Linking Implicit Motives and Explicit Motives with Negotiation Performance

Abstract

Recently, some scholars voiced out a demand, to give a second chance to the study of individual differences in negotiation performance. The current study aims to do so, whilst building on McClelland’s motives framework, and focusing on the Big Three classes of motives: achievement, affiliation and power. We hypothesized that achievement- and power-motivated individuals would exhibit high negotiation performance, whereas affiliation-motivated individuals would exhibit low negotiation performance. Further, we hypothesized that implicit motives explain additional variance in negotiation performance beyond explicit motives and traits. To test these hypotheses, in study 1, we collected data from 140 individuals (56 females) using self-report measures of negotiation performance. In study 2, we conducted a mixed-motive negotiation experiment with 84 participants (34 females). Results showed that explicit achievement and affiliation, and implicit power motives were positively related negotiation performance. Further, in study 2, we found that implicit achievement motive was positively associated with negotiation performance while explicit achievement motive was negatively related. We, also, found that implicit motives explain extra variance in negotiation performance beyond traits in study 2. We are among the few researchers who showed that motivational perspectives of personality should be taken into consideration when theorizing on antecedents of negotiation performance.