A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China

Ma, ZhenzhongLihat Profil; Jaeger, Alfred MLihat Profil. Cross Cultural Management17.4 (2010): 333-
346.
Aktifkan sorotan temuan untuk peramban bicara
Sembunyikan sorotanTampilkan item rangkap dari basis data lainnya
Abstrak (ringkasan)
Terjemahkan Abstrak

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of assertiveness in determining
negotiation outcomes in two different cultures and thus to help understand the cultural differences
in the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes in the West and East, where
assertiveness is often viewed quite differently. Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected
from four simulated negotiations of varying degrees of complexity ranging from the most
distributive to the most integrative. Over 400 business students were recruited as subjects from a
Western culture and an Eastern culture, namely Canada and China, to participate in the simulations
in order to test the cultural differences in the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation
outcomes. Findings - The results provide support for the effects of assertiveness on both economic
outcome and affective outcome, and thus confirm the importance of assertiveness as a negotiator
trait; the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes is found to be culture
dependent whereby assertiveness is associated with economic outcome and affective outcome for
Canadians, but only with affective outcome for the Chinese. Practical implications - This study
provides important guidelines for negotiation practitioners. Relevant training and development
programs could be designed for international managers to improve their effectiveness when they
negotiate with the Chinese who often place more emphasis on affective outcome and on negotiation
process. Originality/value - Negotiation skills become more important in the increasingly globalized
world market and research on negotiation needs to provide more knowledge for scholars and
negotiation practitioners. This paper attempts to enrich our understanding of negotiation in two
different cultures and to provide insights on cross-cultural differences in negotiation process.
[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Teks Lengkap
Terjemahkan Teks lengkapAktifkan navigasi istilah pencarian
Negotiation is the process by which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to
agree upon an exchange rate for them. In the negotiation process, both sides exercise and articulate
their influence in an effort to accomplish their own objectives through interactions with the other
party ([11] Gelfand and Dyer, 2000; [12] Greenhalgh et al. , 1985; [19] Kipnis and Schmidt, 1983; [31]
Ogilvie and Kidder, 2008). As the world economy becomes increasingly globalized, people from
different cultures are becoming more frequently engaged in negotiation with one another. Thus, a
good understanding of negotiation process and the impact of culture on this process are essential to
anyone who works with or through other people to accomplish objectives in many different
situations ([1] Adler and Graham, 1989; [18] Kim et al. , 2007; [17] Kim and Shapiro, 2008; [27] Ma
and Jaeger, 2005; [45] Weiss, 2010).

Research has shown that negotiator characteristics, including personality traits and social
perceptions ([24] Ma, 2006; [27] Ma and Jaeger, 2005; [28] Macintosh and Stevens, 2008; [31]
Ogilvie and Kidder, 2008; [33] Pruitt and Syna, 1985; [42] Tomlinson et al. , 2009), have significant
effects on negotiation process or outcomes. However, contradicting results were also found in other
studies (cf. [35] Rubin and Brown, 1975; [41] Thompson and Hastie, 1990), and consequently,
researchers have not been able to isolate key personality characteristics that are crucial for the
success of negotiators. This study focuses on one such personality trait, assertiveness, and examines
its importance in the negotiation success.

The goal of this study is to assess the universal application of assertiveness in negotiation. Therefore
it is not limited to a North American context, as is most negotiation research. This study investigates
the extent to which culture influences the assertiveness-negotiation outcome relationship in two
contrasting cultural contexts, Canada and China. Cultural factors are important because as a
collective programming of a society ([15] Hofstede, 2001), culture has a significant bearing upon
people's perceptions and approaches to conflict and can lead to particular preferences for certain
methods in conflict resolution. To a certain extent, negotiation behavior and outcomes are
influenced by culturally prescribed methods ([11] Gelfand and Dyer, 2000; [20] Kirkbride et al. ,
1991). In this study, intra-cultural business negotiations in Canada and China are examined to
compare the effects of cultural background - individualistic culture vs collectivistic culture - on the
influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes.

Assertiveness and negotiation

Contemporary organizational behavior research began during World War II with efforts to define the
influence of individual differences on success in management situations. Similar work in the
negotiation area began in the late 1950s, yet the majority of the studies have only obtained
inconclusive results on the effects of personality traits on negotiation outcomes ([11] Gelfand and
Dyer, 2000; [28] Macintosh and Stevens, 2008; [31] Ogilvie and Kidder, 2008; [33] Pruitt and Syna,
1985; [35] Rubin and Brown, 1975).

A more consistent set of results in negotiation research began appearing after researchers started
using personality variables that had theoretically reasoned relationships with consequences. One of
the most comprehensive studies ([12] Greenhalgh et al. , 1985; [39] Thompson, 1990; [11] Gelfand
and Dyer, 2000) investigated the effects of numerous personality variables in the same study.
Greenhalgh and colleagues distributed 31 personality measures to MBA students and then factor
analyzed the results into ten independent personality dimensions: accommodating, outgoing, open-
minded, assertive, driven, emphatic, considerate, intelligent, people-oriented, and task-oriented.
The results showed that personality factors, including assertiveness, were significantly correlated
with negotiation outcomes ([27] Ma and Jaeger, 2005).

In this study, we look at the impact of assertiveness as an independent personality variable on
negotiation. Assertiveness is the ability to express and advocate one's own needs, interests, and
positions ([34] Rathus, 1973). The skills required for high assertiveness in the negotiation context
include the ability to identify one's own interests, make arguments, and listen to the other party.
Assertiveness also requires self-esteem and the belief that one's interests are valid and it is
legitimate to defend them ([2] Alberti and Emmons, 1990; [27] Ma and Jaeger, 2005; [46] Wilson and
Gallios 1993).

Assertiveness is often recommended for effective negotiations in the North American literature.
According to [29] Mnookin et al. (1996), assertive behavior can lead to both distributive and
integrative outcomes in negotiations. Assertive negotiators tend to get more of what they want,
thus obtaining a larger share of the pie (distributive gains). Assertiveness also plays a role in value
creation or integrative outcomes. Negotiators have a higher probability of discovering each other's
interests and arriving at a higher joint economic outcome if both parties assert their interests clearly.
If a party fails to assert his/her interests, integrative results may be reduced. Assertiveness also leads
to a better relationship between the negotiating parties because assertive negotiators voice and
advocate their interests openly rather than internalize them, which may affect their mutual
relationship, and result in clearer communication and trust between the parties. Finally, assertive
behavior leads to higher self-respect ([10] Fensterheim and Baer, 1975), which may lead to more
satisfaction with both negotiation process and economic outcomes ([27] Ma and Jaeger, 2005).

Culture is another important factor in negotiation studies. The last decade has seen a big expansion
of research on culture and negotiation with the growing interrelationships among nations ([4]
Bazerman et al. , 2001). Dozens of studies have examined the meaning and practice of negotiation
across cultures (for a review, see [11] Gelfand and Dyer, 2000). Due to the substantial culture
differences, negotiating across cultures differs dramatically from negotiating within the same culture
([1] Adler and Graham, 1989). Negotiators from different cultures may not share the most basic
assumptions of negotiation, and evidence shows that there is cultural variation in the tendency to
fall victim to the fixed-sum assumption and the fundamental attribution error ([4] Bazerman et al. ,
2001). Although the differences between cultural scripts in preferences present opportunities for
logrolling, i.e. negotiators make mutually beneficial tradeoffs between issues, intercultural dyads are
found to reach outcomes that are of lower joint value than intracultural dyads, and there is less-
accurate mutual understanding about each other's priorities ([11] Gelfand and Dyer, 2000).

In addition, it is essential to study the impact of culture on negotiations from both theoretical and
practical perspectives in this study. From a theoretical perspective, most research on assertiveness
and negotiation has been carried out in a North American context. Frameworks have for the most
part been developed and validated using US subjects. It is unclear whether these frameworks are
valid in other cultures, especially since negotiation is a social phenomenon and cultural values have a
profound influence on social processes (e.g. [15] Hofstede, 2001; [47] Yik and Bond, 1993; [30]
Oetzel et al. , 2008). From a practical perspective, international managers need to know whether
assertiveness is an important universal element of successful negotiation so that negotiator
recruitment and training programs could be designed accordingly. Therefore, it is of academic and
practical importance that the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation outcomes should
be studied in a multicultural context.

One of the major cultural factors that may affect the assertiveness-negotiation outcome relationship
is individualism/collectivism ([17] Kim and Shapiro, 2008; [21] Leung and Bond, 1984; [27] Ma and
Jaeger, 2005). It has been found that members of collectivistic cultures such as that of China
generally value group harmony more than their own individual interests and emphasize group
concerns more than those of the individual ([15] Hofstede, 2001). Members of individualistic
cultures such as that of Canada, on the other hand, place primary emphasis on their own goals and
are highly concerned with individual gains. Since collectivists wish to maintain harmony within their
group, they would be more likely to embrace mediation; and in this process, their behavior differs
from that of individualists. It may be predicted that collectivists, when negotiating, will try to
maintain harmony and interpersonal relationships more than individualists. Individualists, on the
other hand, will tend to focus on the pursuit of self-interest.

Another factor that has received much research attention is the degree of reliance on context in
communication within a culture ([13] Hall, 1976; [25] Ma, 2007). The term context refers to the way
in which one communicates and especially the circumstances surrounding communications ([25] Ma,
2007; [43] Vector, 1992). Cultures can be characterized as being of high or low context, referring to
the degree of reliance on context in communication. In a high-context culture, the majority of the
information communicated is implicitly vested in the environment (i.e. context), while less is in the
explicit code. Therefore, the environment and perceptions of the environment are expected to play
a different role in determining people's behavior in a high-context culture like Chinese culture than
in a low-context culture like Canadian culture.

Research hypotheses

This study is intended to examine and compare the differences in the relationship between
assertiveness, a personality trait, and two negotiation outcomes (economic outcome and
satisfaction with process) in two different cultures. Despite the inconsistent findings in the
personality-negotiation literature, there is a strong reason to assume that individual differences play
an important role in understanding how individuals manage conflicts. Critics have pointed to various
problems with the studies in this field that may caused the inconsistent findings on the relationship
between personality and negotiation, including variations in experimental simulations and methods
across studies, insufficient richness or complexity in bargaining situations, trait measurement issues,
and lack of person-situation interactions ([26] Ma, 2008; [32] Pervin, 1990; [39] Thompson, 1990).
Sternberg and his colleagues have also demonstrated that marked consistencies in styles of conflict
management exist within individuals across both hypothetical conflict situations ([38] Sternberg and
Soriano, 1984) and actual conflict situations ([37] Sternberg and Dobson, 1987). Their studies show
that some of these consistencies are the results of individual dispositions.

In this study, we focus on assertiveness and its impact on negotiation process. Assertiveness is
associated with being determined, independent, forceful, individualistic, decisive, and brave ([47] Yik
and Bond, 1993). A negotiator who is highly individualistic and highly forceful would be expected to
demonstrate self-assertive behavior, which would have an impact on negotiation behavior and
outcomes. Furthermore, the same personality trait may lead to different results, depending on the
context in which negotiations take place, such as individualistic or collectivistic cultures. Therefore,
we tested the relationships between personality and negotiation outcomes with Canadian and
Chinese samples, and the following hypotheses were developed in order to examine the impact of
assertiveness as a personality trait on negotiation behaviors and further on negotiation outcomes
including both economic outcome and affective outcome.

A negotiator who is highly individualistic can be expected to be forceful and demonstrate more self-
assertive behavior. Since Canadians are more individualistic than Chinese, it is reasonable to expect
that the general level of assertiveness is higher for Canadians than the Chinese.

H1. The general level of assertiveness will be higher for Canadians than for the Chinese in
negotiations.

The main focus of this study is to investigate the impact of assertiveness on negotiation behaviors
and outcomes in various situations. Of obvious interest is the degree of assertiveness exhibited by
individuals during actual negotiations, i.e. to what extent negotiators will demonstrate assertive
behaviors during negotiations. Since personality inclines people to behave in a way that is congruous
with individual characteristics, people high in assertiveness are expected to behave assertively
regardless of which culture they are from. It is thus expected that high assertiveness individuals will
exhibit assertive behaviors during negotiations in both Canada and China.

Another easily identifiable negotiation behavior is first offer. This is an important decision made by
negotiators at the beginning of the negotiation, and negotiators high in assertiveness tend to make
extreme first offer in order to take advantage the anchoring effect ([40] Thompson, 2009), which is
expected to be true in Canada, but not in China. Since extreme activities are not socially desirable in
a collectivistic culture such as China, a high first offer would not be encouraged or might even be
perceived as insulting. Therefore, individuals high in assertiveness are expected to make a higher
first offer in Canada, but not in China:

H2a. Assertiveness will be positively related to assertive behaviors in the negotiation process for
both Canadians and the Chinese.

H2b. Assertiveness will be positively related to the level of first offer for Canadian negotiators, but
not for Chinese negotiators.

In any negotiation, the decision to put the first offer on the table is a double-edged sword ([3] Barry
and Friedman, 1998; [25] Ma, 2007). On the one hand, an initial offer conveys information about
aspirations and utilities, and depending on the underlying structure of reservation prices, this
information may reduce the range of potential agreements, to the disadvantage of the offerer. On
the other hand, an opening offer may lead the opponent to perceive that settlements will favor the
party making the first offer. This is more likely to happen when the first offer is an extreme one ([3]
Barry and Friedman, 1998; [36] Siegel and Fouraker, 1960). Therefore, bargainers who make the first
move may be better off starting with a relatively extreme offer, though there are limits to the
effectiveness of extreme offers (e.g. offers so extreme that they discredit the bargainer who made
the offer or reduce hope on the other side to the point of withdrawal from the negotiation - a chill
effect) ([3] Barry and Friedman, 1998).

However, similar first offers may lead to different results in different cultures because people
perceive them differently. In a low-context culture, negotiators rely on the direct information given
by their opponents, such as first offer, to bargain for an agreement. In a high-context culture,
negotiators rely more on implicit information behind direct messages given by opponents.
Therefore, it is expected that a higher first offer will lead to a better economic outcome in Canada's
low-context culture, and have little or no impact on outcome in China's high-context culture.

H3a. First offer will be positively related to economic outcomes for Canadian negotiators, but not for
Chinese negotiators.

In the same vein, assertive behaviors in Canada are valued and are part of the dynamics of
negotiation in North America. As such, they can be expected to have a positive impact on economic
outcome. Such behaviors in China, on the other hand, are considered to be arrogant and showing a
lack of respect for the counterparts. Those behaving assertively may thus encounter negative
feedback or hostile attitudes, leading to uncertain consequences.

H3b. Assertive behaviors will be positively related to economic outcome for Canadian negotiators,
but not for Chinese negotiators.

We then examine the relationship between negotiators' behavior and their satisfaction with the
negotiation. Because first offer takes place at the beginning of the negotiation, negotiators may get
positive counter-offers or negative backlash, depending on the extremeness of the first offer;
furthermore, its impact may change as negotiation unfolds. Therefore, it is hard to predict the final
impact of a higher first offer.

H4a. First offer will not be related to satisfaction with negotiation for either Canadians or the
Chinese.

In regard to assertive behaviors during negotiations, it is reasonable to expect that people who have
expressed their interests, made arguments, and defended their positions will feel more satisfied
with the negotiation than those who have not.

H4b. Assertive behaviors will be positively related to satisfaction with negotiation for both Canadian
negotiators and Chinese negotiators.

Finally, based on the foregoing argument that assertiveness is generally more acceptable and even
expected in an individualistic negotiation context but not in a collectivistic negotiation context such
as in China, we would expect assertiveness as an individual characteristic to be a predictor of
economic outcomes in a negotiation in Canada, but not in China.

H5. Assertiveness will be positively related to economic outcomes in Canada but not in China.

Method

Participants

A total of 224 Canadian students and 200 Chinese students participated in this study. The Canadian
students were second-year MBA students between the ages of 25 and 35 years from a major
university in eastern Canada. A total of 62 percent of the Canadian students were males. The
Chinese students were undergraduates in business or related fields from the business school of a
leading university in Beijing, China. Most subjects were between the ages of 20 and 26 years, and 70
percent were males. Four negotiation simulations were conducted in both countries. For each
simulation, students were randomly paired off for the negotiation exercise, in one of the two
possible roles, i.e. buyer or seller.

Simulations

Different negotiation situations require diverse sets of negotiation skills and techniques, yet the
majority research in the past has been based on only one situation, which often results in a biased
representation of the overall negotiation process. Furthermore, the results of only one situation or
simulation may not be representative of an individual's negotiation styles. This is one of the major
reasons why the past research only obtained inconsistent results. Since negotiation style is a
generalized, enduring tendency for people to respond to negotiations in a similar manner across
situations and times, the appropriate way to study the impact of personality on negotiation is to
gather data from many different negotiation situations and to investigate their effects on the
average negotiation outcomes across situations. Such a method allows measurements and other
errors to cancel each other out across negotiation situations and increases the probability that true
effects will be found. Therefore, it is desirable that negotiation parameters should be tested in a
number of situations that cover a variety of issues and include both integrative and distributive
structures in order to overcome limitations on the generalization of results ([8] Buelens et al. , 2008;
[24] Ma, 2006).

Based on this rationale, four commonly utilized simulations were used in this study: the used car
case, the Knight/Excalibur case, the Sally Swansong case, and the Bestbooks/Paige Turner case ([23]
Lewicki et al. , 1994, [22] 2007). These four simulations were chosen because they represent
increasing levels of complexity (single issue to multiple issue), as well as different payoff structures
(distributive to integrative scenarios). The used car case is the least complex case, as well as the
most distributive. The Bestbooks/Paige Turner case has the most complex payoff matrix for both the
buyer and seller roles as well as being the most potentially integrative case. The Knight/Excalibur
case and the Sally Swansong case fall somewhere in between. This relatively diverse set of cases was
chosen because one of the objectives of this research was to find out how assertiveness influences
negotiation across situations.

Before using the simulations in China, they were translated and adapted to the Chinese context. For
example, in the used car case, the car's name, prices, and the relevant conditions were changed to
reflect the actual market situation in China. For the translation of the cases, back translation was
done to assure the equivalence of the cases with respect to the original North American scenarios. In
addition, a pilot study was conducted with the simulations prior to actual data collection in order to
identify and correct any potential problems in the cases.

Procedure

Each simulation was conducted in batches of 50-56 participants. At the beginning of each simulation,
participants were told that they would be participating in a negotiation simulation in which they
should do their best, in accordance with the roles they were playing. They were also told that this
study was for academic purposes only, and that confidentiality would be guaranteed. The subjects
were then randomly paired off into buyer/seller roles.

The confidential materials for the assigned roles in the negotiation case were given to each
participant and they were given 30 min to read and prepare for the negotiation. Before starting the
actual negotiation, participants were given a pre-negotiation questionnaire (see Measures section
below), which took about 15 min to complete. Each negotiating pair was then assigned to its own
room to negotiate an agreement. After the negotiation, participants were given a post-negotiation
questionnaire to complete (see Measures section below).

Measures

A pre-negotiation questionnaire, which included the Rathus-assertiveness schedule (RAS), and a
post-negotiation questionnaire were used in these simulations.

Independent variables : This study used the 30-item RAS ([34] Rathus, 1973) before the negotiations
to measure the independent variable assertiveness. RAS is one of several self-report scales
systematically developed for the assessment of general assertiveness or social boldness. In reviewing
common self-report instruments for assessing assertiveness, [5] Beck and Heimberg (1983) found
that the RAS was one of three scales that had accumulated adequate data to support their use.
While the other two were designed to reflect special concerns of US college students, the RAS was
designed as a more general assessment instrument ([9] Chan, 1993), and thus was selected for this
study. Its high reliability alphas (0.85 for Canadian sample and 0.79 for Chinese sample) supported
its validity in this study.

Dependent variables : All dependent variable measures in this study were single-item measures.
According to [44] Wanous et al. (1997), if the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow and
unambiguous to the respondent, a single-item measure will suffice ([6] Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007).
In this study, all questions were simple and straightforward, asking for a factual response (e.g.
monetary value of first offer) or a level of satisfaction on a standard Likert scale. The original pre-
and post-negotiation questionnaires were developed in English for Canada. Translation and back-
translation were conducted to ensure valid Chinese versions of both questionnaires ([7] Brislin,
1970).

First offer (in monetary value) and negotiators' demographic data were collected in the pre-
negotiation questionnaire. Other dependent variables were measured in the post-negotiation
questionnaire. Economic outcome was the agreed price (in monetary value); satisfaction with
negotiation and self-reported assertiveness behaviors during the negotiation process were assessed
by single questions on seven-point Likert scales.

Analysis and results

Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] summarizes the descriptive statistics of all the variables
for both Canadian and Chinese samples. To control for the variance caused by different simulations,
all the analyses are based on the combined mean scores for each variable across four simulations.
First offer and economic outcome were first standardized for buyer and sellers, respectively, in each
simulation, and then summed to get the average. Step-wise hierarchical regression was then used to
test the effects of assertiveness on negotiation behaviors, and negotiation behaviors on negotiation
outcomes.

First, in order to test H1 , the averaged levels of assertiveness of Canadians and the Chinese were
compared. The result of the T-test showed that on average, Canadian people were more assertive
than Chinese people (the averaged level of assertiveness for Canadians vs the Chinese: 133.75 vs
122.33, T = 5.49, p < 0.001). H1 is thus confirmed.

Second, first offer and assertive behavior were regressed on assertiveness for each country,
respectively, to test H2a and H2b (see Figures 1-2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Results show
that negotiators higher in assertiveness behave more assertively during negotiations both in Canada
and in China, which confirms H2a . As expected, assertiveness is also an important predictor of first
offer for Canadian negotiators. This relationship does not hold for Chinese sample. Thus, H2b is also
supported.

It is interesting to note that first offer predicts economic outcome both for Canadian and for Chinese
samples, while H3a had predicted that first offer is positively related to economic outcome only in
Canada. H3a is therefore only partially confirmed, but the result therefore carries an important
implication for negotiation research in that some constructs, like first offer, are culture free and valid
in negotiations - even across national borders.

The regression results also confirm H3b , which predicts that first offer will be positively related to
economic outcomes for Canadian negotiators but not for Chinese negotiators. This indicates the
social desirability of assertive behaviors in Canada's individualistic culture, and their uncertain
influence on negotiation outcomes in China's collectivistic culture (see Figures 1-2 [Figure omitted.
See Article Image.]).

Not surprisingly, the level of first offer was found not related to satisfaction with the negotiation
either in Canada or in China, while assertive behavior was positively related to satisfaction with the
negotiation both in Canada and in China. These results provide support for H4a and H4b , and
indicate that whether negotiators have fully expressed their interests and fought for their positions
is of more importance to their satisfaction than an extreme first offer.

H5 , which posits a relationship between assertiveness as a personality characteristic and economic
outcome for Canadians, was also supported. As can be seen in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article
Image.], assertiveness and economic outcome were correlated for Canadian sample but not the
Chinese sample. Furthermore, Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows that for Canadian
sample, assertiveness directly impacts both first offer and assertive behavior which in turn directly
impact economic outcome, while in Figure 2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], no direct or
indirect relationship exists between assertiveness and economic outcome for the Chinese sample.

Discussion and conclusions

In this study we began with the importance of studying the impact of culture on negotiation in the
increasingly globalized world market and then based on the research on personality and negotiation
we proposed to study an important personality trait, assertiveness, and its impact on negotiation
process and outcomes in two different cultures. Using the data collected from four different
negotiation simulations and with over 400 business students from Canada and China, we examined
the relationship between assertiveness and negotiation behaviors, and the relationship between
negotiation behaviors and negotiation outcomes in these two cultures. The results show that
assertiveness will lead to extreme first offer and assertive behaviors in negotiations which further
leads to better economic outcomes and more satisfaction with the negotiation in Canada; the results
also show that assertiveness will lead to assertive behaviors but not extreme first offer in China, and
extreme first offer leads to better economic outcome while assertive behavior leads to better
affective outcome - satisfaction with the negotiation. These culturally different relationships
between assertiveness as a personality trait and negotiation process and outcomes will have
important implications for negotiation research as well as negotiation practitioners.

First, from a theoretical perspective, this study enriches our understanding of cross-cultural research
on the relationship between personality and negotiation. While it is still not without debate on the
impact of personality on negotiation process and outcomes, this study indicates that the common
notions about the collectivistic culture of China and the individualistic culture of Canada stand true
with respect to assertiveness. Using the RAS, the notion that Canadians are more assertive than the
Chinese is supported. In addition, the impact of assertiveness on negotiation process is consistent
with most of the predictions in our developed hypotheses. This might be because of our multi-
simulations method which could help remove erroneous factors in the examination of the
relationship between personality and negotiation. The results of this study thus would help build a
stronger and more powerful theory on negotiation that is valid across cultures.

Second, from a practical perspective, even though Chinese negotiators high in assertiveness might
not necessarily make a higher first offer than will their Canadian counterparts, a relatively high first
offer is found to the offerer's advantage, which is true both in Canada and in China. In both
countries, a higher first offer leads to a better economic outcome. This can be one important
guideline for negotiation practitioners to follow. In other words, whether you are negotiating in
China or in Canada, an extreme first offer would work for your advantage and therefore negotiators
are recommended to start the negotiation with relatively extreme opening offers in order to get
better economic outcomes during negotiations, However, negotiation practitioners should be
cautioned that a one-shot success obtained with an extreme first offer may have lasting negative
side effects. An extreme first offer might discredit the bargainer who makes such an offer, especially
in a collectivistic culture, and thus destroys the relationship so that no future business could be
possible. Such an implication is in line with advice that has been given to practitioners negotiating
with the Japanese, another collectivistic culture (e.g. [14] Hartfield, 1991).

In addition, the results of this study show that in China the economic gain is predicted by the level of
first offer while the affective outcome is determined by whether the Chinese negotiators have fully
expressed their opinions and defended their positions. In other words, the economic outcome and
the affective outcome are relatively independent from each other. The smooth negotiation process
rather than the economic gain or loss determines whether the negotiators are satisfied or not with
the negotiation in China, which to a great extent predicts whether or not they will continue the
business relationship in the future. The great emphasis on interpersonal relationships in China has
made it a necessary for Western negotiators to build relationships and trust with the Chinese before
successful business can be carried out. The Chinese often complain that Westerners just want to
meet, sign the contract, then leave while not knowing that if the Chinese do not understand or trust
them, there is no business relationship at all. One suggestion to solve this problem is to use
intermediaries. With intermediaries, Western negotiators can find the right persons and build the
right relationships, which helps bridge the differences and find the common grounds towards a win-
win solution. Unlike in the West where even strangers can be trusted to do business, backed up by
the comprehensive legal system, suspicion and distrust characterize all meetings with strangers in
China, unless an intermediary has told them that they are friends. Negotiation practitioners and
international managers should take this into consideration when engaging in international
negotiations. Training and development programs could also be developed based on these findings
in order to help people improve cross-cultural negotiation skills.

Limitations and future research directions

This study was based on the analysis of convenient samples, a characteristic that limits the
generalization of the findings. The selected samples may be different from their respective general
populations, and their representativeness should be a qualification when applying the results of this
study. In addition, the samples from the two cultures were not perfectly matched: the Chinese
student sample did not have much experience. Thus the results of this should be interpreted with
these limitations. That being said, however, this study is still valuable and the results could provide
insightful directions for advanced studies in this area. Future research is encouraged to use more
experienced managers and even professional negotiators to gain more insights on the cross-cultural
differences in international negotiations.

Using different samples to replicate this study is another reasonable extension for this line of
research. More cultures both from the West and from the East could be used for further comparison
in order to build and refine negotiation theory and to enrich our understanding of cross-cultural
negotiations. Moreover, while this study focuses on the differences in individualism and collectivism
between Canadian culture and Chinese culture, other aspects of differences could be explored, such
as the impact of confucian teaching on Chinese negotiators and Chinese negotiation styles, which
could be a fruitful research area ([16] Lin, 2010). Finally, using multiple cases of negotiation
simulations should be encouraged in future studies on personality and negotiations ([26] Ma, 2008).
Given that personality reflects an individual's consistency in response to social stimuli across time
and situations, it is reasonable to examine negotiators' behaviors in multiple situations in order to
capture the true impact of their personality, from which more meaningful findings could be obtained
and our knowledge on negotiation could be advanced.