e.g., good people management). Chapter 4 targets employers’ perceptions of former entrepreneurs’ failure attributions. The results from a metric conjoint experiment indicate that person-centered failure attributions (e.g., lack of skill or lack of effort) outweigh the distancing attributions in the employment interview, especially when the former entrepreneur is female. Chapter 5 has a methodological focus and illustrates the concerns with the current use of test-retest reliabilities in metric conjoint experiments (a recurring issue of the previous chapters). Two simulation studies indicate that the current reliability threshold of r = 0.70 is superficial as regression outcomes are relatively stable across several test-retest reliabilities. The last chapter summarizes the previous chapters and discusses the overall scientific contributions. Overall, this dissertation helps to understand the employment implications for former entrepreneurs by zooming into employers’ subjective evaluations of former entrepreneurs’ employability.
... Babcock et al., 2006). For instance, earlier studies found that female students are much less likely to negotiate their initial compensation offers than their male counterparts (Babcock and Laschever, 2003), and a significant part of the gender difference of initial salaries can be explained by male graduates' negotiated gains (Babcock and Laschever, 2003;Bowles et al., 2005;Marks and Harold, 2011). Results of a number of surveys indicate that MBA students who negotiated for larger salaries obtain increases ranging from $1,000 to $7,000, and such differences in starting salaries can lead to even more substantial compensation gaps over time (Bowles et al., 2005). ...
... The psychology literature suggests that personality traits impact an individual's conflict resolution style and negotiation behavior (e.g. Gilke and Greenhalgh, 1986;Wood and Bell, 2008;Marks and Harold, 2011). Following many studies in this line of research (e.g. ...
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to examine whether women encounter more social resistance than men do when they attempt to negotiate for higher compensation, and whether the gender and personality of the interviewer moderates that resistance.
Design/methodology/approach
– The authors conducted an experiment to explore how gender and personality jointly influence interviewers’ decision making in job negotiations.
Findings
– The authors found that: first, female interviewees who initiate negotiations in a job interview are penalized by both male and female interviewers; second, more agreeable interviewers are “nicer” than less agreeable ones to interviewees who ask for more pay, even after controlling for the interviewers’ gender; and third, more extraverted interviewers are “tougher” than less extraverted interviewers toward interviewees who initiate salary negotiation. These phenomena are more pronounced when interviewees are male as opposed to female.
Research limitations/implications
– Some limitations need to be brought to the reader’s attention. First, the participants of this study are undergraduate students. While most of them have job interview experience as an interviewee, few have any experience as an interviewer. In order to minimize this effect, we used human resources management students who previously had a course on hiring and selection in this experiment. Second, the order of the interviewees evaluated by participants, acting as interviewers, could cause an “order effect.”
Practical implications
– This study contributes to the gender, personality, and negotiations literature, and “fills the gap” on the joint effect of gender, personality, and hiring decision making. Gender discrimination during job interviews suggests that business needs to address discrimination and diversity issues earlier. It may be wise for management to consider the potential bias of an interviewer’s gender and personality on their hiring decisions before the organization makes a final decision on which interviewee should be hired and how much salary should be offered.
Originality/value
– To the best of the knowledge of the authors, no prior studies have explored the joint effect of gender and personality on negotiation behavior in a job interview setting from an interviewer’s perspective.
... A recent survey by Glassdoor, a popular job recruiting site, found almost 60 percent of American employees simply accepted the first salary they were offered (Glassdoor Team 2016). This, despite research demonstrating that those who negotiate their salaries earn considerably more (Marks and Harold 2011;Säve-Söderbergh 2019). It has even been argued that reluctance to negotiate contributes to economic inequality as both women and minorities show greater reluctance to negotiate (Babcock and Laschever 2009;Hernandez and Avery 2016), and even when they negotiate, their demands are met with resistance and backlash (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013). ...
... However, this increase in experimental control comes at a great cost. One of the hallmarks of strong negotiators is the ability to adapt to one's partner-to understand their opponent's interests, communicate their own, and guide the negotiation toward mutually beneficial trade-offs (Thompson 1991;Marks and Harold 2011). Study of such interactive processes is simply not possible if one side is controlled by a deterministic script. ...
Innovations in artificial intelligence are enabling a new class of applications that can negotiate with people through chat or spoken language. Developed in close collaboration with behavioral science research, these algorithms can detect, mimic, and leverage human psychology, enabling them to undertake such functions as the detection of common mistakes made by novice negotiators. These algorithms can simulate the cognitive processes that shape human negotiations and make use of these models to influence negotiated outcomes. This article reviews some of the scientific advances enabling this technology and discusses how it is being used to advance negotiation research, teaching, and practice.
... Should they choose to negotiate, candidates adopting a relational orientation are more likely to employ an accommodative strategy (showing low concern for their outcomes), whereas individuals adopting a transactional orientation are more likely to employ a competitive approach (showing high concern for their outcomes) (Curhan et al., 2008). Accommodative approaches to salary negotiations have been shown to result in lower raises than competitive approaches do (Marks and Harold, 2011). These arguments suggest the following hypothesis: ...
... It would be particularly interesting to examine whether gender differences exist in negotiations across these two processes. For example, the competitive nature of the posting process may help to reduce well-established gender differences in negotiations (e.g., Bowles, Babcock, and Lai, 2007;Marks and Harold, 2011). If women and men are just as likely to negotiate after being selected through the more competitive posting process, or even if the difference in propensity to negotiate were simply diminished, posting may help to reduce within-job gender wage inequality. ...
Recent research highlights the benefits of internal hiring––filling a job by hiring a worker currently employed by the organization––and more than half of jobs are filled that way. Yet we know surprisingly little about the processes that facilitate the movement of workers across jobs within firms. I address this gap by first detailing the portfolio of internal hiring processes employed by large organizations, focusing on posting and slotting. Posting is a predominantly market-based process in which a manager posts an open job and invites interested candidates to apply, whereas slotting is a predominantly relational process in which a manager personally identifies a preferred candidate and “slots” him or her into an open job. I then examine how key differences between posting and slotting shape two outcomes of importance to firms and workers: quality of hire and compensation. My analysis of 8,107 internal hires at a large U.S. health-services firm reveals that outcomes for internal candidates depend, in part, on the nature of the process used to facilitate the movement from one job to the next; compared with slotted employees, workers who enter a job through posting have higher performance ratings, earn higher salaries, and are less likely to exit the firm. My findings suggest that the posting process improves the quality of hires by expanding the pool of potential candidates at the recruiting stage and by disciplining the information managers use to evaluate candidates at the selection stage. As well, internal candidates hired through posting are more likely to initiate salary negotiations and negotiate more competitively, resulting in higher initial salaries.
... Thus, everyday interactions create a strong link between the parties; neither labor nor management can avoid such exchanges or having a common history in which grievances and distrust may abound. If both parties deliberately restrict the CB negotiation to a purely adversarial discussion, in which there is no learning and trust remains inhibited, the resulting CA will fail to answer satisfactorily the interests of those they represent (Peterson & Lewin, 2000; Fonstad, McKersie, & Eaton, 2004; Marks & Harold, 2009). ...
This paper examines how and why a mediation process may transform an antagonistic labor-management relation, in two post-privatized telecommunications companies in an emerging economy, and make it evolve from severe confrontation to responsive collaboration. We deem that the analysis of such process allows gaining a better understanding of the positive impact that frank dialogue and trust may have on an organizational conflict, even when the prevalent social and political context, present in a good number of the Latin American countries, encourages labor-management altercations (Reade & Reade McKenna, 2009). After a decade of structural reforms that dismantled the state-owned economic apparatus, social turmoil, economic depression and extreme political weakness led, by the end of 2001, the Argentinean government to collapse. A new government, inaugurated in 2003, proclaimed the instatement of a new policy of wealth distribution guided by equity that eased the access to power within their organizations to the most combative union members and, consequently, made labor-management conflicts proliferate. After a tumultuous episode in 2004, both Telefónica de Argentina’s (TASA) and Telecom de Argentina’s (TECO) management and the Federación de Obreros y Empleados Telefónicos de la República Argentina – Sindicato Buenos Aires’ (FOETRA-BA) leadership agreed to carry out a mediation process seeking to transform their unproductive confrontation into fruitful collaboration without relinquishing their respective interests. The contribution of this exploratory case study is the exposure of the transformative capabilities of a mediation process on a previously strenuous labor-management relation.
... Babcock et al., 2006;Rizzo & Mendez, 1988;Small et al., 2007;Thomas & Thomas, 2008). In addition, Machiavellianism and risk propensity had been found to relate significantly to assertiveness and initiation in prior research (Barbuto & Moss, 2006;Marks & Harold, 2011;Volkema & Fleck, 2012), so they also were included as control variables in this study. To measure Machiavellianism, the Mach IV questionnaire was employed (Christie & Geis, 1970). ...
This article reports on a study of the effects of recognition of negotiable opportunities (ability) and self-efficacy (motivation) on initiation behavior in negotiations, an often overlooked stage of the negotiation process. Three phases of the initiation process are examined—engaging, requesting, and optimizing—through three negotiation scenarios offering corresponding forced-choice behavioral options. Results suggest that, overall, the recognition of negotiable opportunities and the interaction of recognition and self-efficacy best predict initiation intentionality. More specifically, recognition and the interaction of recognition and self-efficacy were significantly associated with the likelihood of making a request, whereas the interaction of recognition and self-efficacy was significantly associated with the likelihood of optimizing that request. The implications of these findings for practitioners and future research are discussed.
... Personal variables may include the interviewee's gender, personality, motivation, knowledge, experience and skills (Bonner, 2008). Psychology literature suggests that personality traits may influence an individual's risk choice and negotiation behavior (Barry and Friedman, 1998;Lauriola and Levin, 2001;Lauriola et al., 2014;Levin et al., 2002;Parker and Spears, 2002;Wood and Bell, 2008;Marks and Harold, 2011). In this study, we chose to use the Big Five model to classify personality traits. ...
Purpose
– The aim of this study is to examine how personality traits influence interviewees’ negotiation decisions as well as whether and to what extent such effects are moderated by one’s gender and risk attitudes.
Design/methodology/approach
– An experiment was designed in which participants acted as interviewees and were asked to decide whether to initiate negotiations to potentially increase their salary and benefits. A logistic regression analysis and conditional process analysis were used to examine the effects of personality traits (agreeableness and extraversion) on the initiation of salary negotiation, as well as whether and to what extent such effects are moderated by one’s gender and risk attitudes.
Findings
– A significant direct influence of extraversion and risk attitude on a job applicant’s initiation of salary negotiations. It was also found that risk attitudes moderate the effect of personality traits (i.e. agreeableness and extraversion) on individuals’ negotiation decisions. This study thus indicates that the effects of personality traits on job applicants’ initiation of salary negotiations are contingent on their risk attitudes.
Originality/value
– To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the direct as well as moderated effects of personality traits on interviewees’ negotiation behavior in job interviews. The findings of this study thus significantly contribute to the literature in this line of research. Human resource professionals, as well as job seekers, may also benefit from the findings and implications of this study.
... Again, the rate varies widely, but some experimental situations report men negotiating up to ten times as often as women (Small et al., 2007). This is a critical problem because negotiation can increase wages earned by thousands of dollars annually (Marks & Harold, 2009), and can have a compounding positive impact in the tens or hundreds of thousands over the span of a career, as raises are often percentage-based and grow in scale from an initial offer. ...
Implicit Gender Bias is the unconscious manifestation of assumptions and preferences we all hold about male and female behavior. This report considers the effects of longstanding male-provider and female-caregiver stereotypes at a time when women are increasingly relied upon to be providers; and explores how bias can unknowingly tip the balance against women in a workforce that seeks competence, assertiveness, and independence—but preferably from men.
... A study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found that "people who negotiate their starting salaries earn $5,000 more, on average, than those who simply take the first offer." (Marks, 2011). Writer Sierra Black explains the importance of negotiating the first salary. ...
The life science industry continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Novel biological discoveries occur every day. Although in recent years the dollars spent for federally-funded biological research has decreased, the regulatory requirements under which this work must be conducted have expanded, and along with it, the responsibilities of the biosafety professional. In general, the role of the biosafety professional is to ensure the health and welfare of individuals conducting biological research, and to safeguard the community and environment from the risks associated with working with pathogens, genetically engineered microorganisms, and toxins. Biosafety professionals bring value to the biotechnology industry, academic institutions, and to consumers of bio-commerce. In a previous article we identified five factors that contribute to the salaries of biosafety professionals (Gillum et al., 2013). This article continues the examination of factors influencing an individual's salary within the biosafety profession with results from a new survey.
... Although negotiating starting salary results in an average increase of $5000, more risk averse newly hired employees are less likely to negotiate their starting salary (Marks & Harold, 2011). Thus, in these types of situations ambivalence could potentially be adaptive in prompting people to be more risk seeking. ...
Decades of past research point to the downside of evaluative inconsistency (i.e., ambivalence), suggesting that it is an unpleasant state that can result in negative affect. Consequently, people are often motivated to resolve their ambivalence in various ways. We propose that people sometimes desire to be ambivalent as a means of strategic self-protection. Across employment, educational and consumer choice settings, we demonstrate that when people are uncertain they can obtain a desired target, they will cultivate ambivalence in order to protect their feelings in the event that they fail to get what they want. Specifically, we show that people consciously desire to cultivate ambivalence as a way to emotionally hedge and that they seek out and process information in ways to deliberately cultivate ambivalence. We find that people are most likely to generate ambivalence when they are most uncertain that they can obtain their desired target. Depending on the outcome, this cultivated ambivalence can either be useful (when the desired target is not obtained) or backfire (when the desired target is obtained). (PsycINFO Database Record
... For example, Miles (2010) (2002) propose that extroversion and self-confidence are antecedents. Marks and Harold (2011) found that two individual differences are related to the choice to negotiate or not. Risk-aversion was associated with less likelihood of negotiating while integrative attitudes were associated with choice of negotiation strategy. ...
Researchers and employers are typically united in their beliefs that human capital is critical to organizational success and that effective hiring is vitally important. Acquiring and keeping talented employees often requires engaging in negotiation of compensation and of terms of job offers. However, the academic negotiation literature has focused very little on compensation and job offer negotiations. In an attempt to provide guidance for such empirical research, we (a) summarize what is currently known through empirical evidence about job offer and compensation negotiations, and (b) present a research strategy to guide empirical investigations of compensation and job offer negotiations.
... Investigation of past SIOP activities relating to salary negotiations reveal some research on the topic, but there is much that needs to be done in terms of workshops and other training opportunities. In 2010 SIOP reported research by Crystal Harold and Michelle Marks on salary negotiation, which appeared in news stories and other articles and radio stations (Marks & Harold, 2011). The study showed that negotiation increases starting salaries by an average of $5,000, highlighting the significance of effective salary negotiation and why it is important to be upfront with issues, enabling both parties to consider creative ways to find win-win solutions. ...
A major goal of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) was to determine what steps are needed moving forward in examining gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Specifically, on the topic of pay differences, we highlight that gender differences in pay are in part due to differences in negotiation behaviors and/or experiences. Prior research demonstrates that female negotiators receive greater backlash than male negotiators—a possible explanation to why men tend to negotiate more often and more successfully than women (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Based on this evidence, one next step in moving forward should involve providing resources and knowledge to improve negotiation skills and practices specifically aimed at eliminating differences between women and men in both propensity to negotiate and the evaluation/consequences of negotiating.
... A common challenge in modelling job markets is a general lack of detailed information concerning firm behaviour, notably concerning employee recruiting practices. However, while the reasons why firms decide to hire a specific applicant are largely unobserved, the value that a company places on the hired applicant is readily available in the form of income surveys (Marks and Harold 2011). Specifically, assuming that most firms are profit maximizers, the wages paid to each employee represents an observable measure of the firm's assessment of the employee's value. ...
This paper introduces a new agent-based microsimulation (ABM) model of urban labour markets, in which workers actively seeking employment in each time period are matched with vacant jobs. The model is designed to operate within the Integrated Land Use, Transportation, Environment (ILUTE) urban simulation model system. In the current model application, 1986 is taken as the base year, with 20-year simulations being run (1986–2006) to test the model’s performance within a known historical time-period.
... A study conducted by researchers at Temple and George Mason looked at new hires who were paid a relatively small amount more than another worker hired at the same time was paid. 6 Assuming average annual pay increases of 5%, a male employee whose starting annual salary was $55,000 rather than a $50,000 salary for a female in an equivalent job would earn more than $600,000 extra over the course of a 40-year career. This significantly affects decisions such as retirement because the woman would have to work 3 years longer than the man to earn the same amount over the course of her career. ...
This article addresses new approaches to address a long-standing employment compensation problem—the gender pay gap. Existing approaches, including the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, are more than 50 years old, and have only been marginally successful in resolving this problem. A pay gap based on gender remains a problem today. New approaches include the potential passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act at the federal level and a variety of laws at the state level. Some states have passed pay equity laws that are more successful than the federal law due to the use of the comparable work concept. Additionally, some states have passed laws regulating the asking of salary history questions, as well as the use of non-compete and no-poaching agreements, all of which have a chilling effect on pay equity. The result of the combination of these actions is a probable reduction of the gender pay gap, although eliminating it remains a distant goal.
... Further, because many i-deals arise in the context of ongoing employment arrangements, conventional market-oriented bargaining need not always apply in i-deal creation. I-deal negotiations are likely to overlap partially with conventions regarding employment negotiation (Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996;Marks & Harold, 2011), while also operating in a more distinct relational space where persuasion and interpersonal support also contribute to their creation (Cialdini, 2007). These gaps suggest the value of examining how negotiation research can inform the understanding and study of i-deals and where new theorizing may be needed to explicate the dynamics of i-deal creation. ...
Individualized work arrangements (“i-deals”) negotiated by employees are increasingly common in contemporary employment. Existing research largely focuses on phenomena emerging after the creation of i-deals, particularly their consequences for employees and organizations. This focus overlooks the fundamental processes associated with negotiating i-deals in the first place. I-deals research originating in the last two decades can benefit from the more advanced body of research on negotiations, particularly in its attention to negotiation preparation and the bargaining process. We examine how negotiation research and theory inform our understanding of the dynamics operating in the creation of i-deals. In doing so, we identify key features of negotiation research that apply to i-deal formulation and use these to develop an agenda for future research on i-deals.
... Given the power of negotiation to influence both social and organizational life-across one's career and across domains-it is important to identify and understand systematic differences in who benefits from negotiation and who does not, as well the conditions that lead individuals to be less or more successful in achieving their goals through negotiation. Whether and how someone negotiates can affect his or her salary, promotion chances, and general well-being (Bazerman & Neale, 1993;Marks & Harold, 2011;Neale & Lys, 2015a). In particular, the gender gap in pay has been attributed in part to gender differences in negotiations (Babcock & Laschever, 2003;Gerhart & Rynes, 1991). ...
A substantial body of prior research documents a gender gap in negotiation performance. Competing accounts suggest that the gap is due either to women's stereotype-congruent behavior in negotiations or to backlash enacted toward women for stereotype-incongruent behavior. In this article, we use a novel data set of over 2,500 individual negotiators to examine how negotiation performance varies as a function of gender and the strength of one's alternative to a negotiated agreement. We find that the gender gap in negotiation outcomes exists only when female negotiators have a strong outside option. Furthermore, our large data set allows us to examine an understudied performance outcome, rate of impasse. We find that negotiations in which at least one negotiator is a woman with a strong alternative disproportionately end in impasse, a performance outcome that leaves considerable potential value unallocated. In addition, we find that these gender differences in negotiation performance are not due to gender differences in aspirations, reservation values, or first offers. Overall, these findings are consistent with a backlash account, whereby counterparts are less likely to come to an agreement and therefore reach a potentially worse outcome when one party is a female negotiator empowered by a strong alternative. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
... However, students failing to negotiate their job offers is a significant issue because students who do not negotiate are often leaving value on the table, which will compound over time. One study found a $5,000 premium in the starting salaries of new hires who negotiated (Marks & Harold, 2011). There are also gender differences, such as women being more reluctant to negotiate (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012), which might be contributing to perpetuating pay equity issues between men and women. ...
Students who do not negotiate their job offers often leave value on the table, which will compound over time and perhaps throughout an entire career. The purpose of this article is to present a process that has been successfully used to instruct management students regarding what to communicate during their job offer negotiations. Sample statements are provided so that students can communicate with prospective employers in a way that will allow them to maximize the value of their job offers while maintaining the relationship with the prospective employer. The connections between this teaching practice and the extant research literature as well as research questions that emanate specifically from these connections are also discussed.
Attachment theory has received scant consideration in the negotiation literature. We examined the effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance on negotiation propensity and performance in two studies. In terms of negotiation propensity (Study 1), attachment anxiety had significant, deleterious effects, though contrary to our predictions, attachment avoidance did not have significant effects. However, there was an interaction such that individuals high on attachment avoidance had a greater propensity to negotiate with an insecurely attached counterpart compared to a secure counterpart. In addition, attachment orientation influenced negotiation performance and information sharing (Study 2), but the effects depended upon role in the negotiation, with stronger effects for attachment avoidance as opposed to attachment anxiety. Theoretical and practical implications for research on negotiation and attachment theory are discussed.
The pursuit of desirable outcomes is often hindered by the threat of failure. While extant research largely characterizes self-threatening outcomes as eliciting an avoidance motivation, the current work demonstrates a novel intervention that can shift people towards an approach motivation: ambivalence towards the outcome. Within professional and personal domains, we show in seven experiments that considering both the pros and cons, rather than just the pros, of a self-threatening outcome encourages people to pursue it. We find that this heightened approach motivation occurs because ambivalence reduces an outcome’s desirability, in turn reducing self-threat, serially mediating the relationship between ambivalence and likelihood of pursuing the outcome. Further, we show that people do not intuit this effect and are likely not taking advantage of it. We conclude by discussing the managerial and theoretical implications of ambivalence in the face of self-threat.
Attachment theory has received scant consideration in the negotiation literature. We examined the effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance on negotiation propensity and performance in two studies. In terms of negotiation propensity (Study 1), attachment anxiety had significant, deleterious effects, though contrary to our predictions, attachment avoidance did not have significant effects. However, there was an interaction such that individuals high on attachment avoidance had a greater propensity to negotiate with an insecurely attached counterpart compared to a secure counterpart. In addition, attachment orientation influenced negotiation performance and information sharing (Study 2), but the effects depended upon role in the negotiation, with stronger effects for attachment avoidance as opposed to attachment anxiety. Theoretical and practical implications for research on negotiation and attachment theory are discussed.
Objective: To identify the role of gender and other factors in influencing ophthalmologists' compensation.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Participants: U.S. practicing ophthalmologists.
Methods: Between January and March 2020, an anonymous survey was sent to U.S. residency program directors and practicing ophthalmologists who recently completed residency training. Respondents who completed residency ≤10 years ago and responded to questions about gender, fellowship training, state of practice, and salary were included. Propensity score match (PSM) analysis was performed with age, academic residency, top residency, fellowship, state median wage, practice type, ethnicity and number of work days. Multivariate linear regression (MLR) analysis controlled for additional factors along with the aforementioned variables.
Main outcome measures: Base starting salary with bonus (SWB) received in the first year of clinical position was the main outcome measure. A multiplier of 1.2 (20%) was added to the base salary to account for bonus.
Results: Of 684 respondents, 384 (56% female, 44% male) from 68 programs were included. Female ophthalmologists received a mean initial SWB that was $33,139.80 less than their male colleagues (12.5%, p=0.00). PSM analysis showed a SWB difference of -$27,273.89 (10.3% gap, p=0.0015). Additionally, SWB differences were calculated with the number of work days substituted by OR days [-$19727.85 (8.60% gap, p=0.0092)] and clinic days [--$27793.67 (10.5% gap, p=0.0013)] in separate PSM analyses. The SWB differences between genders were significant using MLR analyses, which also controlled for work, clinic, and OR days separately (-$22261.49, $-18604.65, and $-16191.26, respectively; p=0.017, p=0.015, p=0.002). Gender independently predicted income in all 3 analyses (p<0.05). Although an association between gender and the attempt to negotiate was not detected, a greater portion of men subjectively reported success in negotiation (p=0.03).
Conclusion: Female ophthalmologists earn significantly less than their male colleagues in the first year of clinical practice. Salary differences persist after controlling for demographic, educational, and practice type variables with MLR and PSM analyses. These income differences may lead to a substantial loss of accumulated earnings over an individual's career.
Background
Women physicians face unique obstacles while progressing through their careers, navigating career advancement and seeking balance between professional and personal responsibilities. Systemic changes, along with individual and institutional changes, are needed to overcome obstacles perpetuating physician gender inequities. Developing a deeper understanding of women physicians’ experiences during important transition points could reveal both barriers and opportunities for recruitment, retention, and promotion, and inform best practices developed based on these experiences.
Objective
The aim is to learn from the experiences and perspectives of women physicians as they transition from early to mid-career, then develop best practices that can serve to support women physicians as they advance through their careers.
Methods
Semistructured interviews were conducted with women physicians in the United States in 2020 and 2021. Eligibility criteria included self-identification as a woman who is in the process of transitioning or who recently transitioned from early to mid-career stage. Purposeful sampling facilitated identification of participants who represented diversity in career pathway, practice setting, specialty, and race/ethnicity. Each participant was offered compensation for their participation. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Interview questions were open-ended, exploring participants' perceptions of this transition. Qualitative thematic analysis will be performed. We will use an open coding and grounded theory approach on interview transcripts.
Results
The Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences at Maastricht University approved the study; Stanford University expedited review approved the study; and the University of California, San Diego certified the study as exempt from review. Twelve in-depth interviews of 50-100 minutes in duration were completed. Preliminary analyses indicate one key theme is a tension resulting from finite time divided between demands from a physician career and demands from family needs. In turn, this results in constant boundary control between these life domains that are inextricable and seemingly competing against each other within a finite space; family needs impinge on planned career goals, if the boundary between them is not carefully managed. To remedy this, women sought resources to help them redistribute home responsibilities, freeing themselves to have more time, especially for children. Women similarly sought resources to help with career advancement, although not with regard to time directly, but to first address foundational knowledge gaps about career milestones and how to achieve them.
Conclusions
Preliminary results provide initial insights about how women identify or activate a career shift and how they marshaled resources and support to navigate barriers they faced. Further analyses are continuing as of March 2022 and are expected to be completed by June 2022. The dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed open-access journal publication of the results and presentation at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association’s Women Physicians Section.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to report on survey results from a study about librarians’ experience with compensation (salary and benefits) negotiation in the library workplace in order to provide data that will inform professional discourse and practice.
Design/methodology/approach
A primarily quantitative survey instrument was administered via Qualtrics Survey Software and distributed through listservs and social media channels representing a range of library types and sub-disciplines. The survey was explicitly addressed to librarians for participation and asked them questions related to their work history and experience with negotiating for salary and benefits.
Findings
A total of 1,541 librarians completed the survey. More than half of survey respondents reported not negotiating for their current library position. The majority of those who did negotiate reported positive outcomes, including an increase in salary or total compensation package. Only a very small number of respondents reported threats to rescind or rescinded offers when negotiating for their current positions. Respondents cited prior salary and prior work experience and/or education as the top information sources informing negotiation strategy.
Originality/value
There is minimal discussion of salary and benefits negotiation by individuals in the library literature and prior surveys of librarians’ experience with compensation negotiation do not exist. This is the first paper that tracks negotiating practices and outcomes of librarians in library workplaces of all types.
Negotiation research increasingly pays attention to the beginning of negotiations. Building on a theory of the initiation of negotiation we investigated when and why people consider initiating negotiations. Results from one field study and two scenario experiments show that a negative discrepancy between an actual state and a desired state increased the intention to initiate a negotiation and promoted real initiation behavior. This effect was mediated by the subjective perception of this discrepancy and feelings of dissatisfaction. Expectancy considerations in the form of ability to initiate negotiations and implicit beliefs about negotiation ability moderated this serial mediation effect: high initiation ability and incremental negotiation beliefs facilitated the decision to negotiate whereas low initiation ability and entity negotiation beliefs inhibited negotiation initiations. In the present work, we offer a first empirical test of the theory of initiation of negotiation.
This paper elaborates a research agenda on cultural norms in communication, negotiation, and conflict management. Our agenda is organized around five questions on negotiation and conflict management, for example: How do culture and norms relate to an individual's propensity to negotiate? Or How do tightness‐looseness norms explain negotiators’ reactions to norm conformity and norm violation? And three questions on communication, for example: What individual and cultural factors lead negotiators to use miscommunication as an opportunity rather than an obstacle? Or Are there cultural differences in whether and what forms of schmoozing are normative? The present paper is based on three pillars: (a) ideas provided by the think tank participants (full list on website), (b) state of the art research and (c) the authors’ perspectives. Our goal is to inspire young, as well as, established researchers to purse these research streams and increase our understanding about the influence of cultural norms.
Beauty premium permeates every aspect of life. However, whether females' roles, as proposers or as recipients/responders, have an influence on the marginal effect of beauty remains unclear and was explored in the current study. Dictator game and ultimate game were employed to investigate the effect of females' roles on beauty premium from males. Participants played against female recipients and proposers in Study 1. Linear regression models of social preferences with respect to female attractiveness showed a strongly positive marginal effect of beauty, and the effect was significantly higher when participants played against female recipients than female proposers. Study 2 with ultimate games only was conducted for further testing the effect of strategic behavior on beauty premium. A probabilistic method was established to handle issues on comparison between participants' behaviors as proposers and as recipients/responders. The results of these studies suggest that there are significant money forgone differences between females as proposers and as recipients/responders financially regardless of the strategy‐or‐not decision difference. All the findings indicate that the beauty premium varies with female roles.
A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.
In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators. (46 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The authors examined the influence of personal information privacy concerns and computer experience on applicants’ reactions to online screening procedures. Study 1 used a student sample simulating application for a fictitious management intern job with a state personnel agency (N = 117) and employed a longitudinal, laboratory-based design. Study 2 employed a field sample of actual applicants (N = 396) applying for jobs online. As predicted, procedural justice mediated the relationship between personal information privacy concerns and test-taking motivation, organizational attraction, and organizational intentions in the laboratory and field. Experience with computers moderated the relationship between procedural justice with test-taking motivation and organizational intentions in the field but not in the laboratory sample. Implications are discussed in terms of the importance of considering applicants’ personal information privacy concerns and testing experience when designing online recruitment and selection systems.
This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on interpersonal trust, negotiation behavior, amount of impasses, and joint outcomes in three-person negotiations. Students participated in a joint venture negotiation, in which motivational orientation was manipulated by allocating individual incentives (egoistic motive) vs. team incentives (prosocial motive). Results indicated that prosocially motivated negotiators achieved more integrative agreements and fewer impasses, and reported higher trust, more problem solving, and less contending behavior than egoistically motivated negotiators. Hierarchical regression suggested that the finding that prosocial groups achieved higher joint outcomes can be explained by higher levels of trust, more problem solving behavior, and less contending behavior in prosocial groups.
Taking conflict personally (TCP) is conceptualized as a negative emotional personalization of conflict episodes. Here, individuals' TCP levels were examined in relationship to both their own conflict management styles and their perceptions of supervisors' conflict management styles. Results indicate that one's TCP levels are associated with one's own preferred conflict management style, with supervisor's perceived conflict style, and with satisfaction with supervisor.
Classifies conflicts occurring in or as a result of membership in organizations into 3 major categories: intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup. Conflicts in each category result from various personal-cultural and organizational structure factors. These factors may be identified through appropriate diagnosis and their effects on and implications for each level of conflict established. This is a prerequisite for the appropriate development and implementation of intervention strategies. Management of organizational conflicts involves diagnosis and intervention to maintain a moderate amount of conflict and help the organizational members learn how to handle different conflict situations (e.g., problem-solving, smoothing, withdrawal, compromising). (69 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Although it has been suggested that women negotiate over salaries less frequently than men, there is little empirical evidence on this point. Moreover, outside of laboratory settings, there are no investigations of whether, or to what extent, such negotiations actually pay off in higher salary outcomes for either men or women. The salary negotiating behaviors and starting salary outcomes of 205 graduating MBA students were investigated within a power and dependence theoretical framework. Results did not support the notion that women negotiate less than men. However, women did obtain lower monetary returns from negotiation (4.3% starting salary increment for men versus 2.7% for women). Over the course of a career, the accumulation of such differences may be substantial. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Negotiation researchers theorize that individual differences are determinants of bargaining processes and outcomes but have yet to establish empirically the role of individual differences. In 2 studies the authors used bargaining simulations to examine the roles of personality and cognitive ability in distributive (Study 1) and integrative (Study 2) negotiation. The authors hypothesized and found evidence that Extraversion and Agreeableness are liabilities in distributive bargaining encounters. For both Extraversion and Agreeableness there were interactions between personality and negotiator aspirations such that personality effects were more pronounced in the absence of high aspirations. Contrary to predictions, Conscientiousness was generally unrelated to bargaining success. Cognitive ability played no role in distributive bargaining but was markedly related to the attainment of joint outcomes in a situation with integrative potential.
The concept of risk propensity has been the subject of both theoretical and empirical investigation, but with little consensus about its definition and measurement. To address this need, a new scale assessing overall risk propensity in terms of reported frequency of risk behaviours in six domains was developed and applied: recreation, health, career, finance, safety and social. The paper describes the properties of the scale and its correlates: demographic variables, biographical self‐reports, and the NEO PI‐R, a Five Factor personality inventory (N = 2041). There are three main results. First, risk propensity has clear links with age and sex, and with objective measures of career‐related risk taking (changing jobs and setting up a business). Second, the data show risk propensity to be strongly rooted in personality. A clear Big Five pattern emerges for overall risk propensity, combining high extraversion and openness with low neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. At the subscale level, sensation‐seeking surfaces as a key important component of risk propensity. Third, risk propensity differs markedly in its distribution across job types and business sectors. These findings are interpreted as indicating that risk takers are of three non‐exclusive types: stimulation seekers, goal achievers, and risk adapters. Only the first group is truly risk seeking, the others are more correctly viewed as risk bearers. The implications for risk research and management are discussed.
In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.
Mediation is said to occur when a causal effect of some variable X on an outcome Y is explained by some intervening variable M. The authors recommend that with small to moderate samples, bootstrap methods (B. Efron & R. Tibshirani, 1993) be used to assess mediation. Bootstrap tests are powerful because they detect that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0. They argue that R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility. Empirical examples and computer setups for bootstrap analyses are provided.
This study reports results from a meta-analysis of 28 correlates of pay level satisfaction involving 240 samples from 203 studies conducted over the past 35 years. Results are presented in 4 categories: primary determinants, antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of pay satisfaction. The authors controlled for pay in examining relations between correlates and pay level satisfaction, as suggested by theory and when primary studies were available to do so. The authors found support for many of the relations suggested by a theoretical model and also note some limitations in the research that has tested this model. The authors recommend changes and additions to the model and suggest additional primary research in specific areas.
A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victim's revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.
This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.
The process of exchange is almost continual in human interactions, and appears to have characteristics peculiar to itself, and to generate affect, motivation, and behavior that cannot be predicted unless exchange processes are understood. This chapter describes two major concepts relating to the perception of justice and injustice; the concept of relative deprivation and the complementary concept of relative gratification. All dissatisfaction and low morale are related to a person's suffering injustice in social exchanges. However, a significant portion of cases can be usefully explained by invoking injustice as an explanatory concept. In the theory of inequity, both the antecedents and consequences of perceived injustice have been stated in terms that permit quite specific predictions to be made about the behavior of persons entering social exchanges. Relative deprivation and distributive justice, as theoretical concepts, specify some of the conditions that arouse perceptions of injustice and complementarily, the conditions that lead men to feel that their relations with others are just. The need for much additional research notwithstanding, the theoretical analyses that have been made of injustice in social exchanges should result not only in a better general understanding of the phenomenon, but should lead to a degree of social control not previously possible. The experience of injustice need not be an accepted fact of life.
People act in ways that sometimes violate social expectations or role requirements. To bridge the gap between action and expectation, and thus prevent conflict, the offending party can provide an account, which is an explanation of the behavior in question. This article examines situations in work organizations in which a boss refuses a subordinate's request, thus failing to meet the subordinate's expectations. Specifically, we examine the effects of a boss's causal account, which is an explanation claiming mitigating circumstances for the refusal, on subordinate reactions that might induce conflict (e.g., anger, complaints). In a survey of 121 currently employed subordinates, it was found that the mere claim of mitigating circumstances does not explain the influence of a causal account in lessening conflict; rather, it is the adequacy of reasoning in support of the claim and the boss's sincerity in communicating the causal account that explain the variance in subordinates' reactions. The implications of these results for an analysis of accounts as a conflict-management strategy are discussed.
There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.
Thecurrentresearchexploredwhethertwore- lated yet distinct social competencies—perspective taking (the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual'sviewpoint)andempathy(theabilitytoconnect emotionally with another individual)—have differential effectsinstrategic,mixed-motiveinteractions.Acrossthree studies, using both individual difference measures and ex- perimental manipulations, we found that perspective tak- ingincreased individuals'abilitytodiscover hiddenagree- ments and to both create and claim resources at the bar- gaining table. However, empathy did not prove nearly as advantageous and at times was detrimental to discovering a possible deal and achieving individual profit. These re- sults held regardless of whether the interaction was a ne- gotiation in which a prima facie solution was not possible or a multiple-issue negotiation that required discovering mutually beneficial trade-offs. Although empathy is an essential tool in many aspects of social life, perspective taking appears to be a particularly critical ability in strategic interactions.
"This paper advocates a validational process utilizing a matrix of intercorrelations among tests representing at least two traits, each measured by at least two methods. Measures of the same trait should correlate higher with each other than they do with measures of different traits involving separate methods. Ideally, these validity values should also be higher than the correlations among different traits measure by the same method." Examples from the literature are described as well as problems in the application of the technique. 36 refs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
One aspect of attracting new employees that has historically been ignored by recruitment researchers is salary negotiations. In this study, we used a hypothetical scenario design to depict salary negotiation experiences in which we varied the levels of salary offer, the behavior of a company and its representative, and the deadlines for receiving a signing bonus. MBA students served as study participants who read the scenarios and responded to questions about perceived organizational attractiveness and job acceptance decisions—two important recruitment outcomes. As hypothesized, our results indicated that salaries, a company's responsiveness to candidate questions, and a company representative's expression of derogatory comments all impact recruitment outcomes. However, exploding signing bonuses had no significant effects, calling into question the negative connotation practitioners have of exploding compensation schemes. Our justice framework revealed that many of the effects that we found for our manipulations on participants' judgments regarding our recruitment outcomes were mediated by perceptions of organizational justice. Finally, we found some evidence of the frustration effect, as procedures that were considered fair worsened rather than mitigated the negative effects of unfair outcomes on job acceptance decisions.
Four basic negotiating strategies are analyzed along with the outcomes they encourage and the determinants of their use. Guidelines for influencing the strategic choice of one's bargaining partners are also presented with an emphasis on techniques for encouraging one's adversaries to move away from contentious behavior and toward problem solving.
217 middle managers from 3 industrial groups responded to an open-ended questionnaire in which they described the determinants of particularly fair or unfair performance appraisals. By Q-sort procedure, the responses were categorized and combined to yield 7 distinct determinants of fairness in performance evaluations. Ratings of the perceived importance of these determinants were factor analyzed, revealing 2 distinct factors—Procedural and Distributive determinants. The implications of the determinants are discussed with respect to existing research and theory on justice in organizations. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This article examines the ability of the individual differences, motivational, and cognitive approaches of negotiation to account for empirical research on dyadic negotiation. Investigators have typically focused on objective, economic measures of performance. However, social-psychological measures are important because negotiators often do not have the information necessary to make accurate judgments of the bargaining situation. Negotiators' judgments are biased, and biases are associated with inefficient performance. Personality and individual differences appear to play a minimal role in determining bargaining behavior; their impact may be dampened by several factors, such as homogeneity of S samples, situational constraints, and self-selection processes. Motivational and cognitive models provide compelling accounts of negotiation behavior. A psychological theory of negotiation should begin at the level of the individual negotiator and should integrate features of motivational and cognitive models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Presents an overview of the trends in previous justice research, including an analysis of 2 major theoretical inadequacies in current justice frameworks. Two alternative theoretical assumptions are outlined. To broaden the domain of the theory and research on justice, a typology of social accounts is presented, and the ramifications of the new framework are demonstrated in an analysis of 2 new justice-related issues that have heretofore been ignored by justice researchers. Moral issues raised by the use of social accounts are addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Two people in an interdependent decision-making situation may have compatible interests; however, they often fail to realize this and settle on an outcome less favorable to both parties than another readily available solution. People sometimes settle for less favorable outcomes even when they realize they have compatible interests. The authors refer to this failure to identify and optimize compatible interests as the lose–lose effect, which means a faulty belief or judgment about another person's interests and an outcome or agreement that fails to capitalize on shared interests. Whether the people involved are individuals or organizations, lose–lose agreements result in reduced prosperity and satisfaction for both parties. The authors present a meta-analytic review of 32 experiments that document the pervasiveness of lose–lose agreements. They examine the relationship between the judgments people make about others' interests and lose–lose agreements and the effects of practice on both. They review theoretical explanations of lose–lose agreements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Constructed 2 structurally similar risk-taking tasks to evaluate intertask consistency of individual differences. Only the mode of response differed between tasks. A total of 92 college students served as Ss. In 1 task, Ss chose their preferred bet within each of a number of pairs of bets. In the other, Ss set selling prices for these same bets. A measure of S's preference for "long-shot" gambles was obtained from each response. Reliable individual differences were found for each measure. However, the intermeasure correlation was relatively low considering the high degree of similarity between tasks. It is argued that the 2 response modes triggered different methods of processing information about probabilities and payoffs in a way that perturbed individual differences and reduced intertask consistency. Information-processing considerations may be one important component of the situation specificity prevalent in risk-taking behavior. Results suggest that high correlations are unlikely between risk-taking measures in structurally different settings or between risk-taking and other behaviors. (24 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Procedural and distributive justice were examined in an employee selection situation. Along procedural justice dimensions, job relatedness of and explanation offered for the selection procedures were manipulated. Distributive justice was examined through manipulation of a selection decision and collection of a priori hiring expectations. Dependent measures included fairness reactions, recommendation intentions, self-efficacy, and actual work performance. Undergraduates (n = 260) were selected/rejected for paid employment. Job relatedness influenced performance and interacted with selection decision on perceptions of distributive fairness and self-efficacy. Explanations influenced recommendations of rejected applicants. Interactions between hiring expectations and selection decision were observed on perceived fairness and recommendation intentions. Discussion focuses on theoretical and practical implications of the observed interactions.
This article examines the adequacy of the “rules of thumb” conventional cutoff criteria and several new alternatives for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit in practice. Using a 2‐index presentation strategy, which includes using the maximum likelihood (ML)‐based standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and supplementing it with either Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Bollen's (1989) Fit Index (BL89), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Gamma Hat, McDonald's Centrality Index (Mc), or root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), various combinations of cutoff values from selected ranges of cutoff criteria for the ML‐based SRMR and a given supplemental fit index were used to calculate rejection rates for various types of true‐population and misspecified models; that is, models with misspecified factor covariance(s) and models with misspecified factor loading(s). The results suggest that, for the ML method, a cutoff value close to .95 for TLI, BL89, CFI, RNI, and Gamma Hat; a cutoff value close to .90 for Mc; a cutoff value close to .08 for SRMR; and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA are needed before we can conclude that there is a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Furthermore, the 2‐index presentation strategy is required to reject reasonable proportions of various types of true‐population and misspecified models. Finally, using the proposed cutoff criteria, the ML‐based TLI, Mc, and RMSEA tend to overreject true‐population models at small sample size and thus are less preferable when sample size is small.
The present study proposes and tests a model that examines the relationship between leadership style, trust, employee interpretations of managerial explanations, and justice perceptions. Using a critical incident methodology, 203 working adults were asked to recall a recent situation in which a request or proposal made to their manager was denied. Results provide strong support for the theoretical model. Namely, the effect of leadership style on explanation perceptions was indirect through employees' level of trust in their manager. Specifically, employees who felt their manager was transformational reported a higher degree of trust and more favourable reactions to managerial explanations.
Conflict management influences individual wellbeing, group performance and organizational effectiveness. This research examined the psychometric qualities of two versions of the newly developed test for conflict handling. The lean version (Study 1 and 2) included problem solving, forcing, yielding and avoiding as distinct conflict management strategies, and the expanded version (Study 3) also included compromising. A negotiation study (Study 1) showed substantial convergence between self-reports, opponent-reports and observer rated behavior for problem solving, forcing and yielding, but not for avoiding. In Study 2 and Study 3 the psychometric properties were examined of the lean and the expanded version, respectively. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed good to excellent psychometric qualities of both versions of the scale. We conclude that the scale is a parsimonious, flexible and valid instrument to assess conflict management strategies at work. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Recent college graduates were surveyed to explore factors associated with both negotiation propensity as well as success in raising initial salary offers through negotiation. The average payoff associated with negotiation was over $1,500, while the offers of those who did not negotiate increased negligibly. Applicants given the option to present their salary needs negotiated at higher rates than those who were not, and individuals who had prior work experience were more likely to receive this option. Women were no less likely to engage in negotiation than men, and experienced similar success as a result of their efforts.
We introduce the concept that internal organizational agents who negotiate starting salary packages with job applicants may not always act in the organization's best interests. To gain an understanding of what motivates the internal agent toward assuming a particular role, we use expectancy theory, agency theory and concepts from the negotiations literature. We describe the roles that agents may assume, identify factors that impact agents' motivation, and formulate propositions to help identify which role an agent is likely to enact in starting salary negotiations. We form propositions as to how these roles are likely to impact final negotiation outcomes of probability of hiring, salary size, and applicant satisfaction and discuss strategies for ensuring agents are motivated to enact a role that meets organizational objectives.
One assumption shared by many contemporary models of leadership is that situational variables moderate the relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate responses. Recently, however, R. J. House and J. L. Baetz (1979 in B. Staw & L. Cummings, Eds., Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1), Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press) have suggested that the effects of some leader traits and behaviors may be relatively invariant; that is, have the same effects in a variety of situations. One possible class of leader behaviors which may have relatively consistent effects across situations are those known as leader reward and punishment behaviors. The first goal of the research reported here was to increase our understanding of the relationships between leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. Contingent reward behavior was found to have the most pronounced relationships with subordinate performance and satisfaction, followed by noncontingent punishment behavior. Neither leader noncontingent reward nor contingent punishment behavior were found to be related to either subordinate performance or satisfaction, with the exception that noncontingent reward behavior was negatively related to subordinates' satisfaction with work. The second goal of the research was to examine the effects of a variety of potential moderators on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. The results of this study suggest that the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinates' performance are relatively free of moderating effects.
A meta-analysis of 28 studies examined support for the Theory of Cooperation and Competition (M. Deutsch, 1973) and Dual Concern Theory (D. G. Pruitt & J. Z. Rubin, 1986). Effects of social motive (prosocial vs. egoistic) and resistance to yielding (high vs. low vs. unknown) on contenting, problem solving, and joint outcomes were examined. Consistent with Dual Concern Theory, results showed that negotiators were less contentious, engaged in more problem solving, and achieved higher joint outcomes when they had a prosocial rather than egoistic motive, but only when resistance to yielding was high (or unknown) rather than low. The authors also explored the moderating effects of study characteristics and found effects for participation inducement (class exercise, participant pool), for publication status, and for treatment of no-agreement dyads.
This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.
Three experiments tested a motivated information processing account of the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. In Experiment 1, participants received information about the opponent's emotion (anger, happiness, or none) in a computer-mediated negotiation. As predicted, they conceded more to an angry opponent than to a happy one (controls falling in between), but only when they had a low (rather than a high) need for cognitive closure. Experiment 2 similarly showed that participants were only affected by the other's emotion under low rather than high time pressure, because time pressure reduced their degree of information processing. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that negotiators were only influenced by their opponent's emotion if they had low (rather than high) power. These results support the motivated information processing model by showing that negotiators are only affected by their opponent's emotions if they are motivated to consider them.