Search results

Multi-party systems (MPS) comprise interdependent stakeholders (teams, organizations) that engage in complex interactions and negotiations. Building on the approach/inhibition theory of power, the self-enhancement strategy and on social interdependence theory, this study aims to understand the mediating role of attributions (i.e. perception of who/what is responsible for a certain outcome) in the relation between perceptions of the stakeholders’ power (i.e. self-perceptions of power, power ascribed to others and others’ perception of one’s own power) and their perceptions of intergroup climate and future collaborative intentions.

Data were collected from 30 groups (113 participants) that took part in five multi-party simulations concerning the negotiation of funds allocation among six stakeholders. The authors have evaluated attributions, intergroup climate and future collaborative intentions using questionnaires and different facets of systemic power were derived from a round-robin procedure.

Mixed models and multi-level mediation analyses were carried out, and the results show that self-attributed power and power attributed by others predict internal attributions, while power attributed to others predicts external attributions. Moreover, attributions mediate the relationship between perceived power and future collaborative intention, as well as between power and perceptions of intergroup climate.

Managing the multi-party systems is a complex endeavor, and the results point toward ways in which power dynamics in multi-party systems can be addressed.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first empirical attempts to explore the association between the perceptions of power and attributions in multi-party systems engaged in negotiation tasks.

This research examines environmental negotiations in two countries, Mexico and Ecuador, currently undergoing democratic transition. We examine the ability of democratizing political systems to respond to the pressures intrinsic to emerging pluralism. Using a comparative case study approach we examine environmental policy making for conservation. Mexico and Ecuador are at different stages in the democratization process with Mexico being more advanced than Ecuador. We conclude that Mexico’s approach to communicative forums and its management of environmental decision making in a pluralist context is more systematized and less prone to corruption given the stronger set of democratic institutions. In comparison we find that Ecuador’s political institutions remain weak and subject to informal pressures from emerging environmental groups as well as from established interests from the pre-democracy era.

Based on Behavioral Theory of Negotiations (Walton & McKersie, 1965), the purpose of this paper is to discuss the existing gap between negotiation theory and pedagogy and presents an experiential teaching tool that closes this gap. The tool is a ‘serious game’ (Abt, 1975) that reinforces all four core negotiation subprocesses while allowing students to practice their negotiation skills and several critical business competencies in a realistic and improvisational context.

After successfully using NegotioPoly for five years, qualitative and quantitative data were collected in three sections of negotiation classes to assess student learning and behaviors while playing NegotioPoly and to collect student feedback on the effectiveness of NegotioPoly in teaching and reinforcing key negotiation skills.

Findings support that NegotioPoly is highly effective in engaging students in a series of realistic negotiations, joint problem solving and strategic decision-making. Results show that, during the game, students demonstrate their negotiation skills and learnings, and they practice all four negotiation subprocesses of distributive, integrative and intraorganizational bargaining and attitudinal structuring.

NegotioPoly enables students to engage in distributive and integrative bargaining, multiple levels of negotiations and coalitions in quick succession. Students practice organizational politics and adjust their negotiations based on relationships and social realities, as they demonstrate advanced deal-making behaviors and core business competencies of problem solving, decision-making, analytical skills and ability to work with others.

NegotioPoly reinforces core business competencies such as negotiation, problem solving, analytical skills and the ability to work in teams that employers look for and, therefore, is a useful tool for preparing students for the business world.

NegotioPoly is an experiential learning tool that closes the gap between negotiation theory and pedagogy while providing deep learning and realistic practice opportunities for students where they can use their negotiation skills in a gaming environment that uses multi-party and multi-round negotiations.

We bring together disparate negotiation theory research in order to identify a composite set of potential barriers to reaching agreement in environmental negotiations. This framework builds on behavioral decision theory, showing barriers that arise from personal values and institutional values and norms, as well as from situational elements that influence individual behaviors and organizational strategies. We contribute to the literature on organizational behavior by making explicit the relationship between the strength of the situation and organizational behavior related to negotiations. The elements of situational strength have not been addressed adequately in prior negotiation literature. We incorporate this concept into a comprehensive set of barriers to offer explanations for the intractability of many environmental disputes.

This paper aims to present a review of articles on business negotiation published between 1995 and 2015.

This literature review is based on 490 articles on business negotiation.

When analyzing the conceptual underpinnings of this field, two paradigms emerge as dominant. The most prominent paradigm is a cognitive, psychological approach, typically relying on experiments and statistical testing of findings. The second dominating paradigm is a behavioral one, largely concerned with mathematical modeling and game-theoretical models.

Besides offering a description of the characteristics adhered to the business negotiation field, this paper will also suggest recommendations for further research and specify areas in which the research field needs further conceptual and empirical development.

This literature review serves to be the first representation of the characteristics adhered to the budding research field of business negotiation.

The extant literature suggests that men and women do not necessarily possess identical negotiating styles. However, unfortunately the literature has yet to clearly identify the role that gender plays in the negotiation context and in the behaviours of male and female negotiators. This paper aims to contribute to understanding of this topic.

Conceptual/theory paper (with relevant literature reviews).

Perceived power in a multi‐party negotiation can be affected by numerical status, as well as social status with the result that a minority female in a group dominated by males will act differently from a male in a female‐dominated group.

This paper draws on theories of proportional representation, social roles and perceived status, in order to identify a number of factors that can affect the degree of influence exerted and the behavioural style adopted among male and female negotiators in mixed‐gender, multi‐party business negotiations.

This paper explores a very practical question – do men and women behave differently at the “bargaining table”? And how does gender play a role in multi‐party negotiations?

This study is highly original, given the lack of theory in this area.

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.

Two studies were conducted examining the effects of power, distribution norms, and the scope of future interaction on small group negotiation. Subjects participated in a three‐person negotiation exercise in which they had to reach agreements between two or three players to receive resources. In study one the effects of power position (high, medium, low), dominant distribution norm (contribution, need), and the expectation of future interaction (expected, not expected) on the distribution of resources were examined. Power interacted with both dominant distribution norm and the expectation of future interaction. The ability of high power, less needy players to achieve resources was reduced under a dominant need‐based distribution norm, and when future interaction was expected. In addition, groups expecting future interaction were more likely to form exclusive coalitions than those not anticipating future interaction. In study two the effects of power position (high, medium, low), type of need (pure‐need need + future potential), and the scope of future interaction (full group, coalition‐only) on the distribution of resources were examined. Power interacted with both the type of need and the scope of future interaction. Low power, more needy players achieved greater resources when need was linked to future potential and when future interaction with the entire group was anticipated. In addition, groups anticipating future interaction with only those included in the final agreement were more likely to form exclusive coalitions than those anticipating future interaction with all group members.

Collaborative systems are particular cases of multi-team systems in which several groups representing various interests meet to debate and generate solutions on complex societal issues. Stakeholder diversity in such systems often triggers power differences and disparity and the study explores the dual role of power disparity in collaborative settings. The purpose of this paper is to extend the power approach-inhibition model (Keltner et al., 2003) to the group level of analysis and argue that, on the positive side, power disparity increases the cognitive activity of the interacting groups (i.e. task-related debates), while on the other hand it generates a negative affective climate.

The authors collected data at two time points across nine behavioral simulations (54 teams, 239 participants) designed to explore the cognitive and affective dynamics between six parties interacting in a collaborative decision task.

The results show that power disparity increases cognitive activity in collaborative multi-party systems, while it hinders the affective climate, by increasing relationship conflict and decreasing psychological safety among the stakeholders.

This study provides important theoretical and practical contributions mostly for the consultation processes, as interventions might be directed at fostering the positive effects of power disparity in collaborative setting, while mitigating its drawbacks.

By extending the approach-inhibition model to the group level, this is one of the first empirical studies to examine the dual nature of the impact that power disparity has on the cognitive (i.e. positive effect) and affective (i.e. negative effect) dynamics of multi-party collaborative systems (i.e. multi-team systems).

We studied seven hydropower license consultations to examine the role of a sense of urgency to reach agreement. Hydropower licensing consultations were studied because the statutory requirement for consultation encourages negotiation, all such consultations are similar, and a negotiated settlement is not a foregone result. Cases selected for analysis met screening criteria. Structured interviews were conducted with participants after the negotiations had been concluded. Respondent recollections were checked against the documentary record. A sense of urgency to reach agreement was a significant factor in the completion of these negotiations; where there was no shared sense of urgency, purposeful delay adversely affected the negotiations. Although a sense of urgency was experienced by at least one party in each case, only a shared sense of urgency at the end of the process proved significant. Delay did not prevent ultimate agreement but a shared sense of urgency brought speedier agreement and greater satisfaction with the negotiation.