Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 161–175 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Negotiation SINS Reputational risk Power Gender Impression management 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals’ reputations related to their history of behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anton, R. J. (1990). Drawing the line: An exploratory test of ethical behavior in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 180–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  19. Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in everyday life. Boston: Hall.Google Scholar
  20. DeWett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friedman, R. A. (1994). Front stage, backstage: The dramatic structure of labor negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gustafsod, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. (1999). Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hymowitz, C. (2003). In the lead: In the US, what will it take to create diverse boardrooms? Wall Street Journal, July 8, p. B1.Google Scholar
  40. Johnston, W. A., & Dark, V. J. (1986). Selective attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 43–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  48. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Major, B., Bylsma, W. H., & Cozzarelli, C. (1989). Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain. Sex Roles, 21, 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated communication: Gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. McDonald, C. G., & Slawson, V. C., Jr. (2003). Reputation in an internet auction market. Economic Inquiry, 40, 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve “the tragedy of the commons”. Nature, 415, 424–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore, M. (1999). Mexico City’s stop sign to bribery: To halt corruption, females traffic cops replace men. The Washington Post, July 31.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vidal, J. (2009). Lifting the lid on climate change talks. The Guardian, November 7.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guanghua School of ManagementPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.John M. Olin Business SchoolWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations