Search results

The practice briefing aims to provide real estate professionals and negotiators with a superior understanding of negotiation process design to maximise real estate disposition outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the aforementioned objective.

This is an expert opinion piece that merges the practical anecdotal knowledge from a real estate expert and a professional negotiator. This opinion piece results from the identification of an underappreciated pattern that the two experts uncovered while discussing several real estate disposition cases, namely the importance of designing a negotiation process to maximize the positive impact of real estate disposition strategies.

Proactively crafting a negotiation process and matching the same to leverage the chosen real estate disposition strategy, instead of relying on a standard negotiation approach across the board, enhances the odds of negotiating superior outcomes.

In this practice briefing, real estate professionals and even negotiators of other assets can become more aware of the plurality of value drivers, consider the most attractive potential buyers, then use these two variables to craft the optimum disposition strategy for their asset, as well as match a negotiation process out of four main possibilities: 1-to-1, 1-to-few, closed-to-many and open-to-many.

The originality comes from demonstrating based on the authors' expert opinion how negotiation process is an important variable in real estate transactions, and how the parties can shape the negotiation process to their conditions, variables and preferences.

Despite the number of articles over the past two decades mentioning the importance of the negotiation stage in the M&A process, there has been very limited theoretical development and empirical analysis emphasizing multiple factors critical to M&A negotiations. The purpose of our paper is twofold. First, we provide a review of the extant academic literature on negotiations in the M&A process. Then, drawing on the M&A process perspective and classical negotiation theory, we develop a framework to highlight major components of the M&A negotiation stage examined in existing studies and offer key insights of how this underdeveloped area of study is ripe with opportunities for future theoretical development and empirical research.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the new capabilities that are required for the facilitation of business processes management (BPM) in the current political and technological landscape. Specifically, the goal is to investigate the role of firm boundaries, from a business processes perspective, in new contexts in which the affirmation of digitalization requires more integration across a complex network of partners.

The paper is based on a review of relevant literature on BPM, firm boundaries and negotiation. By critically integrating this literature, a framework is developed with the objective of supporting the management of boundaries.

BPM, new competitive contexts, and the technological landscape require the development and management of boundary capabilities. Among these capabilities, “boundary management” – how managers coordinate resources, activities and business processes on the boundaries of the firm – should play a key role. Moreover, as managers must continuously interact with multiple partners in digital supply chains, the organizational model of negotiation serves as a means of effectively managing firm boundaries.

The framework offers insights and guidelines that can help practitioners manage the boundaries of business processes. The authors encourage a focus on business processes occurring at firm boundaries. Furthermore, the authors encourage the development of new capabilities in response to the needs of practitioners to ensure best practices of negotiation.

This study shifts the emphasis of BPM from the boundaries of management to the management of boundaries. By shedding light on new capabilities required, this paper enriches the BPM literature and can assist, on the one hand, in reconfiguring business processes in the new political and technological landscape and, on the other hand, in facilitating effective negotiation.

Negotiators are offered limited advice on how to overcome adverse events. Drawing on resilience and coping literatures, this study aims to test the impact of three cognitive processing strategies on negotiators’ subjective and economic value following adversity.

Participants completed two negotiations with the same partner. The difficulty of the first negotiation was manipulated and tested how cognitive processing of this experience influenced subjective and economic outcomes in the second negotiation.

Subjective and economic outcomes were predicted by negotiators’ affect, their cognitive processing strategy and negotiation difficulty. In difficult negotiations, as positive affect increased, proactive processing decreased self-satisfaction. As negative affect increased, affective processing increased satisfaction with relationship and process.

Cognitive processing of adversity is most effective when emotions are not running high and better able to protect relationship- and process-oriented satisfaction than outcome-oriented satisfaction. The findings apply to one specific type of adversity and to circumstances that do not generate strong emotions.

This research tests which of three cognitive processing strategies is best able to prevent the aftermath of a difficult negotiation from spilling over into subsequent negotiations. Two forms of proactive processing are more effective than immersive processing in mitigating the consequences.

Understanding how dyadic negotiations and group decision processes evolve over time requires specifying the basic elements of process, modeling the configuration of those elements over time, and providing a theoretical explanation for that configuration. We propose a bead metaphor for conceptualizing the basic elements of the group negotiation process and then “string” the beads of behavior in a helix framework to model the process by which group negotiations evolve. Our theorizing draws on the group decision development literature (e.g. Bales, 1953; Poole, 1981, 1983a, b; Poole & Roth, 1989a, b) as well as on the negotiation process literature (e.g. Gulliver, 1979; Morley & Stephenson, 1977). Our examples are from our Towers Market studies of negotiating groups.

Extensive empirical evidence suggests that procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) are key success factors for achieving durable peace negotiations. This paper aims to investigate how complexity affects these factors and the outcomes in negotiations.

The qualitative study is based on an examination of the peace negotiations that led to the 2016 agreement between the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo and the Colombian Government. Based on document analysis, the authors examined in detail how and where in the process the principles of PJ and DJ were applied. The authors then examined the implementation progress after 2016 and placed the peace process in the overall context of the Colombian conflict.

The authors found that the principles of PJ and DJ were present in both the negotiation process and the agreement. The negotiations were successful and satisfactory solutions could be found for all issues. The complexity of the conflict is reflected in the limited coverage of the peace negotiations. Not all groups, interests and subconflicts could be included in the negotiations. This limits their contribution to a durable peace in Colombia. Conflicts that remain unresolved also have a negative effect on the implementation of the agreement.

For conflict management, this implies that the negotiations should not be viewed as “one-and-done” but rather as a progressive, ongoing process. The agreement is only the nucleus for achieving total peace. It must be actively advanced and defended.

This study offers new qualitative insights into how PJ and DJ function in negotiations. It also establishes a systematic connection between PJ and DJ and complexity, introduces the notion of coverage and, thereby, opens a new perspective on the management of conflict complexity.

This paper aims to suggest a dynamic model incorporating the important dimensions that exist in negotiation processes.

To produce a general and conceptual theory of negotiation, the grounded theory methodology is deployed.

The core process in this model is dubbed “goal-oriented balancing” and describes how he negotiator is continuously balancing opposing, and seemingly contrasting, forces in a situation specific and dynamic manner to reach agreements. Based on these findings, this study also suggests a concept to describe negotiations that is focused on collaboration and that is not an oxymoron as is the concept of “win–win”.

This conceptual model can be used by managers and practitioners to navigate in a negotiation process.

This is the first grounded theory study in negotiation research and attempt to describe negotiation processes as dynamic events in which different dimensions are managed simultaneously.

Using a simulated employment negotiation, this experiment examined the relationship between dyad composition, negotiation strategies and levels of joint gain. Three dyad types were created on the basis of social value orientation, proself, prosocial and mixed. A log linear analysis showed that dyads were differentiated on the basis of the strategies associated with high joint gain. We identified a generic path to high joint gain in which all dyads increased priority information and decreased contention. Overlaid on this path, we identified dyad‐specific strategies and strategy sequences associated with high joint gain. Cooperative reciprocity was critical to high joint gain only in prosocial dyads. When dyads contained at least one prosocial negotiator, process management played an important role in determining the level of joint gain. When dyads contained at least one proself negotiator, the sequences associated with high joint gain functioned to divide resources.

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.