Search results

This study aims to test the contributions of a new type of resilience, Trait Negotiation Resilience (TNR; Nelson et al., 2016), to negotiators’ effective behavior, perception of opponent and negotiation outcomes.

A laboratory study (N = 98; 49 dyads) featuring a mixed-motive negotiation task. Participants self-reported TNR (emotional skills, social sensitivity, intrinsic motivation for self-improvement and a sense of purpose to life events) up to a week before negotiating. After the negotiations, they rated their opponents on resilient, effective personal attributes and reported their own subjective value (SV). Trained judges watched the negotiations, coded objective outcomes and rated negotiators on dimensions of effective negotiation behavior. Statistical analyses accounted for dyadic interdependence.

TNR predicted higher levels of effective negotiation behavior, which, in turn, fully mediated TNR’s favorable contribution to negotiated value. TNR also predicted higher levels of SV, and this contribution was partially mediated by perceiving effective personal attributes in the opponent.

The sample size was moderate and it consisted of undergraduate students, most of them female.

Evidence on the contribution of a personality construct to both outcome and process negotiator variables; contribution to the research of specific types of resilience.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the detrimental effects of the door-in-the-face (DITF) tactic in repeated negotiation. A more complete understanding of its negative consequences is essential to make an informed decision about its use.

This paper is the product of two between-subjects scenario-based negotiation experiments involving university students in Hong Kong (Study 1) and professionals in the UK with negotiation experience (Study 2).

Both the studies herein showed that detecting opponents using this tactic reduced the degree to which negotiators found their counterparts trustworthy. It also increased the likelihood of negotiators switching to an alternative partner in a collaborative project. This relationship is mediated by perceived trustworthiness. Negotiators who had detected opponents’ use of DITF made higher offers and obtained better outcomes in a subsequent negotiation. These findings indicate that negotiators who benefitted from DITF considered its use ethical, while those who suffered because of its use by others found it unethical.

Before using DITF, users should be wary of the likelihood they and their counterpart will negotiate again and/or will collaborate in a future project.

This paper presents a new perspective from which the use of DITF may backfire in a subsequent negotiation, in terms of both objective and subjective outcomes. This is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first paper to address how user and victim judge the ethicality of DITF tactics. The findings offer a building block for future research on other compliance techniques in repeated negotiations.

The present study extends recently‐acquired knowledge about the affective aspects of negotiations by examining the effects of defining negotiation outcomes in affective terms rather than numeric terms. Using a 2 x 2 experimental design, the researchers represented the negotiation outcomes in four different ways: happy faces, unhappy faces, positive numbers, and negative numbers. The results indicate that representing outcomes in affective terms leads to longer negotiation times and higher impasse rates. In addition, participants whose outcomes were represented as happy faces reported the highest levels of emotional involvement, the lowest levels of cooperation and trust, and most frequently experienced negative emotions. Emotional involvement and negative emotions also helped explain differences in negotiation time and individual outcomes over and above the effects of the experimental manipulations. The implications of these results for negotiation research are discussed.

Drawing from findings of a case study of inter‐organisational collaboration, this paper aims to employ organisational theory to examine the potential learning that opens between educational organisations. The focus is discursive practices. Two questions guide the analysis. What (unique) practices are implicated in the “knotworking” of inter‐organisational collaboration? What knowledge and capacities are learned in these discursive practices?

A case study was conducted of a collaboration between a university unit, school district, elementary school and parent executive board to govern a laboratory school. Documents were examined and 17 interviews conducted and analysed inductively. Document analysis and second stage transcript analysis employed methods of discourse analysis.

The case analysis suggests that collaborations open unique sites for organizational learning. Actors (teachers, administrators, parents) engage with various discourses in the “knots” of inter‐organisational networks. Those who thrive in the “knot” of collaboration learn how to be flexibly attuned to shifting elements that emerge in negotiations. Further, these actors appear to develop capacities of mapping, translating, rearticulating, and spanning boundaries among the diverse positions of organisations.

The case study is limited in scope in order to allow in‐depth discourse analysis of the data.

The combination of theories employed here – a practice‐based organizational learning theory called “knotworking” and critical organisational discourse analysis – is unique in educational administration research. It is argued that together, these theories provide a useful analytic approach for administrators wanting to understand and work through the cultural and political complexities of inter‐organisational collaborations.

This paper aims to investigate the effects of political skill in a specific workplace setting – the job negotiation. The authors expected negotiator political skill to be positively related to distributive negotiation outcome, problem-solving as a negotiation strategy to mediate this relationship and political skill to also moderate – that is amplify – the link between problem-solving and negotiation outcome.

In Study 1, a laboratory-based negotiation simulation was conducted with 88 participants; the authors obtained self-reports of political skill prior to the negotiation and – to account for non-independence of negotiating partners’ outcome – used the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model for data analysis. Study 2 was carried out as a real-life negotiation study with 100 managers of a multinational corporation who were given the opportunity to re-negotiate their salary package prior to a longer-term foreign assignment. Here, the authors drew on two objective measures of negotiation success, increase of annual gross salary and additional annual net benefits.

In Study 1, the initial hypothesis – political skill will be positively related to negotiator success – was fully supported. In Study 2, all three hypotheses (see above) were fully supported for additional annual net benefits and partly supported for increase of annual gross salary.

To the authors' best knowledge, this paper presents the first study to examine political skill as a focal predictor variable in the negotiation context. Furthermore, the studies also broaden the emotion-centered approach to social effectiveness that is prevalent in current negotiation research.

The medium negotiators choose for communication will influence both process and outcome. To understand how medium influences power expression, this paper aims to compare value claiming by asymmetrically powerful negotiators, using face-to-face and computer-mediated messaging across two studies. Following up on long-standing conjectures from prominent coalition researchers, the authors also directly tested the role of the apex negotiator's personality in coalition formation and value expropriation.

The authors conducted two laboratory experiments which manipulated communication medium (computer-mediated vs face-to-face) in three- and four-person bargaining. They also varied asymmetry of power so the apex negotiator either could not be left out of a winning coalition (Study 1) or could be (Study 2). The authors measured trait assertiveness along with multiple indicators of hard bargaining behavior.

Communicating using instant messages via a computer interface facilitated value claiming for powerful negotiators across both studies. Trait assertiveness correlated with hard bargaining behavior in both studies. An index of hard bargaining behavior mediated the effect of assertiveness on value expropriation but only in the context where the powerful negotiator held a genuine monopoly over coalitions.

The authors contribute to the literature on multiparty negotiations by demonstrating persistent media effects on power utilization and by finally confirming the conjectures of prominent coalition researchers regarding personality. Though personality traits generate consistent effects on behavior, their influence on negotiation outcomes depends on the power structure. Negotiation theory needs to incorporate structural and situational factors in modelling effects of enduring traits. Negotiation research should move beyond a rigid focus on dyads.

The current study examined the effects of gender and motivation on negotiation strategy and outcome. It was hypothesized that findings suggesting that women obtain lower joint outcomes from integrative bargaining than men may result from women, but not men, entering negotiation settings with a high level of concern for the other's outcomes. Drawing on the dual concern model of Pruitt and his colleagues, it was predicted that situationally induced high self‐concern would result in high joint outcomes for female dyads—ay high as those for male dyads under any conditions. Male dyads were expected to require situationally‐induced self‐ and other‐concern to reach optimal joint outcomes. Where there was no situationally induced concern for either self or other, male dyads were expected to obtain higher joint outcomes than female dyads. Results from dyads bargaining in a laboratory setting were generally supportive of predictions, except that men tended to do well but for where other‐concern alone had been situationally induced. Discrepant findings are discussed in terms of the generally low level of antagonism present in these dyads.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on various methodological issues and statistical techniques pertinent to the conflict management literature. First, issues related to use of laboratory studies, college students, and the study situation are reviewed. Second, two recent innovative statistical techniques, meta‐analysis and confirmatory modeling are described and potential applications in the conflict management field are given.

The purpose of this paper is to use agent-based modeling to simulate the negotiation and cooperation between agents working on tasks in an organization and to study the effects that gender differences might have on the outcome of the process.

The model used herein allows for idiosyncratic differences in terms of the propensity to negotiate/cooperate. The model also allows for multi-round negotiations/cooperation and incorporates subjective value into the negotiation process. The model is implemented in NetLogo.

The results clearly show that it is always beneficial to negotiate, even when backlash might result from the request. The study then extends this analysis by allowing for gender differences in both negotiation and cooperation. The results provide strong support for the hypothesis that agentic characteristics are beneficial for negotiators, while communal characteristics can be detrimental.

Like all models, the model used herein made some simplifying assumptions about the negotiation and cooperation processes. In addition, the utilized model assumes that agents work individually on tasks and that negotiation takes place between two individual agents, even though negotiation can be a team-based endeavor in many cases.

The results of this study indicate that individuals need to adopt characteristics that are more agentic; this finding is particularly true for females who aim to be on a level playing field with their male counterparts. The results also indicate that negotiation is beneficial whether there is an abundance of resources or not, while cooperation is only beneficial when resources are abundant.

While past negotiation research has used simple choice games, laboratory studies and field studies, this study provides computational support for the hypothesis that higher levels of negotiation are beneficial to individuals. Additionally, unlike recent agent-based studies that have studied negotiation as a taken-for-granted automated computational process that is done by software on behalf of individuals, the present study simulates agents that have yet to decide whether they will engage in negotiation or not.

This study aims to investigate whether a team of females negotiates differently than a team of males, and whether (workplace) friendship moderates the relationship between single-gender team composition and negotiation outcomes.

The authors used two laboratory studies and paired 216 MBA students into single-gender teams of friends and non-friends, and then engaged them in several dyadic multi-issue negotiations.

The results show that on average, male teams of non-friends reached significantly better outcomes than female teams of non-friends. However, and interestingly, female teams of friends perform equally to male teams of friends.

The authors contribute both to the negotiations and the workplace friendship literature because very little research has examined negotiation among friends at work and in particular team negotiations. In addition, the authors also contribute to the literature on gender differences in negotiations because existing research has rarely examined the differences between all-male and all-female teams and especially the relationship between same-sex teams and their effects on negotiation outcomes.

This research has clear implications to managers with regard to team composition. Specifically, a winning all-female team should not be changed!

This is the first study to examine the relationship between workplace friendship, gender and negotiation outcomes.