Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the implicitly assumed universality of the best seller negotiation literature Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury.

Existing cross-cultural negotiation literature was systematically searched for findings indicating either a higher or lower likelihood of successfully applying the authors’ advice in different cultural environments, as defined in the Hofstede framework or The Globe Study. The findings were aggregated, categorized into a matrix, synthesized and analyzed.

This paper finds that the assumed universality of the method of Getting to Yes and its single principles is not supported by research. Instead, a dichotomy of the four principles’ applicability along the Individuality dimension of Hofstede was found. Hence, the western orientation of Getting to Yes is reality, inhibiting its use in non-western cultures. However, in one principle – Invent options for mutual gain – the findings refute a successful application in western cultures. Additional findings and research gaps are presented.

Practitioners should apply Getting to Yes with caution, if at all, in a non-western environment. For the teaching of negotiations, alternative approaches for conducting negotiations in the non-western world are needed.

Although widely used in research, scholars only addressed sporadic comments concerning the limitations of Getting to Yes across cultures. Often the universality of Getting to Yes is either implicitly or explicitly assumed in research and practice. This paper approaches this topic systematically by providing evidence that Getting to Yes is not universal and conceptually sees negotiations through a western shaped perspective that provides considerable implications for research, practice and teaching.

Door‐to‐door canvassing is the single most effective campaign activity for persuading undecided voters to support a library issue and for getting “Yes” voters to get out and vote. Discusses the two forms of door‐to‐door canvassing: simply delivering the literature; and delivering campaign literature and making personal contact. Includes a sample script which can be used by canvassers.

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.

Mediation aims at resolving conflict through negotiation. This negotiating aspect of mediation makes it very suitable for business conflicts. Yet European business stands aside and appears to be averse to this specific dispute resolution mechanism. As research shows, part of the problem is the poor knowledge and wrong (‘soft’) perception business people have of mediation. In this chapter we want to explain how mediation really works and how it can benefit businesses. We also suggest what could and should be done to further stimulate business mediation in the EU. Finally, we conclude that when businesses decide to choose mediation as the way of resolving their disputes, they show the desire to work towards Peace.

Managers as Actors Those of us who manage are playing on an organisational stage every day. We enter early every morning to take up our roles, whether it is as chief executive, marketing manager, personnel adviser, production executive or any of the numerous other roles that have to be performed if work is to be done effectively.

Success in fundraising requires chutzpah. You have to be willing to take risks. You have to know how to handle success and how to take defeats. Before you begin, you have to believe you can succeed.

This paper tries to provide a theoretical explanation from case studies in which I analyzed the impact of firms’ behavior on negotiation processes. Particularly, it concentrates on the impact of the power‐dependence relationship on negotiation behavior choice in joint ventures and (nonhostile) acquisitions. Previous studies have found that negotiation behavior is a key factor in determining the results of negotiations and the subsequent implementation and performance of the strategy. Drawing on interview material from six cases, three acquisition negotiations and three joint venture negotiations, the empirical analysis allowed me to consider that the equilibrium situation of power‐dependence is more associated with integrative negotiation behaviors adopted by all the parties. This situation facilitates win/win agreements (negotiation success). However, the value‐creation basis appears as a key factor to be analyzed because its influence on (1) the perception of dependence and (2) the possible use of a power disequilibrium situation. This factor seems to be especially important in acquisition negotiations. Based upon my analysis, I recommend some issues to be studied and contrasted empirically in future research.