Search results

Purpose – Recent research has highlighted the importance of individuals' beliefs regarding the malleability or fixedness of negotiator characteristics as key determinants of negotiation processes and performance. In this chapter, we examine how these implicit negotiation beliefs affect negotiation at the team level.

Approach – We explore the effects of implicit negotiation beliefs on team negotiation by articulating a model that considers their impact on important group processes such as goal setting, conflict, and communication.

Findings – We propose that individuals' beliefs regarding the fixedness of negotiator characteristics affect team negotiation processes and outcomes, in particular through their effect on interpersonal processes within a negotiation team. We expect that individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are malleable will focus on long-term success, will devote relatively high levels of effort toward the team's goals, and will share and discuss important information with other members of the team. In contrast, individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are fixed will focus on short-term goals, will dedicate relatively low levels of effort to the team, and may put their own self interest ahead of the team by withholding key information from other team members. In light of these differences, teams characterized by heterogeneity in team members' implicit negotiation beliefs may experience high levels of intrateam conflict.

Value – This chapter suggests that implicit negotiation beliefs may have a powerful influence on team-level negotiation. Through our review and model development, we aim to stimulate research on implicit negotiation beliefs within groups and teams.

What does it mean to be a “smart” negotiator? Few scholars have paid much attention to this question, a puzzling omission given copious research suggesting that cognitive ability (the type of intelligence commonly measured by psychometric tests) predicts individual performance in many related contexts. In addition to cognitive ability, other definitions of intelligence (e.g., emotional intelligence) have been proposed that theoretically could influence negotiation outcomes. Aiming to stimulate renewed attention to the role of intelligence in negotiation, we develop theoretical propositions linking multiple forms of intelligence to information acquisition, decision making, and tactical choices in bargaining contexts. We outline measurement issues relevant to empirical work on this topic, and discuss implications for negotiation teaching and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of personality and negotiation and argues that the relationship between personality and negotiation is worth re‐examination and more research attention should be devoted to this area.

A cognitive model of personality and negotiation is constructed by integrating cognitive and social factors into the exploration of negotiation processes. The mediating roles of negotiator cognitions are discussed within this framework and relationships between personality and three negotiator cognitions: win–lose orientation, face‐saving and trusting are proposed.

This study provides an integrative model for studying the relationship between personality, negotiator cognition, negotiation behaviors and outcomes, and thus has impotent implications for future studies on negotiation.

The knowledge of the relationship between personality and negotiation will help organizations use personality assessment for better decisions about selection, promotion and training for improvement in negotiation skills.

This study attempts a complete exploration on the framework that integrates personality factors and negotiation behavior and outcomes, and provides potential directions for future studies on personality and negotiation.

Negotiators are offered limited advice on how to overcome adverse events. Drawing on resilience and coping literatures, this study aims to test the impact of three cognitive processing strategies on negotiators’ subjective and economic value following adversity.

Participants completed two negotiations with the same partner. The difficulty of the first negotiation was manipulated and tested how cognitive processing of this experience influenced subjective and economic outcomes in the second negotiation.

Subjective and economic outcomes were predicted by negotiators’ affect, their cognitive processing strategy and negotiation difficulty. In difficult negotiations, as positive affect increased, proactive processing decreased self-satisfaction. As negative affect increased, affective processing increased satisfaction with relationship and process.

Cognitive processing of adversity is most effective when emotions are not running high and better able to protect relationship- and process-oriented satisfaction than outcome-oriented satisfaction. The findings apply to one specific type of adversity and to circumstances that do not generate strong emotions.

This research tests which of three cognitive processing strategies is best able to prevent the aftermath of a difficult negotiation from spilling over into subsequent negotiations. Two forms of proactive processing are more effective than immersive processing in mitigating the consequences.

The current studies examine the relationship between negotiation performance and negotiation self‐efficacy of both the focal negotiator and the negotiating counterpart. This paper seeks to further examine the possibility that these relationships are moderated by contextual ambiguity. It proposes that contextual ambiguity is asymmetrical with regard to gender: that a given situation is less ambiguous to the stereotype‐consistent gender and more ambiguous to the other gender.

Two negotiation cases are constructed. One was a feminine‐stereotyped situation and the other was a masculine‐stereotyped situation. Study participants negotiated one of the two cases. The primary statistical analysis was moderated regression analysis.

Results show that both focal negotiator self‐efficacy and counterpart self‐efficacy are significant predictors of focal negotiator performance. However, for both men and women, counterpart self‐efficacy had a stronger association with performance in negotiation situations of higher contextual ambiguity (stereotyped to the other gender) than in negotiation situations of lower contextual ambiguity.

In these studies, the paper responds to recent calls to include negotiation counterpart variables in negotiation research. Further, this study extends research regarding gender and negotiation performance by examining two previously unexplored topics: gender‐based asymmetrical contextual ambiguity and the moderation by gender of the relationship between negotiation self‐efficacy and negotiation performance.

Negotiators with a BATNA (best alternative to the negotiated agreement) obtain higher individual outcomes and a larger percentage of the dyadic outcomes than individuals without a BATNA. This study examined if three mechanisms related to a BATNA, an alternative, a specific goal, and self‐efficacy, independently or in combination, influence outcomes. Six of the eight combinations resulted in higher individual outcomes. An alternative coupled with a goal or self‐efficacy resulted in a higher percent of dyadic outcomes and higher impasse rates.

This study aims to investigate the use of deceptive negotiation tactics to explain why teams can attain higher negotiation profits than individual negotiators. The study distinguishes deception by commission (i.e. active misrepresentation of preferences) from deception by omission (i.e. passive misrepresentation of preferences).

The sample used to test the mediation hypothesis was made up of data from two electronically mediated negotiation simulations encompassing 75 negotiation dyads with 278 participants. The methodology involved coding deceptive negotiation tactics from the log files by counting utterances related to indifference options that enabled negotiation parties to deceive.

The results show that teams do apply deceptive negotiation tactics more frequently than individual negotiators and that this behavior helps them increase their negotiation profits.

The findings are valuable for two reasons. First, the study included controls for other important antecedents of deceptive behavior and negotiation outcome (e.g. negotiators’ nationalities, first bids). Consequently, the empirical results underline the importance of considering team size to understand its impact on profits through the use of deceptive tactics. Second, although this study does show that deception increases negotiation profits, the absolute level of deception is rather small (on average just one deceptive statement per negotiation).

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.

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 outlines 4 assumptions behind attempts to explain the sequential organization of communication behavior during conflict. These assumptions were supported by an analysis of behavioral sequences coded from 9 hostage negotiations and 20 divorce mediations. Analyses showed that negotiators use only a small proportion of available responses to other party's behavior, and that this proportion rapidly decreases as sequence length increases. Critical to this channeling in behavior was the triple‐interact (i.e., cue‐response‐cue‐response), which represents the maximum sequence length required to enable accurate prediction of negotiators' future behavior. More detailed analysis showed that the triple‐interact reduced uncertainty in behavior by over 70%, which compares to less than 1% from knowledge of negotiation context and approximately 10% from knowledge of individual differences.