Search results

Purpose – To provide a framework for organizing research on group negotiation, including the contributions of the current volume.

Methodology – The organizing framework arranges past research on group negotiation and the contributions offered in this volume according to the core negotiation elements of people, processes, and places, and their impact on the integration of negotiators' preferences.

Findings – There is an extensive literature on negotiation, but historically group negotiation has represented only a small part of that dialogue. There are three general categories of group negotiation: multiparty negotiation, team negotiation, and multiteam negotiation. The core issue addressed in this chapter is how – viewed through the lens of the four identified core negotiation elements of preferences, people, processes, and places – the quantity and arrangement of negotiators involved in a negotiation qualitatively changes the negotiation experience, and specifically how (different types of) negotiating groups make more complex the challenge of identifying, agreeing to, and implementing integrative agreements.

Implications – More than dyadic negotiation, the difficulty of reaching agreements that satisfy all parties can lead to agreements that some negotiators are less than enthusiastic about implementing. It is the difficulty and importance of finding agreements that satisfy all parties in group negotiation that makes it so important to understand the influence of group negotiation by people, processes, and places.

Value of the Paper – This chapter organizes the landscape of group negotiation research by illuminating both what we know about the people, processes, and places that influence the negotiation of group members' preferences, as well as pointing the way – both theoretically and methodologically – for future researchers to fill in the blanks that remain.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to explore the implications of viewing group decision-making through the lens of a social dilemma.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews the literature on why group decision-making often fails to live up to its potential, and then applies the social dilemma perspective to develop new insights about how the limitations of group decision-making might be overcome.

Findings – Applying the social dilemma perspective to group decision-making provides several prescriptions for group decision-making improvement by highlighting a critical distinction between participation and engagement.

Limitations – An important limitation of applying the social dilemma perspective to group decision-making is that improving group engagement by redefining member duty carries the risk of energizing dissent that only questions the group's answer and not the group's question.

Practical implications – The chapter refocuses the dialogue about group decision-making effectiveness away from “just” participation to include group member engagement.

Social implications – A key social implication of this chapter is that all social behavior represents a social dilemma, and that viewing everyday social activities (such as group decision-making) as social dilemmas can help identify new ways to understand cooperation failures and thereby improve future cooperation in groups.

Originality/value – The chapter extends and re-energizes research on group decision-making by providing a fresh lens – the social dilemma perspective – through which to understand and improve group decision-making failures.

Purpose – Past research on emotions in negotiation has focused primarily on the impact of the emotional state of one negotiator in a negotiation. We focus instead on the group emotional tone of the negotiation, defined as the joint emotional experience of all negotiators in the negotiation. Past research also has focused only on one dimension of emotions in negotiation: valence. We focus instead on two additional dimensions of emotions: uncertainty and action tendencies. Examining emotions at the group level, and taking a multidimensional perspective on emotions in negotiation, provides a more nuanced examination of the effects of emotions in negotiation, and also highlights the possibility of emotional ambivalence (and its effects) both within and across negotiators within a negotiation.

Approach – We examine emotions at the group level, and take a multidimensional approach to understanding the impact of group-level emotions within the context of a negotiation.

Findings – We propose that groups characterized by certain versus uncertain emotional tone will have different perceptions of risk in the environment, which can prompt different behavioral outcomes that affect group negotiation processes and outcomes. Furthermore, we propose that groups characterized by different action tendencies will display differences in willingness to engage others during negotiation, which can significantly influence group negotiation processes and outcomes. Evaluating these additional dimensions should provide a more comprehensive perspective on the effects of group-level emotions on negotiation processes and outcomes.

Value – This review is intended to illuminate the powerful role that negotiation-level emotional tone might play in group negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Part of the importance of understanding the impact of group emotional tone is for group leaders to anticipate – and possibly proactively manage – its impact. This can provide managers a reference point to better understand – and effectively manage – negotiations among group members.

Virtual forms of organizing are increasing in today's organizations, with virtual teams being one of the most popular ways to bring distributed individuals together to work on tasks and make decisions. However, theory suggests that the factors that drive unethical behaviors in teams – such as deindividuated communication and impeded identification – are the same factors that characterize interaction in virtual teams. This suggests that virtual interaction may make teams particularly vulnerable to unethical behaviors such as opportunism and deception. This chapter maps out a theoretical model to better understand when unethical behaviors are likely to occur in virtual teams, and what virtual team characteristics might help to mitigate the likelihood of such behaviors.

Technology has made it possible to have groups whose members are not co-located, but which may still capture the benefits of traditional co-located interaction. Identification helps determine whether groups gain the benefits of co-located interaction, and how technology is used to mediate group interaction can influence identification processes. Unfortunately, in heterogeneous groups, communication technology that facilitates group identification also makes competing “fault line” identities more salient. Fortunately, channel expansion theory suggests that with effective management, groups can avoid this dilemma of media selection by learning to use lean media to communicate rich messages.When the day arrived for the three of us were to send a draft of this chapter to Terri, Greg decided that it would be funny to e-mail her a terribly underdeveloped outline, instead of the completed draft that we had finished the day earlier. Terri, seeing the outline for the joke it was, called Greg and said that it might be fun to send a message that made Mike think she had sent the terribly underdeveloped outline to the other chapter authors. Mike received the message the next day and asked Greg why he had sent an outline instead of the chapter draft to Terri. Greg mentioned his and Terri's pranks and also mentioned that Terri had copied the message to Mark—the other author on the chapter, but someone Mike had never (and at the time of this writing, still has not) met. Mike, not wanting to be left out of a good joke (but also slightly uncomfortable to pull a prank on a “stranger”), sent a follow-up message to Terri and “cc'd” Mark. The message said that Mike was so embarrassed by the outline and so frustrated with Greg, that he was going to drop his name from the paper, and was not going to present the paper at the authors' conference in New York. Mark joked back that he would be glad to present, but the title of the paper would now be “Virtual Collaboration: The Butthead Factor.”

Many workers today are employed under a variety of nonstandard work arrangements, such as contract work and agency temporary work. While prior research has shown that the use of nonstandard workers can be detrimental to standard workers’ attitudes and behaviors, producing conflict between nonstandard and standard employees, that research has not shown how or why. We propose a model in which threat to status of, and accommodation by, standard workers cause negative reactions to nonstandard workers, contingent upon the competence of nonstandard workers. The model helps explain how subtle differences among seemingly similar nonstandard work arrangements can produce dramatically different challenges to work group effectiveness. Implications for the effective blending of work groups are discussed.

The expansion of negotiation processes to the group level not only increases the number of parties (with an accompanying increase in range of issues, interests, and positions), but may also change the nature of the negotiation process. More parties means more complexity. Instead of simply revealing, comparing, and trying to reconcile two parties' clear interests, a group may encounter challenges in identifying its interests at all. The existence of the group may exacerbate perceptions of conflict (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006), interfere with information sharing (Stasser & Titus, 1985), create conformity pressures (Asch, 1955), and bias the group toward more extreme positions (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Just as situating conduct in a group, rather than an individual, qualitatively changes decision making (Janis, 1972), interactions (Tajfel, 2010), and even basic cognition (Hargadon, 1999), so too is it likely to change negotiation.