Search results

The purpose of this article is to review and comment on recent and emerging trends in negotiation research, and to highlight the importance of the interactions between various dimensions of negotiation.

Consistent with the behavioral negotiation framework, a two‐level structure is maintained consisting of the contextual characteristics of negotiation, on the one hand, and the negotiators themselves, on the other. The framework is supplemented with updated research, and the influence of culture in negotiation is commented upon – noting its increasing role in negotiator cognition, motivation, attribution, and cooperation. The paper also adds new themes to reflect the recent advancements in negotiation research. In particular, it focuses on the ways in which negotiator effects can mediate and/or moderate contextual effects, as well as the ways in which contextual effects can mediate and/or moderate negotiator effects.

The paper suggests that efforts to integrate the recent developments in negotiation research are necessary and that the behavioral negotiation perspective, due to its simultaneous simplicity and flexibility, is appropriate and effective for incorporating the various streams of negotiation research into a systematic framework. Critically, this framework highlights the dynamic interaction between the two levels and leaves much room for further exploration of these dynamics.

The paper identifies emerging areas of inquiry that can be especially fruitful in helping negotiation scholars to expand more traditional approaches to conflict in bold new ways and open up innovative avenues for thinking about the domain of negotiation. The paper offers a comprehensive model that integrates various dimensions of negotiation and illustrates the interaction among them.

This study aims to examine how negotiators’ goal orientations may affect their negotiation strategy and consequently the negotiation outcomes.

Using cross-sectional data collected from a Fortune 500 Global firm based in France, this study empirically examines how goal orientations of negotiators may affect their value creation (win-win) and value-claiming (win-lose) negotiation behavior reflecting their desired outcome in a given sales negotiation. In so doing, this study proposes a conceptual model and tests a number of hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modeling.

This study shows that learning and performance goal orientations (PGO) are indeed related with two commonly used negotiation strategies: win-win (integrative) and win-lose strategies (distributive) strategies, respectively. The results indicate that while the learning orientation has a positive relationship with a win-win strategy and a negative relationship with a win-lose negotiation strategy, just the opposite is true with the PGO, which is positively related to win-lose strategy and negatively related to win-win strategy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research represents one of the first attempts to connect goal orientations with negotiations strategies to achieve desired negotiation outcome using data from salespeople with negotiation experience.

This study aims to investigate how and to what extent structural network properties affect dyadic negotiation behavior in tourism destination ecosystems. Specifically, this study addresses negotiation behavior in terms of problem-solving and contending, because these two key strategies reflect the integrative and distributive aspects of dyadic interactions.

This study relies on network data and dyadic survey data from nine mountain tourism destinations in Southeastern Norway. The structural network properties the authors research are triadic closure – the extent to which a dyad has common ties to other actors – and structural equivalence – the similarities in networking patterns that capture firms’ competition for similar resources. In addition, the authors also study a possible effect of relationship duration on negotiation behavior.

Triadic closure and relationship duration have positive effects on problem-solving, and structural equivalence tends to decrease problem-solving, although the effect is inconsistent; none of these three independent variables was found to affect contending negotiation behavior.

This study shows that a dyad’s structural network embeddedness has implications for negotiation behavior. Further research is encouraged to develop this theoretical perspective.

This study is a pioneering investigation of how structural network properties affect dyadic negotiation behavior in ongoing coproducing relationships in real-world destination ecosystems.

The purposes of this paper are to provide a new framework for the (re)assessment of North-South relations, with a specific focus on North-South preferential trade agreements (PTAs); advance a new mechanism of how first-order, i.e. Southern countries’ first, North-South PTAs can affect the outcomes of second-order, i.e. Southern countries’ subsequent, North-South PTA negotiations; and re-examine the effects of North-South power asymmetries on the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations.

The paper focuses on how North-South power asymmetries affect the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations. It introduces the concept of “first-order” and “second-order” North-South PTAs to show that the “order” of an agreement can be a crucial factor in PTA negotiations. The claims of the paper are also supported by primary data obtained through the author’s personal interviews with European Union and USA trade officials and policy-makers (see Appendix).

The paper advances a new theoretical framework that takes a longer-term view on North-South trade relations, whereby, against the backdrop of the proliferating PTAs, first-order North-South agreements can raise the bargaining powers of Southern countries during subsequent North-South PTA negotiations, with strong implications for both developed and developing countries.

The paper is largely theoretical. A systematic empirical study of North-South PTAs will be required to validate or refute the theoretical framework advanced in this paper.

The paper introduces a new variable, namely the “order” of an agreement, which affects the logic of North-South PTA negotiations. Hence, the paper sets out a new theoretical framework that allows for a more accurate assessment of North-South power asymmetries and their effects on the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations.

(3128) Trawler Fishing Industry — Trawler Fishermen — Claim for reduction in working week without loss of pay and for overtime payment for Sundays worked at sea.

Negotiators gain valuable insight into the other party's true interests and reach mutually beneficial agreements by discussing their priorities and preferences among issues. This study investigated how motives are related to information exchange, and how this, in turn, affects perceptual accuracy and outcomes. The analyses revealed that cooperatively‐motivated dyads followed an information exchange route to settlement, whereas individualistic dyads shared little information. Moreover, while information exchange was related to perceptual accuracy for cooperative dyads, this was not the case for individualistic negotiators. The effectiveness of this settlement route varied when different kinds of issues—integrative and common‐value (compatible) issues—were considered While integrative issues were likely to be settled through information exchange, common‐value issue outcomes were determined in large part by negotiators' first offers. These findings suggest that the scope of the information‐accuracy hypothesis should be modified to account for differences among motives and issues.

One challenge for multinational organizations is to manage inter‐organizational relationships with customers, collaborators, competitors, governments and other important stakeholder organizations. Negotiations can be seen as a process to manage interdependence and conflicts of interests between parties. As a result, negotiation analysis and theory provide a useful framework to analyze dynamics of relationship‐ and trust‐building and hence are increasingly important for the understanding of inter‐organizational relationships. This paper explores the set of strategies managers can implement in negotiations to establish relationships based on mutual understanding and trust in order to reach satisfactory agreements and manage inter‐organizational dependencies and its associated threats.

Purpose – Negotiations can be stressful, yet are unavoidable in many organizations. Members of organizational workgroups for instance need to negotiate about issues such as task division and different ideas on how to complete a project. Until recently little research effort has been directed to understanding negotiators' stress responses. Similarly, little is known about the consequences that these stress responses may have on negotiation outcomes. In this chapter we argue that group members' physiological stress responses are a key determinant of the outcomes of intragroup negotiations.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We focus on two distinct physiological responses (i.e., threat and challenge) and argue that relative to threat responses, challenge responses will be related to superior information sharing, information processing, and decision-making quality. Moving beyond a uniform relationship between physiological reactions and negotiators' behaviors and outcomes, we also focus on two moderating characteristics: the relative power of group members, and whether the negotiation is purely task related, or co-occurs with relationship issues. We discuss effects on both the individual and the group level, extend our ideas to other forms of negotiations, and end with practical and theoretical implications.

Originality/Value – A better understanding of psychophysiological processes during intragroup negotiations may help to explain when intragroup disagreements help or hinder group outcomes and, therefore, may help to solve the paradox of intragroup conflict.

Stakeholder thinking has contributed considerably to the organizational literature by demonstrating the significance of the environment in managing organizations. Stakeholders affect and are affected by organizations’ daily operations and decisions. They have varied and often conflicting interests, making it necessary for managers and organizations to know who they are as well as their attributes. Consequently, Mitchell et al. (1997) developed the stakeholder salience theory to help managers and organizations identify the power of certain stakeholders and their salience to the organization. With a few exceptions, the mainstream stakeholder salience theory is in many ways still largely static, short-term oriented, and firm-centered. The aim of this paper is to revisit certain conformist assumptions concerning the role of marginalized stakeholders, or “dormant” stakeholders, in stakeholder thinking. Overall, this chapter is a call to a new conceptualization of stakeholders that reintroduces stakeholder dynamics at the core of stakeholder thinking to overcome its restrictive shortcomings. We argue that managing stakeholder relationships is not simply meeting stakeholder demands but also involves taking into account the long-term dynamics of stakeholder interactions.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the important factors that negotiators and policy-makers need to take into account while putting their strategies to negotiate global climate change regimes.

This paper is based on qualitative research using the deductive approach. Integrating the theoretical and empirical material in the analysis is used to enhance the readers’ value and interest in the paper.

Without deep understanding of why some international negotiations related to climate change have previously failed, it is difficult to successfully negotiate them in the future. Flexibility and openness during negotiations and to consider the views and concerns of all global actors in finding optimum solutions and cooperation are among the many essential factors that bring the world leaders into a compromise agreement and a global climate change regime. Knowledge management including taking into account the discussed factors may help the negotiators and public to be more prepared to understand the obstacles that may complicate negotiating the international climate change regimes.

This paper is not intended for those who have years of experience in climate change negotiations nor for those seeking deep theoretical knowledge about this topic.

This paper has practical implications as it combines the theories of international relations with practical evidences from previous Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This paper is an essential read to students and young scientists, as well as to young policy-makers within the environmental politics.

The paper deals with a very important and current issue and little has been published on the process of preparation for negotiating climate change negotiation. It covers some critical issues and determining factors in such negotiations.