Search results

This study aims to investigate when integrative tactics are more effective in generating higher joint outcomes in an integrative negotiation. The authors test whether, first, the moral identity of the negotiators and, second, the concurrent use of distributive tactics increase the effectiveness of integrative tactics on joint outcomes.

Two weeks prior to the experiment, moral identity was measured using SIMI. Participants were classified into three groups: high, medium, and low SIMI. Two participants from the same group played a modified version of the Towers Market negotiation exercise. Distributive and integrative tactics were measured.

Results show that negotiators with high moral identity achieve higher joint outcomes in an integrative negotiation by using integrative tactics more effectively. In addition, the positive effects of integrative tactics on joint outcomes increase as the two negotiators employ distributive tactics along with integrative tactics rather than integrative tactics alone.

Results support the firm‐flexibility rule and dual‐concern model of negotiation. In addition, the results of this study are consistent with the argument of the differentiation‐before‐integration principle.

Contradictory to the assumption that negotiators should not use distributive tactics to increase joint outcome, negotiators can increase joint outcome when they use distributive tactics along with integrative tactics. In addition, this study shows that negotiators with high morality do a better job in an integrative negotiation not because they adopt integrative tactics more frequently, but because they use them more effectively, especially when coupled with negotiators with a similar level of morality.

This paper examined negotiator behavior in a variable‐sum two‐party negotiation task and its impact on individual and joint negotiator out‐come. Specifically, we examined the role of negotiator opening offer, reciprocity and complementarity of the use of tactics, systematic progression of offers, and information sharing in a negotiation with integrative potential. Results indicated that initial offers affect final outcome differently across buyers and sellers. The buyer's initial offer was curvilinearly related to his or her final outcome in the form of an inverted‐U. The seller's initial offer was positive‐linearly related to seller's outcome. Second, negotiators reciprocated and complemented both distributive and integrative tactics. In addition, highly integrative dyads differed from less efficient dyads in their reciprocation of integrative behaviors and complementarity of distributive behaviors. Third, approximately forty percent of offers made represented systematic concessions, but the proportion of offers reflecting systematic concessions was not related to the efficiency of the joint outcome. Finally, while information sharing did appear to have a positive effect on the efficiency of agreements, differences in the amount of information provided did not affect the proportion of outcome claimed by each party.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the connection between the type of negotiation tactics auditors use when they ask their clients to make adjustments to their financial reports, focusing on three distributive and two integrative negotiation tactics, and whether the auditors identify with their clients.

A survey was used to capture 152 experienced Swedish audit partners’ perspectives on what type of negotiation technique they would use thinking about their largest client in a hypothetical situation.

The results show that the more auditors identify with their clients, the more likely they are to adopt two of the distributive negotiation tactics, conceding and compromising.

Building on the findings in the accounting literature that auditors’ identification with clients constrains their judgments, this study finds that auditors’ identification with clients also has an impact on the auditors’ initial selection of negotiation tactics.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how audit partner rotation impacts the negotiation strategies client management intends to use to resolve a financial reporting issue.

An experiment that manipulates between participants on whether the audit partner rotates from the prior fiscal year (rotation versus non-rotation) is conducted to test the theoretical implications of rapport. Participants with a high level of business and managerial experience indicate their intended use of 25 reliable negotiation tactics that client management may use to resolve a financial reporting issue with the external auditor. These tactics underlie three distributive (contending, compromising, conceding) and two integrative (problem solving, expanding the agenda) negotiation strategies.

The results of the study indicate that client management is less contentious and more concessionary (i.e. accommodating) to a newly rotated audit partner, as compared to an audit partner that has established rapport with client management. Further, client management is more willing to intend using integrative and compromising (i.e. co-operative) negotiation strategies when negotiating with an audit partner with established rapport in contrast to a newly rotated audit partner.

These findings underscore the merits and costs of audit partner rotation in auditor-client management (ACM) negotiations and document that partner rotation affects not only auditor behaviour, but also the behaviour of client management.

This paper is the first that considers how developing and maintaining rapport impacts ACM negotiations. The study provides empirical evidence to further inform debates over auditor rotation.

Understanding how dyadic negotiations and group decision processes evolve over time requires specifying the basic elements of process, modeling the configuration of those elements over time, and providing a theoretical explanation for that configuration. We propose a bead metaphor for conceptualizing the basic elements of the group negotiation process and then “string” the beads of behavior in a helix framework to model the process by which group negotiations evolve. Our theorizing draws on the group decision development literature (e.g. Bales, 1953; Poole, 1981, 1983a, b; Poole & Roth, 1989a, b) as well as on the negotiation process literature (e.g. Gulliver, 1979; Morley & Stephenson, 1977). Our examples are from our Towers Market studies of negotiating groups.

The nature of the negotiated outcomes of the eight issues of the Dayton Peace Agreement was studied in terms of their integrative and distributive aspects. In cases where integrative elements were found, further analysis was conducted by concentrating on Pruitt's five types of integrative solutions: expanding the pie, cost cutting, non‐specific compensation, logrolling, and bridging. The results showed that real world international negotiations can arrive at integrative agreements even when they involve redistribution of resources (in this case the redistribution of former Yugoslavia). Another conclusion was that an agreement can consist of several distributive outcomes and several integrative outcomes produced by different kinds of mechanisms. Similarly, in single issues more than one mechanism can be used simultaneously. Some distributive bargaining was needed in order to determine how much compensation was required. Finally, each integrative formula had some distributive aspects as well.

This paper tests the fit of three models of integrative and distributive bargaining using eight hostage negotiation transcripts. Putnam (1990) argues that integrative and distributive bargaining processes are best understood through the interdependence model that emphasizes the dynamic nature in which bargainers make transitions between integrative and distributive positions. The separate and the stage models predict more stable patterns of distributive and integrative behavior. To determine the goodness of fit for these three models, this paper compares integrative and distributive strategy use among actual and simulated hostage negotiations. These hostage negotiations, obtained from the FBI and a Midwest state police organization, were transcribed and coded using a scheme designed to tap cooperative and competitive strategy use of both hostage takers and police negotiators. The data reveal that the interdependence model best fits the simulated cases. This fit is evidenced by the major shifts between integrative and distributive orientations displayed by hostage takers and police negotiators. The separate models and the stage appear to fit several features of the authentic hostage negotiation cases. The study concludes that the extent to which each model emerges depends largely on which contextual parameters dominate the interaction.

The purpose of this study is to examine the negotiation tactics used in business-to-business (B2B) negotiations in creative sectors and to shed light on some of the characteristics of creative sectors that might drive these behaviors.

This is a multiple-case study involving interviews with 18 creative sector negotiators engaged in B2B negotiations.

The findings suggest that negotiators in B2B firms in creative sectors use a variety of negotiation tactics to reach agreement, but that there are some differences compared with other sectors. One group of tactics, not represented in existing taxonomies, is identified and termed closure-seeking tactics, referring to tactics intended to speed up the negotiation process and reach agreement as quickly as possible. The reasons for creative sector negotiators’ choice of closure-seeking tactics might stem from their desire to expedite the start of new projects to enable them to fulfill their creative drive.

In addition to the identification of group of tactics observed in creative sectors, but not anticipated by existing research, the findings indicate that negotiators in creative sectors seem to lack interest in, and expertise for, negotiating and might be driven more by the desire to get on with the creative process than by concerns over monetary gains when negotiating. This could reflect unique characteristics of creative sectors and the people who work in these sectors.

This work offers new insights and understanding about tactics used in B2B negotiations in creative sectors. These findings have important implications for both practitioners in creative sectors, who might be too eager to reach closure quickly, and practitioners negotiating with firms in creative sectors, who need to understand the unique characteristics of these firms.

The originality of this work lies in its consideration of tactics used in B2B negotiations in the under-studied context of creative sectors and investigation of the reasons that drive the choice of tactics.

Previous research on international negotiations has primarily examined cross‐cultural differences in behavioral styles. Supplementing this prior research, we focused on outcome in negotiations. The study examined relationships between culture and outcome in contract negotiations, and analyzed how negotiation behavior mediates between culture and outcome. Sixty Mexican and Norwegian subjects participated in a negotiation simulation with potentially integrative outcomes. The study included 12 Mexican dyads, 12 Norwegian dyads, and 6 cross‐cultural dyads. Two aspects of outcome: joint benefit and distribution of benefit between negotiators, and two aspects of process: progression of offers and verbal communication, were examined Results indicated an effect of culture on integrative results, but not on distribution of benefit. Process differences found were related to the progression of offers over time, and not to verbal communication. Managerial implications are discussed and directions for future research indicated.