Search results

The purpose of this study is to analyze whether negotiators stick to one single negotiation style or whether their styles vary during the negotiation process. The paper seeks to identify different combinations of phase-specific negotiation styles and investigates the relationship between these combinations and negotiation performance and satisfaction.

The study is based on a large online negotiation simulation that allows a phase-specific analysis of negotiation styles via an elaborate coding scheme.

The findings reveal that negotiators generally do not limit themselves to a single negotiation style. Instead, they vary their style in the course of different negotiation phases. The authors distinguish between five distinct phase-specific negotiation style patterns that differ with regard to their impact on negotiation performance but not negotiation satisfaction.

The study demonstrates that a phase-specific analysis of negotiation styles allows deeper insights into a negotiator’s style behavior. For future studies, the authors recommend taking a phase-specific view when analyzing negotiation styles.

Negotiation practitioners get to know different phase-specific negotiation style patterns and get insights into which pattern is the most promising for negotiation performance. As a result, they can acquire this phase-specific negotiation style pattern to enhance their performance.

The paper contributes to existing negotiation style literature, because it is the first to analyze negotiation styles from a phase-specific point of view.

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.

This study aims to propose and evaluate a novel framework of strategic adaptability in dyadic negotiations. The authors define strategic adaptability as a reaction to a cue that leads to shifts between integrative and distributive strategies. Based on the literature on turning points, phase models and strategic negotiations, the authors developed an initial framework identifying five distinct strategic adaptations.

To verify the framework, the authors analyzed two negotiation simulations with a diverse set of negotiation students. Negotiations were content-coded, and adaptations were labeled.

The authors found a consistent pattern across two studies. Overall, 12% (study 1) and 18% (study 2) of all speaking turns were identified as strategic adaptations. The findings empirically confirmed four of their strategic adaptation types: adapt to deadlock, follow adaptation by opponent, adapt to priority of issue under discussion and adapt to new information on issue. Moreover, findings of this study revealed two new types of strategic adaptability: delayed adaptation to opponent and adapt to understand opponent. Study 2 additionally revealed that strategies vary with the negotiation phase, and negotiation outcome seems to benefit more from the constellation rather than the frequency of adaptations. Furthermore, lower-scoring negotiators tended to adapt to the opponent’s strategy instead of initiating a change in strategy.

The findings of this study provide preliminary insights into how strategic adaptations unfold. These findings present future research opportunities to further test the framework's robustness, increase the knowledge of individual and cultural factors, explore the relationship with negotiation outcomes and develop educational interventions to enhance strategic adaptability.

The purpose of this paper is to explore possible changes in national culture for generations X and Y members from selected Asian national cultures and the impact on cross‐cultural negotiations.

An interpretivist epistemology is combined with an ontology of subjectivism for this exploratory study which does not seek generalization. Emphasis is placed on the development of new survey items by members of generations X and Y for Hofstede's dimensions. An online survey yielded n=224 responses. Data were collected from members of generations X and Y, but also Baby Boomers as the control group, to test differences.

For national culture dimensions, only individualism/collectivism tests for significant differences between Asian GenY and Baby Boomers. GenX and GenY show little interest in pre‐opening relationship building and focus on positioning and compromising.

The study is exploratory in nature and future studies should revisit this topic. The items developed to measure national culture might be biased by the 39 focus group participants. Future studies should consider differentiating Asian groups.

Western negotiators need to prepare for multiple scenarios when entering negotiations with Asian partners. Depending on the age of the Asian negotiator, emphasis on different phases of the negotiation process needs to be reevaluated.

This research holds immediate lessons for cross‐cultural negotiations. Results support that generations X and Y members in some Asian cultures do not differ from their elders across all Hofstede dimensions, however they display different negotiation behaviors.

The purpose of this study was to explore an innovative strategy for studying the Brazilian negotiator’s unique and paradoxical characteristics from a cultural point of view to acquire a better understanding of the nature of international business negotiations in Brazil.

The study is of a qualitative nature, using a multiple-case study design at three levels (small-, medium- and large-scale negotiations). Interviews were conducted with Brazilian and German managers to capture the emic–etic view of the Brazilian negotiator. The Strategic Trinity Model was developed to assess the behavior of the Brazilian negotiator in agreement with three metaphors: “African Capoeirista”, “Portuguese Bureaucrat” and “Indigenous Warrior”.

The three roles “African Capoeirista”, “Portuguese Bureaucrat” and “Indigenous Warrior” comprised similar as well as contradicting characteristics. The Brazilian negotiator chose naturally and even paradoxically from these role features, effectively negotiating any given situation, context and time. During the pre- and post-negotiation phases, traits of the “African Capoeirista” and “Indigenous Warrior” were the most salient. During the formal negotiation phase, however, the characteristics of the “African Capoeirista” and “Portuguese Bureaucrat” dominated.

International business negotiations in Brazil call for an in-depth comprehension of the paradoxical roles that local negotiators take on to achieve better negotiation outcomes.

The present study unveiled the contradicting Brazilian negotiating style in international business negotiations, thus acquiring a better understanding of the negotiation process in the Brazilian market.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of motivational orientations on negotiation outcomes in unstable negotiation contexts. Instability was created by pitting individualists against cooperators (mixed dyads), and by giving only one of the parties information about the other party's orientation. A total of 162 subjects participated in negotiation simulations, where orientation and information were manipulated through instructions from management. The cooperative dyads got better outcomes than did the individualistic dyads. The mixed dyads did as well as the cooperative dyads when the cooperators had information, but did as badly as the individualistic dyads when the individualists had information. The process analyses indicated that the dyads with high outcomes achieved their results because the integrative activities increased over time. In the mixed dyads with informed individualists, the individualists reached higher individual outcome than their cooperative (uninformed) opponents. Thus, naive cooperators can easily be exploited.

There is a growing literature on negotiation, much of which is directed towards negotiations which take place in the industrial relations context. However, negotiation is a practical activity and there is a need to bridge the gap between the thoeretical framework of the negotiation process and the appropriate application of particular negotiating techniques. One approach is to present an explanatory framework in terms of the motivation of one's negotiating opponent, usually relying on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. These authors then present a series of semi‐anecdotal descriptions of tactics to employ. Such an approach does not fully present any underlying principles to be grasped by negotiators, nor does it form a basis for the training of negotiating techniques.

Purpose – This study attempts to explore further the relation between performance information and trust as the main control levers in inter-firm transactional relationships.

Design/methodology/approach – After discussing the interaction between information and trust from different theoretical perspectives, the study examines the case of a multinational company working in the pharmaceutical industry. Material has been collected through interviews with managers and documental analyses, focusing on the relations between the company and its partner suppliers.

Findings – A theoretical systematisation is provided, distinguishing three main perspectives: (1) the transactional perspective, strictly derived from transaction cost economics assumptions, which denies any role to trust; (2) the relational perspective, which, in examining inter-firm trust, assumes similarities with inter-personal trust; (3) the institutional perspective, which, based on the sociological distinction of “trust in abstract systems” and “trust in persons”, is intended to identify institutional factors explaining management accounting changes. Case discussion shows that the institutional propositions fit the empirical evidence better, for both trust in persons and in systems are important as control levers, but their relevance differs along the value chain: while trust in persons is more relevant in the less-programmable phases, trust in systems is more developed in the more programmable one.

Research implications – The paper contributes to the literature on inter-organisational control by providing more insights into the interaction between information and trust as control levers.

Originality/value – The focus on value chain phases enables us to analyse how different control patterns or archetypes can be co-present in a given relationship.

This study aims to provide probable future developments in the form of holistic scenarios for business negotiations. In recent years, negotiation research did not put a lot of emphasis on external changes. Consequently, current challenges and trends are scarcely integrated, making it difficult to support negotiation practice perspectively.

This paper applies the structured, multi-method approach of scenario analysis. To examine the future space of negotiations, this combines qualitative and quantitative measures to base our analysis on negotiation experts’ assessments, estimations and visions of the negotiation future.

The results comprise an overview of five negotiation scenarios in the year 2030 and of their individual drivers. The five revealed scenarios are: digital intelligence, business as usual, powerful network – the route to collaboration, powerful network – the route to predominance and system crash.

The scenario analysis is a suitable approach that enables to relate various factors of the negotiation environment to negotiations themselves and allows an examination of future changes in buyer–seller negotiations and the creation of possible future scenarios. The identified scenarios provide an orientation for business decisions in the field of negotiation.

This paper develops the argument for analyzing negotiations from an institutional perspective. A major theme of the argument being advanced in this paper is that the institutional perspective provides a more comprehensive understanding of the negotiation process in its entirety. The negotiation process can be broken down into three distinct components, namely (a) the pre‐negotiation phase; (b) the negotiating phase; and (c) the post negotiation evaluation. Each of these phases is critically influenced by a specific component or components of the institutional environment. Scott's distinction between the regulative, the normative, and the cognitive dimension of the institutional environment is drawn upon to illustrate the usefulness of this perspective. The framework is applied to assess the similarities and differences between Indian and Chinese institutional environments and their implications for negotiating processes in the countries discussed. Choosing India and China to illustrate the utility of this framework is justified by the fact that India and China are both in the process of transforming their economies, and although confronted with similar challenges, they have dealt with them in very different ways. This comparison is thus useful, not only for illustrating the value of the institutional perspective, but also for understanding the dynamics of the negotiation process in these countries.