Search results

The purpose of this study is to understand how the degree of congruence between buyers’ and sellers’ intentions to negotiate impacts buyers’ postpurchase emotions and attitudes. In addition, the study examines whether buyers’ self-confidence and negotiation expertise can increase buyers’ perceptions of control and regret, as well as buyers’ postpurchase satisfaction and enjoyment with the purchase. Traditionally, marketplace exchanges have been classified as either fixed price or negotiated. The present research treats marketplace exchanges along a continuum of intention congruence to test the relationships between intention congruence and outcome variables of control, regret, satisfaction and enjoyment with the purchase.

The authors studied the perceived difference between buyers' and sellers' intentions to negotiate and how the difference impacts buyers' postpurchase attitudinal and emotional outcomes. A mail survey of automobile buyers resulted in a sample of 291 respondents. An automobile is a significant and irreversible purchase for a buyer. Thus, automobile markets often host transactions that evoke dissonance and regret for buyers if things go awry. In addition, buyers and sellers vary considerably in their desire to negotiate, thus reflecting a range of intention congruence in negotiation. Therefore, a survey of automobile buyers was considered appropriate for testing the effects of intention congruence on buyers’ postpurchase outcomes.

Results indicate that when buyers are willing to negotiate but sellers do not reciprocate equally, buyers feel less in control of a transaction. Contrarily, buyers experienced greater control and lesser regret when buyers’ perceptions of sellers’ intention to negotiate exceeded buyers’ own intentions to negotiate. Results also suggest that when buyers’ intentions to negotiate were congruent with buyers’ perception of sellers’ intention to negotiate, greater dyadic levels of negotiation marginally lowered buyers’ perceived regret. Overall, an intention-congruence perspective adds to the current understanding of negotiated exchanges and is a meaningful approach for improving postpurchase outcomes for buyers.

The study used only the consumers’ perspective of negotiation. Although this is supported by studies in power and dependence because the consumers’ perspective is valuable and valid, a true dyadic measurement of the negotiation process can only be obtained if the sellers’ view is also incorporated. This remains a key limitation of this study.

The results suggest that sellers may be better off honoring buyers’ intentions to negotiate. Intention incongruence negatively impacted buyer satisfaction when buyers perceived sellers to be less eager to negotiate. However, where sellers seem more eager to negotiate, incongruity favored buyers and positively impacted buyers’ postpurchase outcomes. Thus, for sellers, it is worthwhile to consider adding policies that honor negotiation.

Past research classifies marketplaces exchanges as either fixed price or negotiated. The present study uses intention congruence as a continuum between transaction partners. The intention congruence approach allows a closer examination of both the symmetry and strength of intentions to negotiate in a dyadic exchange. Given that markets are comprised of buyers and sellers who display considerable variability in intentions to negotiate, examining intention congruence allows for a more realistic study of negotiation behavior in business-to-consumer marketplaces.

The acceleration of globalized commerce and economic activities has meant that conventional and Shariah (Islamic law) compliant organizations transact and negotiate among themselves. Therefore, this study aims to explore the concept of corporate negotiation and the communicative principles that guide the negotiation process among Shariah-compliant organizations.

The study uses a qualitative method through an inductive interpretative approach by conducting 20 in-depth interviews among four groups of experts. These consist of three muftis, ten academicians in Islamic assets, finance and asset jurisprudence; three practitioners in charge of inter-organizational negotiation and decision-making; and four shariah board members of selected Islamic banks.

The findings reported that business negotiation is used by Islamic organizations for reconciliation, consultation, resolving disagreements and as a means of achieving spiritual satisfaction. Furthermore, the key communicative principles of the negotiation process consist of the credibility of informational exchange, flexible interactions and the openness and truthful disclosure of information.

The empirical data discussed in this study supports the claim that macro-environmental factors and social and cultural values should be considered when examining business negotiating behaviors. However, this study focuses only on the banking/service organization negotiation. Therefore, future research should focus on the Islamic negotiation process in the context of diplomatic and international relations.

The findings reported in this study offer insight for negotiators operating among Islamic organizations to understand the principles and process of negotiation in the purview of Shariah standards and principles.

In terms of theoretical implications, this study reveals a clear conceptual difference between the conventional concept and the Islamic perspective of corporate negotiation. Also, this study highlights the impact of organizational culture, specifically Islamic management strategies, on the business negotiation process and business communication principles.

Business graduates’ enterprising capability augments their work readiness, transforming them into professionals capable of driving successful outcomes. At the core lie self-confidence and negotiating competence. However, embedding enterprise education and developing assessments to evidence learning is challenging. This study aims to offer a blueprint for establishing enterprise learning in the classroom and investigating the effectiveness of cultivating negotiating competence and self-confidence.

Modelled on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, students engage in in-class and real-life negotiations, assessing self-confidence using a scale founded in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Open-ended reflections are also submitted. Quantitative data is analysed through multiple linear regression, while quantitative and qualitative data triangulation substantiates enterprise learning in negotiating competence and self-confidence.

Students’ reflections show that low self-confidence poses an initial barrier in negotiations, overcome with successive engagements. Quantitative analysis uncovers response-shift biases, with female and male students overestimating initial self-confidence levels. The gender and difference score type interaction reveals a more pronounced bias among female students starting from a lower baseline than male students, implying a more substantial self-confidence improvement for female students. These findings challenge traditional assumptions about gender differences in negotiations and emphasize the need for nuanced perspectives.

Enterprising capability is pivotal for business professionals. This study highlights the advancement of negotiating competence and self-confidence. It contributes uniquely to the development of enterprise education pedagogy. Focusing on nuanced gender differences challenges prevailing assumptions, providing a perspective to the discourse on negotiating competence and self-confidence in management training.

Despite much attention being devoted to shared leadership, the negotiation of such arrangements remains underexplored. In parallel, the revival of interest in matrix structures reveals their challenges but neglects the dynamics of shared leadership. In this case study, the author analyzes the tensions experienced by senior managers of a healthcare organization transitioning from a hierarchical to matrix structure as they negotiate their leadership roles in this new arrangement.

The author interviewed 16 senior managers, observed their meetings and analyzed documents. These data were combined with secondary data including previous interviews and observations of this top leadership team. The author then conducted an inductive data analysis.

The author's analysis reveals that the tensions experienced by senior managers as they negotiate their roles reflect the co-existence of leadership surpluses (too much leadership) and deficits (too little leadership) in matrix organizations. The author argues that surpluses and deficits are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated and shows how leadership surpluses can create leadership deficits.

The author’s findings suggest that in contexts of leader abundance, actors should explore leadership voids. Particular attention should be paid to incidents of intrusion and exclusion, moments of transition and intense role negotiation, as those contexts are particularly conducive to leadership deficits.

While previous work on matrix structures focuses on leadership surpluses, the author discusses leadership deficits. The author explores how more leaders do not necessarily mean more leadership, but instead how more leaders may result in leadership voids.

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, in particular, how the relationship between employees’ own i-deals and organizational justice is affected by employees' job performance as well as their perceptions of coworkers’ i-deals.

The authors tested the theoretical model using survey data from 182 hotel employees.

Results show that i-deals are positively related to employees’ perceptions of organizational justice and that such effects are stronger among high performing employees. The effect of i-deals on organizational justice was also more pronounced among employees who viewed coworkers as having successfully negotiated i-deals.

The authors' findings suggest that organizations can benefit from providing i-deals through employees’ enhanced perceptions of organizational justice. The paper thus recommends that organizations understand the impact of providing more flexible human resources (HR) practices and customized work arrangements that are aligned with individual goals and needs. This may be particularly relevant to high performers. Furthermore, the findings suggest that organizations may want to make i-deals available to employees more widely than to just a few selected individuals.

This study is one of a few attempts that empirically investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational justice. The findings of this study shed light on the possibility that employees develop positive justice perceptions toward employeesʼ organization based on the appreciation of the customized work arrangements granted to both themselves and others.

This study aims to identify effective behaviors in labor-management negotiation (LMN) and, on that basis, derive overarching psychological principles of successful negotiation in this important context. These empirical findings are used to develop and test a comprehensive negotiation training program.

Twenty-seven practitioners from one of the world’s largest labor unions were interviewed to identify the requirements of effective LMN, resulting in 796 descriptions of single behaviors from 41 negotiation cases.

The analyses revealed 13 categories of behaviors critical to negotiation success. The findings highlight the pivotal role of the union negotiator by illustrating how they lead the negotiations with the other party while also ensuring that their own team and the workforce stand united. To provide guidance for effective LMN, six psychological principles were derived from these behavioral categories. The paper describes a six-day training program developed for LMN based on the empirical findings of this study and the related six principles.

This paper has three unique features: first, it examines the requirements for effective LMN based on a systematic needs assessment. Second, by teaching not only knowledge and skills but also general psychological principles of successful negotiation, the training intervention is aimed at promoting long-term behavioral change. Third, the research presents a comprehensive and empirically-based training program for LMN.

Working conditions, pay rates and the rights of workers to collectively negotiate have become important points of discussions in recent years, with support for unions and union applications rising to levels long unseen in America. In many instances, though, companies have responded aggressively. This is not the first time such a dynamic has played out in American business. This study aims to take a fresh look at one of America’s most prominent historical disputes between labor and ownership – the Homestead Massacre of 1892 – to glean lessons from that conflict that remain relevant to today’s business environment.

This study adopts game theory and the principles of repeated interaction to assess how differing discount factors led to differences in time orientations between the workers and the Carnegie company. These differing time orientations affected both the strategy each side deployed in the negotiations and the payoffs received by the parties. Letters, contemporary news reports and histories of the events leading up to and immediately following the 1892 Homestead Massacre are qualitatively analyzed with a genealogical pragmatic approach.

Differences in temporal orientation between management and workers exacerbated the conflict, with the workers adopting a more cooperative stance and distal time orientation, while the Carnegie company negotiated with a proximal time orientation and played to “win” a game that, in fact, could not be fully won or lost given its infinitely repeating nature. The result was a short-term victory for the Carnegie company but with long-term negative consequences that highlight the suboptimal outcome the company achieved by playing a proximal strategy in an infinite game.

Although the incident at Homestead is a well-studied labor dispute, many of the themes that preceded the incident have resurfaced in the modern work context. This work, by adopting game theory as an analytical framework, provides new insights into management mistakes that led to the labor conflict and lessons for what present-day managers can do to avoid exacerbating labor strife.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the terms and conditions of teachers' employment (e.g. working conditions), leading school districts to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements with teachers' unions. However, limited research has examined how these negotiations occur in times of crisis. This study aims to analyze how school district and teachers' union administrators adapted workplace policies to meet staff and student needs during the COVID-19 pandemic by using a panel dataset of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) negotiated in 187 large US school districts.

The authors used the partial independence item response method to estimate MOU restrictiveness measures that captured the extent to which MOUs limited school administrator autonomy in setting the terms and conditions of teachers' employment. Descriptive analyses and ordinary least squares regression models showed how the scope of collective bargaining negotiations expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how restrictiveness varied across school districts based on district and union characteristics.

Results showed that school district and teachers' union administrators increased restrictions on school administrator autonomy in the spring of 2020, but these restrictions decreased by fall 2021. The level of restrictions agreed upon varied based on the strength of teachers' unions and political partisanship of school districts. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an expansion of collective bargaining negotiations to include previously unconsidered topics such as employee and student health and remote instruction.

This study is one of the first to examine the modifications made to collective bargaining agreements during times of crisis by school district and teachers' union administrators. The findings suggest that there were considerable changes to the terms and conditions of teachers' employment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the strength of teachers' unions and political partisanship were associated with negotiation outcomes.

This paper aims to critique the rationalist theoretical framework of international mediation, which ignores emotions in analyzing the decision by conflict parties to pursue a negotiated settlement or continue fighting, and to present an alternative framework that integrates emotions.

The paper draws on psychology research on emotions and conflict to develop an emotionally informed framework for analyzing conflict parties’ decision-making regarding a settlement. It demonstrates the framework’s validity and value through a case study of the 2000 Camp David mediation to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

A rationalist approach to mediation does not have adequate explanatory and predictive power theoretically. In practice, it can reduce the prospect of success.

The paper highlights the necessity for mediation researchers to study the effects of emotion, draw on psychology studies on conflict and explore the emotional implications of different mediation strategies and tactics.

The framework highlights the challenge of designing and conducting mediation in a way that cultivates emotions favorable to a settlement and lessens emotions unfavorable to a settlement.

This is the first study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to critique the rationalist framework of international mediation studies and develop an alternative framework that integrates emotions.