1. The importance of asking
Negotiation is generally considered one of the essential skills necessary for organizational effectiveness and success. Individuals in all types of organizations and at all organizational levels negotiate on a daily basis: staffing requirements, budgets, project deadlines, meeting dates and times, joint ventures, and so forth. Given the importance of this attribute, many of the negotiating skills of effective people are employed in both personal and professional negotiations.
As with most processes -- problem solving, decision making, and group and team development, among others -- the early stages of the negotiation process often influence how succeeding stages will unfold. Figuring out what one wants is part of the challenge in these encounters, as all humans have multiple wants and needs with varying degrees of importance. Yet, even when individuals have clear aspirations, they often do not ask for what they want. Instead, they ask for less than what they truly desire (i.e., sub-optimize), they engage the other party but don't make a request, or they choose not to engage the other party altogether.
Studies involving salary negotiations, for example, have consistently shown that individuals do not initiate compensation discussions, despite the fact that these discussions often produce higher salaries. Further, according to Rousseau, there are many additional opportunities for employees to negotiate special deals -- such as flexible work hours, international work assignments, and educational opportunities -- which they frequently fail to do.
For some people, the inability to ask is a chronic problem. They lack the social skills, confidence, or will to initiate encounters. For others, the behavior is more episodic, a function of immediate conditions. In either case, the result is almost certain to be the same: a sub-optimal outcome. Why do individuals fail to ask for what they want in a negotiation, or ask for less than they desire, even in apparently benign situations where the other party is willing to cooperate and the likelihood of a favorable agreement is quite high?
2. Barriers to initiation
The reasons why individuals fail to ask for what they want in a negotiation fall into two broad categories: personal characteristics and situational factors. The former are generally associated with a chronic inability to take the initiative, while the latter are more commonly associated with an episodic reluctance to initiate. Understanding these sources of hesitation in one's personal and professional encounters is an important first step in mastering the initiation process.
2.1. Personal characteristics
"Asking" is a form of verbal assertiveness, which is determined by (1) an individual's belief in the propriety or appropriateness of such behavior, and (2) the individual's confidence in his or her ability to function in a certain manner or attain certain goals (i.e., self-efficacy).
An individual's attitude or belief toward asking in negotiations is grounded in culture and socialization. In some cultures, people are socialized to conform to policies, procedures, and rules; price tags, posted notices, and such are viewed as implicit contracts that define the terms or conditions of an encounter. In other cultures, rules are seen as more symbolic than deterministic, so sticker prices and the like are viewed as but starting points in negotiation.
Demographic factors such as age and gender determine who has power in social encounters or negotiations in many cultures, which also can affect initiation behavior. In Japan, for example, age is revered. An individual is expected to defer to the wisdom of an elder in personal and professional settings. Consequently, elders are more likely to take the lead in discussions, while younger members listen and follow.
The roles and behavior of men and women often are differentiated, as well. In several Middle Eastern countries, for example, women hold a more subservient role in society. In this role, they are expected to defer to the judgment of their husbands and other males. However, even in Western societies, women are less likely to take the initiative in a negotiation. According to Babcock and Laschever, women tend to be more apprehensive about negotiations than are men, and consequently they are less likely to initiate a negotiation. Interestingly, when they do negotiate --  -- for example, in salary negotiations -- women generally ask for and receive considerably less than do men.
Culture and socialization may also influence how a request is initiated. In low-context cultures -- for example, as found in the United States, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- communication is typically precise, direct, and verbal. However, in high-context cultures -- such as found in many Pacific Rim countries -- communication is usually more implicit: based on context, relational development, and nonverbal cues. Not only might we expect someone from a low-context culture to be less concerned about the social ramifications of initiating a request, but this individual would probably be more direct and vocal in making that request.
The other primary negotiator characteristic that can affect initiating behavior is self-efficacy, or the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner or attaining certain goals. In general, if a negotiator has succeeded in similar situations in the past, or at least has seen others do so, they will have more confidence and motivation to initiate a request. Lacking a positive experience, novice negotiators will often assume that the parties' interests are incompatible and that the negotiation will be contentious, causing hesitation or retreat. In some cases, physical manifestations such as perspiring, trembling, and stuttering may further accentuate the risks of asking in a negotiation.
There are, of course, some individuals who have an innate confidence that appears to transcend social context, but for most negotiators, self-efficacy is situationally determined. That is, confience is a function of the nature of the request, the environment in which the request takes place, and a negotiator's perceptions of the other party.
2.2. Situational factors
While the personal characteristics of a negotiator can be somewhat enduring, there are situational factors which may moderate the relationship between an individual and his or her intentions to initiate a request. These factors -- clarity of purpose, salience of outcome, time constraints, perceived alternatives, role definition, venue or setting, and perceived counterpart -- are likely to be more dynamic.
It is not uncommon for a negotiator to lack internal clarity regarding what they want or need in a particular situation, which can impede initiation. Most purchases, for example, involve multiple desires on the part of the buyer: price, style, color, accessories, delivery date, warranty, and so forth. When a party is unclear about their priorities, they may either forget to pursue some issues or be reluctant to do so. The more variables that come into play, the more likely the individual is to lack clarity.
Presuming clarity of desire, the salience or importance of one's preferred outcome is a second factor that can moderate initiation behavior. Of course, importance is a relative concept: what is important to one person might not be to another, and this importance must be determined in relation to other wants and needs. Is the item or issue in question important enough, for example, to risk other issues being brought to the surface during the negotiation? There are social costs, as well as economic costs, that must be taken into consideration when an initiation decision is made.
When negotiators are forced to make a quick decision -- whether due to market conditions, workload, externally imposed deadlines, or some other variable -- they will often be less motivated to process information, be less likely to revise unfounded distributive perceptions, and have a greater likelihood of utilizing stereotypes. In effect, time pressures trigger the limbic system of the human brain, to the practical detriment of the cerebrum. While the former controls emotions, the latter is responsible for analyzing and responding to situations logically or creatively. Thus, when cornered into acting quickly, a negotiator is less likely to recognize the importance and multiplicity of their desires and see the ways in which a request can be initiated such that it will lead to a win-win situation.
Generally speaking, having a good alternative is one of the most effective tools in negotiating, whether that alternative involves accepting the status quo or identifying another party/option. If resigned to accepting the status quo, a negotiator can still engage their counterpart without initiating a request, which leaves open the possibility of the counterpart broaching the subject and making an offer. This reduces a negotiator's anxiety or dissonance, since the introduction of their want or need was not volunteered. For its part, identifying another party/option will likely have more potency in determining a negotiator's will to initiate a request, particularly if the alternative involves a more familiar or favorable negotiating partner.
In most negotiations, individuals find themselves cast in a role: buyer, seller, agent, or partner. Each role comes with certain expectations and a natural advantage or disadvantage that can affect the initiation process. For example, unless a seller is highly motivated, it is usually the buyer who approaches the seller to make an inquiry. This automatically gives the seller leverage, as both parties will presume that the seller has something the buyer wants, and that the buyer may not have other alternatives. Further, if the buyer must travel to a seller's unfamiliar and highly public establishment, it can create even greater disadvantage and anxiety; individuals typically have more difficulty asking for what they want when the negotiating venue is public, for fear of being embarrassed in the presence of others if their request is denied.
4. Final thoughts
During his first campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill was surprised to learn that a neighbor he had known all his life -- someone who not only shared his political philosophy, but also for whom he had done a variety of chores growing up -- was not planning to vote for him. After reminding the neighbor of all they had shared over the years, O'Neill inquired as to why she would not be voting for him. "Because you did not ask me," she replied.
Ultimately, Tip O'Neill became very good at asking, as he was re-elected to office 16 times. For countless individuals, however, asking is one of the most difficult aspects of negotiation. Since in many cases it is both a voluntary and public act, asking can bring on considerable angst, even if the outcome is favorable. Nonetheless, asking is one of the things a negotiator generally must do if he or she hopes to get something that is needed or desired.
Most of us have had years of experience negotiating personally and professionally. Those experiences, and the lessons taken from them, are captured in the cognitive scripts stored in our brains. While the vast majority of these scripts may serve us well, some can limit our ability to ask for what we want in pursuit of otherwise highly-achievable goals. And, even effective scripts are of little value if our emotions limit their accessibility.
The good news is that negotiation is a skill, and skills can be acquired through practice. Further, there are countless negotiations occurring daily in one's personal and professional life whereby this practice can take place. By beginning with more benign situations, an individual can gain the experience and confidence to approach more challenging negotiations.
Consider a situation which occurred at a large, east-coast teaching hospital. One of the best minds in the cardiology department began talking with colleagues privately about a potential opportunity with another hospital. The other hospital had recently purchased a new scanning device and had increased its financial support for medical research. Some colleagues became concerned that this individual might leave the hospital, depriving the institution of not only his keen intellect, but also the heightened reputation it enjoyed with the cardiologist on staff. At the same time, the cardiologist researcher shared the information he had regarding the other hospital with several individuals in other departments, including the heads of two of these departments. Concerns that this physician might leave made their way to the chief administrator, who eventually invited the cardiologist to a meeting to discuss ways to keep him with the hospital. This, of course, created an ideal negotiable moment for the cardiologist. 