Skip to main content
Log in

Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reputation serves important functions in social interactions. As a result, negotiators should be concerned about protecting their reputations. Using an online experiment with 343 respondents, we examined the impact of perceived reputational risk on the acceptability of potentially questionable tactics. Consistent with and extending previous findings, we found that, the more reputational risk negotiators perceive, the less acceptable they find the tactics to be. In addition, in the business negotiation context, females generally viewed questionable tactics as more reputationally risky and consequently less acceptable than did males, especially when they were primed to think of themselves as being powerful. We end our paper with discussions on contributions and implications of the findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For readability purposes, we use “reputational risk” instead of “perceived reputational risk” and “questionable tactics” instead of “perceived questionable tactics” throughout.

  2. Previous research has demonstrated three of the seven questionable tactics (TCB, positive and negative emotion tactics) generally score at the midpoint or above (Barry 1999; Robinson et al. 2000), and hence may be less questionable. However, for readability purposes we use the term “questionable” tactics when referring to these seven tactics, unless there is a specific need for differentiation. Further, the three strategic tactics each carry with them remnants of gender stereotypes, and hence may be seen as questionable for one sex and perhaps not the other (Bowles et al. 2007).

  3. Given partial rather than full mediation, we also explored whether females accept questionable tactics less because they also have higher levels of empathetic concern. However, we found the relationship between empathetic concern and both acceptability and reputational risk to be nonsignificant.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals’ reputations related to their history of behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 320–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J., Spataro, S., & Chatman, J. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1094–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, H., & Lundborg, P. (2007). Perception of own death risk: An analysis of road-traffic and overall mortality risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anton, R. J. (1990). Drawing the line: An exploratory test of ethical behavior in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 180–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banas, J., & McLean Parks, J. (2000). Lambs among lions: The impact of ethical ideology on negotiation behaviors and outcomes. International Negotiations Journal, 7, 235–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1999). The tactical use of emotion in negotiation. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 7, pp. 93–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2008). Untapped potential in the study of negotiation and gender inequality in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The Academy of Management Annals (Vol. 2, pp. 99–132). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management process in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, R., & Whiten, A. (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in everyday life. Boston: Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 171–193). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fragale, A. R., Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A. (1994). Front stage, backstage: The dramatic structure of labor negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsod, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J., & McLean Parks, J. (1996). Vivé la difference: Feminine and masculine approaches to ambiguity in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. (1999). Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymowitz, C. (2003). In the lead: In the US, what will it take to create diverse boardrooms? Wall Street Journal, July 8, p. B1.

  • Johnston, W. A., & Dark, V. J. (1986). Selective attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 43–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. M., & Coolidge, G. (1991). Her place at the table. In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 261–277). Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. In B. M. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 103–182). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2009). Differences that make a difference. In S. Hilligsøe & H. S. Jakobsen (Eds.), Negotiation: The art of making agreement (pp. 129–151). Copenhagen, Denmark: Academica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., Bylsma, W. H., & Cozzarelli, C. (1989). Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain. Sex Roles, 21, 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated communication: Gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. G., & Slawson, V. C., Jr. (2003). Reputation in an internet auction market. Economic Inquiry, 40, 633–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve “the tragedy of the commons”. Nature, 415, 424–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1999). Mexico City’s stop sign to bribery: To halt corruption, females traffic cops replace men. The Washington Post, July 31.

  • O’Connor, K. (2008). Cooperation in negotiation and conflict resolution. In B. Sullivan, M. Snyder, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction (pp. 275–289). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologists, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, G. M., & Nixon, C. J. (2005). The influence of role models on negotiation ethics of college students. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, P. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBayTM’s reputation system. In M. Bay (Ed.), The economics of the internet and E-commerce (pp. 127–157). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 649–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothbart, M., Evans, M., & Fulero, S. (1979). Recall for confirming events: Memory processes and the maintenance of social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(4), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (1988). Leader prototypes and prototype-contingent consensus in leader behavior descriptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2001). Online panels for social science research: An introduction to the StudyResponse project (No. 13001). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiff, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2008). The power of reputations: The role of third party information in the admission of new group members. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 12, 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, C. H., O’Connor, K. M., & Sullivan, B. A. (2002). Tough guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, J. (2009). Lifting the lid on climate change talks. The Guardian, November 7.

  • Wall, J. A., Jr. (1991). Impression management in negotiations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 133–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C. (1994). Gender differences in negotiating behavior and outcomes: Fact or artifact? In A. Taylor & J. Beinstein-Miller (Eds.), Conflict and gender (pp. 191–210). Cresskill: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (1985). Reputations in games and markets. In A. E. Roth (Ed.), Game theoretic modeling of bargaining (pp. 65–84). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Christee A. Zimmermann for her editing assistance, the assistance of Abby Meland with the literature review, as well as comments from seminar participants at Peking University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, L., McLean Parks, J. Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. J Bus Ethics 106, 161–175 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6

Keywords

Navigation