Search results

1 – 10 of 48
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 March 2003

Mara Olekalns, Jeanne M. Brett and Laurie R. Weingart

This research proposes and evaluates hypotheses about patterns of communication in a multi‐party, multi‐issue negotiation. Data were from 36 four‐person groups. We found…

Abstract

This research proposes and evaluates hypotheses about patterns of communication in a multi‐party, multi‐issue negotiation. Data were from 36 four‐person groups. We found that the majority of groups initiated negotiations with a distributive phase and ended with an integrative phase—strong support for Morley and Stephenson's (1979) rational model of negotiation. We identified transitions between both strategic orientations (integration, distribution) and strategic functions (action, information), but found that the first transition was more likely to result in a change of orientation than of function and that negotiators were more likely to change either orientation or function (single transition) than to change both aspects of the negotiation simultaneously (double transition). Finally, we determined that negotiators used process and closure strategies to interrupt distributive phases and redirect negotiations to an integrative phase.

Details

International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 14 no. 3/4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1044-4068

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 28 August 2019

Jeanne M. Brett and Tyree Mitchell

This study aims to address three important but under-researched questions in the trust and negotiation literature: What do negotiators do to determine the trustworthiness…

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to address three important but under-researched questions in the trust and negotiation literature: What do negotiators do to determine the trustworthiness of a potential business partner? What trust criteria motivate their search and help them interpret the information their search reveals? Whether there are systematic cultural differences in search and criteria, and if different, why?

Design/methodology/approach

This study used qualitative methodology. The data are from interviews with 82 managers from 33 different national cultures in four regions of the world identified by cultural levels of trust in negotiation and tightness-looseness. Interviews focused on how negotiators determined the trustworthiness of potential business partners in intracultural negotiations.

Findings

Analyses revealed four search activities negotiators use to gather information about a potential business partner: due diligence, brokerage, good will building and testing; and five criteria for determining the trustworthiness of a new business partner: respect, mutual values, competence, openness and professionalism. Quotes illustrate how these search activities and criteria manifest in different cultures.

Research limitations/implications

This study used multiple cases to build a longitudinal picture of the process. It did not follow a single case in depth. The study focused on identifying cultural central tendencies at the same time recognizing that there is always variability within a culture.

Practical implications

Knowing what is culturally normative allows negotiators to anticipate, interpret and respect their counterpart’s behavior. Such knowledge should facilitate trust development.

Originality/value

This study provides an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences in the process of trust development in negotiating new business relationships.

Details

International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 31 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1044-4068

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 26 July 2021

Jingjing Yao and Jeanne M. Brett

It is important to infer and diagnose whether a negotiator is trustworthy. In international negotiations, people may assume that high-trust nations are more likely to…

Abstract

Purpose

It is important to infer and diagnose whether a negotiator is trustworthy. In international negotiations, people may assume that high-trust nations are more likely to produce more trustworthy negotiators. Does this assumption hold universally? This study aims to address this research question by investigating the relationship between national-level societal trust and individual-level trust in negotiations.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses a cross-sectional research design and a sample of 910 senior managers from 58 nations or regions. The hypotheses are tested by hierarchical linear modeling.

Findings

This study draws on the dynamic constructivist theory of culture to propose moderated hypotheses. Results show that societal trust predicts individuals’ social perceptions of attitudinal trust in negotiations, only when cultural face norms are weak rather than strong; societal trust predicts individuals’ social perceptions of behavioral trust in negotiations (i.e. high information sharing and low competitive behavior), only when negotiators process information analytically rather than holistically.

Originality/value

This study is the first to examine the relationship between national-level societal trust (i.e. generalized trust) and individual-level trust in negotiations (i.e. particularistic trust). It uses a large-scale, multinational sample to show that relying on societal trust to infer trust in negotiations is valid only in Western societies.

Details

International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1044-4068

Keywords

Content available
Book part
Publication date: 20 April 2017

Stephen B. Goldberg, Jeanne M. Brett and Beatrice Blohorn-Brenneur

Abstract

Details

How Mediation Works
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-223-7

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 2 May 2017

Jeanne M. Brett

This study aims to explain to negotiators how to go about learning about their counterpart’s interests and priorities and the strategies they are likely to bring to the…

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to explain to negotiators how to go about learning about their counterpart’s interests and priorities and the strategies they are likely to bring to the intercultural negotiation table.

Design/methodology/approach

This study provides a review of theoretical and empirical literature on culture and negotiation strategy.

Findings

This study helps to understand the counterpart’s environment, including recent developments on the political economic and social front that define and constrain the role of the firm in society, affect the firm’s access to capital, generate the criteria by which society evaluates the firm and determine the level of involvement of government in the firm’s affairs. This study also explains how to investigate the counterpart’s interests and priorities – the motivations that underlie negotiator’s positions. Finally, it explains how to use multi-issue offers (MIOs) and patterns of changes in MIOs to infer the counterpart’s interests and priorities.

Originality/value

Negotiating in a global environment benefits from a clear understanding of how negotiators’ cultures influence their interests and priorities and the strategies they bring to the intercultural negotiation table.

Details

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 32 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0885-8624

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 20 April 2012

Mary C. Kern, Sujin Lee, Zeynep G. Aytug and Jeanne M. Brett

In this study of Korean and US negotiators, the authors aim to demonstrate limits on the presumption that inter‐cultural negotiations are doomed to generate low joint gains.

Abstract

Purpose

In this study of Korean and US negotiators, the authors aim to demonstrate limits on the presumption that inter‐cultural negotiations are doomed to generate low joint gains.

Design/methodology/approach

In a laboratory study with 45 bi‐cultural Korean students and 47 mono‐cultural American students, the authors created a total of 16 US‐US, 15 Korean‐Korean, and 15 US‐Korean dyads. The authors audio‐recorded their negotiation conversations and analyzed the content of the negotiation transcripts. The authors focused on the use of pronouns and coded how they were used and the impact this use had on the outcomes of the intra‐ and inter‐cultural negotiations.

Findings

Results show that inter‐cultural dyads generate higher joint gains than Korean or US intra‐cultural dyads. The explanation based on social awareness and social distance theorizing shows that inter‐cultural negotiators, one of whom is bi‐cultural, who use language, especially the pronoun “you” to close social distance, achieve higher joint gains than intra‐cultural negotiators who do not.

Research limitations/implications

The authors conclude that the language people use in social interaction, especially pronouns, is an indicator of social awareness and signals attempts to close social distance.

Originality/value

This research demonstrates that the way negotiators use language predicts their economic outcomes.

Details

International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 23 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1044-4068

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

How Mediation Works
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-223-7

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

How Mediation Works
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-223-7

To view the access options for this content please click here
Case study
Publication date: 20 January 2017

Jeanne Brett, Lauren Pilcher and Lara-Christina Sell

The first across-the-table negotiation between Google and China concluded successfully in 2006, when Google received a license to establish a local domain (google.cn…

Abstract

The first across-the-table negotiation between Google and China concluded successfully in 2006, when Google received a license to establish a local domain (google.cn) targeted at Chinese Internet users and not subject to the “Great Firewall.” During these negotiations both Google and the Chinese government struggled to reach an outcome that would be acceptable to their constituents. Google was caught between pleasing its shareholders and preserving its reputation for free access to information, while China was balancing the desire for cutting-edge search technology and the concern that liberal access to information would undermine its political-economic model. In the end, the negotiation resulted in Google operating two domains in China: Google.com and Google.cn. In early 2010, Google announced that its corporate infrastructure had been the target of a series of China-based cyber attacks and accused the Chinese government of attempting to further limit free speech on the web. These incidents led to a public conflict and private negotiations between Google and the Chinese government, which culminated in July 2010 when the Chinese government renewed the google.cn license knowing that Google was redirecting all Chinese customers search to its google.hk.com site This case concerns the changes in Google and the Chinese government's environment that led to Google withdrawing services from google.cn and the Chinese government saving face by renewing the google.cn license. The case is based on the publicly reported events surrounding two series of negotiations between the U.S. technology giant Google and the Chinese Government regarding Google's license in China.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Case study
Publication date: 20 January 2017

Christopher Grogan and Jeanne Brett

Based on the negotiation between Google and the Chinese government to allow access by Chinese citizens to a high-speed Chinese version of the Google search engine. In…

Abstract

Based on the negotiation between Google and the Chinese government to allow access by Chinese citizens to a high-speed Chinese version of the Google search engine. In order to reach agreement with the Chinese government, Google had to agree to allow the government to censor access to some sites turned up by Google's search engine. In agreeing, Google compromised its open-access policy. There were inquiries into the agreement by the U.S. Congress and some outcry from U.S. citizens.

To learn how to analyze a negotiation from the perspective of each party when one is a government and the other a private-sector organization; a subpoint here is the difference between short-term and longer-term interests. To address the difficulties of balancing business ethics and financial objectives; an important point here is to address what it means to be ethical in a for-profit business environment. To understand the long-term effects of short-term actions.

1 – 10 of 48