Search results

This study aims to test the contributions of a new type of resilience, Trait Negotiation Resilience (TNR; Nelson et al., 2016), to negotiators’ effective behavior, perception of opponent and negotiation outcomes.

A laboratory study (N = 98; 49 dyads) featuring a mixed-motive negotiation task. Participants self-reported TNR (emotional skills, social sensitivity, intrinsic motivation for self-improvement and a sense of purpose to life events) up to a week before negotiating. After the negotiations, they rated their opponents on resilient, effective personal attributes and reported their own subjective value (SV). Trained judges watched the negotiations, coded objective outcomes and rated negotiators on dimensions of effective negotiation behavior. Statistical analyses accounted for dyadic interdependence.

TNR predicted higher levels of effective negotiation behavior, which, in turn, fully mediated TNR’s favorable contribution to negotiated value. TNR also predicted higher levels of SV, and this contribution was partially mediated by perceiving effective personal attributes in the opponent.

The sample size was moderate and it consisted of undergraduate students, most of them female.

Evidence on the contribution of a personality construct to both outcome and process negotiator variables; contribution to the research of specific types of resilience.

This study aims to identify effective behaviors in labor-management negotiation (LMN) and, on that basis, derive overarching psychological principles of successful negotiation in this important context. These empirical findings are used to develop and test a comprehensive negotiation training program.

Twenty-seven practitioners from one of the world’s largest labor unions were interviewed to identify the requirements of effective LMN, resulting in 796 descriptions of single behaviors from 41 negotiation cases.

The analyses revealed 13 categories of behaviors critical to negotiation success. The findings highlight the pivotal role of the union negotiator by illustrating how they lead the negotiations with the other party while also ensuring that their own team and the workforce stand united. To provide guidance for effective LMN, six psychological principles were derived from these behavioral categories. The paper describes a six-day training program developed for LMN based on the empirical findings of this study and the related six principles.

This paper has three unique features: first, it examines the requirements for effective LMN based on a systematic needs assessment. Second, by teaching not only knowledge and skills but also general psychological principles of successful negotiation, the training intervention is aimed at promoting long-term behavioral change. Third, the research presents a comprehensive and empirically-based training program for LMN.

Previous research on negotiation skills has focused mostly on the negotiation itself and tactics used when bargaining, while little research has examined the process by which people become effective negotiators. The purpose of this paper is to develop an initial model from an intra-organizational perspective to outline the factors that contribute to the development of negotiation skills and behaviors by employees.

This conceptual paper relies on prior research and existing theory to focus on the types of developmental and learning experiences and processes that lead to the acquisition of three specific types of key negotiation skills and behaviors.

Distributive, integrative, and adaptable negotiation skills are developed most effectively via different learning and development activities, respectively. Additionally, unique individual difference and situational variables could contribute to particular negotiation behaviors, either directly or via an interaction with developmental experiences.

The paper proposes a model for future testing in which results can provide support for tailored/customized training and development of employee negotiation skills. Providing the correct people with the correct tools in the correct manner is always desirable by practitioners.

This proposed holistic model provides new insights, structure, and suggestions for more research on factors that lead to negotiation skill development and exhibition of effective negotiation behaviors. This paper goes beyond description of negotiation tactics and addresses the various negotiation contexts and the unique skills needed for each. Most importantly, the paper addresses how those skills are uniquely and most effectively developed.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether conflict management styles are able to predict actual behaviors in business negotiation in two different countries.

Subjects were recruited from both Canada and China to participate in a laboratory study. Three simulated business negotiations were used for participants to negotiate deals in both countries in order to compare the validity of conflict management styles in predicting negotiation behaviors.

This study shows that conflict management styles are valid predictors of actual negotiation behaviors in Canada, but not in China. The results also show that Chinese people use a more avoiding approach and demonstrate a higher level of integrativeness during business negotiation simulations, while Canadians use a more compromising approach and show a higher level of distributiveness.

Practical implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the usefulness of self‐reported conflict management styles for negotiation researchers and practitioners in training seminars and in terms of the effectiveness of first offer as one negotiation strategy to achieve better negotiation outcomes.

This study is particularly pertinent, given that the relationship between conflict management styles and actual behaviors in negotiation receives little attention and that even less attention is given to this relationship in a cross‐cultural context.

This paper aims to test the impact of several self‐regulatory strategies on an integrative bargaining task.

Participants were randomly assigned to dyads and negotiated over the sale of a car. Before negotiating, participants were prompted to engage in one of three self‐regulation strategies, based upon fantasy realization theory (FRT): to mentally contrast a successful future agreement with the reality of bargaining, to exclusively elaborate on successful future agreement, or to exclusively elaborate on the reality of bargaining. Those in the control condition merely began the negotiation.

Mentally contrasting a successful future agreement with the reality of bargaining leads dyads to reach the largest and most equitable joint agreements, compared to dyads that elaborate only on successful future agreement, or on the reality of bargaining.

Since it was found that mental contrasting promotes integrative agreement, it is important to learn more about the psychological processes that mediate and moderate this effect. Another related line of research would examine the application of the findings to other bargaining scenarios. One further future line of research should combine mental contrasting with planning strategies.

The findings of the paper have implications for both self‐regulation and negotiation research. The result that mental contrasting fosters integrative solutions reflects its potential to help negotiators effectively discriminate among feasible and unfeasible components of a multi‐faceted goal (integrative agreement). For negotiation research, the paper identifies an effective self‐regulatory strategy for producing high‐quality agreements.

Based on the social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory, this paper aims to investigate the mediating role of “relationship conflict” in the association between traditional gender role (TGR) endorsement and objective and subjective negotiation outcomes.

Two experimental negotiation studies (n1 = 138, n2 = 128) were conducted at a US university.

This paper presents three original and noteworthy findings: One, in mixed-gender negotiations, as a dyad’s TGR endorsement increases, final agreements become significantly more likely to favor men than women. Two, in mixed-gender negotiations, TGR endorsement is significantly associated with a decreased ability to establish a pleasant, mutually satisfactory and successful business relationship, resulting in a possible future economic cost due to lost opportunity. Three, the heightened relationship conflict during the negotiation mediates the negative association between TGR endorsement and women’s economic outcomes.

Empirical findings support social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory. The use of a distributive negotiation case and laboratory research methodology may limit the generalizability of findings.

Findings about the detrimental effects of TGR in mixed-gender negotiations magnify the importance of becoming aware of our TGR orientations and their potential negative consequences on our long-term collaborations. Also, it is necessary to provide negotiation trainings to both genders with regard to gender-driven conflicts and offer tools to prevent or tackle such conflicts.

Negotiations are among the most consequential of social interactions as their results have a substantial impact on individuals’ careers and financial outcomes. Understanding the effect of TGRs is paramount to improve female representation, participation and effectiveness in management and leadership. Mixed-gender negotiations such as collective equality bargaining, workplace social interactions, work-life balance discourse are critical to establishing gender equality and fairness in organizations and societies.

Understanding how gender influences negotiation processes and outcomes and using the findings to improve both genders’ negotiation success are crucial to establishing fairness and equity in society and business. This research attempts to close a gap in the literature by focusing on the potential function of gender role orientation in explaining gender differences in negotiation.

We are negotiating all the time: with customers, suppliers, trade unions, our family ‐ indeed, all with whom we come into contact. In business, in particular, negotiation needs management. There are said to be eight stages in negotiation: prepare, argue, signal, propose, present the package, bargain, close and agree. At the proposal stage one must be clear about what one must achieve, what one intends to achieve, and what one would like to achieve. The approach to constructive and competitive negotiation, the role of consultation, how to cope with deadlock and conflict, cross‐cultural negotiation, and the art of compromise are reviewed. The development and use of teams in negotiation is also an important factor, needing careful assessment. Negotiation will nearly always involve conflict, but steps must be taken to ensure that the participants remain on friendly terms.

Retailers are increasingly forced to enter negotiations with new suppliers and have less time to develop trusting relationships prior to awarding sourcing contract. Such supplier negotiations are often guided by self‐interest‐seeking behavior. However, not all exchange partners behave opportunistically when given the opportunity and little is known about how and when opportunism actually occurs. This research seeks to develop a multidimensional perspective of exchange partners' Machiavellianism that reveals different types of opportunistic motivations in exchange relationships and to extend knowledge of socialization as a safeguard by investigating the efficacy of signaling trustworthiness as a means of reducing the risk of opportunistic behavior in exchanges with partners with different moral standards about opportunism.

The data consist of a sample of 259 purchasing professionals who are members of the Institute of Supply Chain Management and report on their negotiation behavior. Moderated regression analysis is used to analyze the research model.

The results show that opportunistic behavior originates from a multidimensional set of moral convictions held by an exchange partner. Interestingly, signaling a trusting relationship only reduces opportunistic behavior that is due to deceit, but is not effective against cynicism or flattery.

To date, retail managers have addressed potential partner opportunism by designing contractual agreements or by implementing structural and social safeguards. Little is known about how these approaches address partner‐specific causes of opportunism. The study demonstrates the extent to which trust, a popular socialization mechanism in retailing, moderates the degree to which an exchange partner's moral conviction leads to opportunism.