Search results

This study aims to generalize the research findings about the impact of individualism-collectivism, ethical idealism and inter-personal trust on ethically questionable negotiation tactics, such as pretending, deceiving and lying, in a Germanic culture, namely, that of Austria.

Survey questionnaires translated from English to German were collected from 304 respondents. A regression analysis was used to test the contribution of the independent variables to the explanation of negotiators’ attitudes towards questionable negotiation tactics.

The research empirically corroborated a classification of three groups of negotiation tactics, namely, pretending, deceiving and lying, in Austria. Austrian negotiators who scored high on vertical individualism tended to score high on the endorsement of the pretending tactic; those who scored high on horizontal collectivism tended to score low on the endorsement of the deceiving and lying tactics; those who scored high on vertical collectivism tended to score high on the endorsement of the deceiving and lying tactics; and those who scored high on inter-personal trust tended to score low on the endorsement of the pretending negotiation tactic. Idealistic negotiators tended not to endorse the use of pretending, deceiving and lying negotiation tactics.

The study investigated the respondents’ perceptions, rather than their actual negotiation behavior. Findings are limited to Germanic culture.

The study provides negotiators in Austria with a tool that has the potential to predict the extent to which Austrian negotiators would use various ethically questionable negotiation tactics.

This is the first study to present a model of the antecedents of negotiation tactics in a Germanic cultural context, where negotiation studies are limited. This study validates in Austria three questionable negotiation tactics groups of varying severity, which had previously been studied only in non-Germanic cultures. This research significantly contributes to the generalization of a model of the antecedents of the endorsement of questionable tactics across cultures.

This study aims to examine how the fear of appearing incompetent (FAI) and competency pressure relates to negotiation tactics and subjective perceptions in a negotiation.

Using a dyadic buyer/seller negotiation simulation and pre- and post-negotiation questionnaires, we assessed FAI, competency pressure, tactics and subjective perceptions of the negotiation. Mediation models were tested using path analysis adapted from Hayes (2013) PROCESS procedures. MPlus “complex” multi-level function was used to account for non-independence of observations.

Results indicated that those with a higher FAI perceive more competency pressure, which is associated with greater use of competitive tactics (e.g. misrepresenting own interest, holding back information, making unreasonable offers) and lesser use of cooperative tactics (e.g. sharing helpful information, making reasonable offers, compromising). Tactics used in the negotiation mediated the relationship between competency pressure and subjective perception of the negotiation, such that competitive tactics were negatively related, and cooperative tactics were significantly positively related to subjective perception of the negotiation.

Reliability on the cooperative tactics measure was only minimally acceptable and all measures were self-report and collected during a single lab simulation session.

The findings suggest that relieving competency pressure in negotiation settings could open avenues for cooperation. Gaining expertise through formal negotiation training may be one way to accomplish this.

This is the first known study to investigate FAI and competency pressure in a negotiation setting. We draw on an emotion–cognition–behavior framework to show that FAI is associated with competency pressure thoughts, which predict negotiation behaviors. Further, this research lends support to the notion that competitive tactics are fundamental to the mental model of a negotiation.

This paper aims to describe a study of the negotiation process, focusing on the use of seven competitive-unethical tactics in dyadic negotiations. The initial use of these tactics and their effects on process and outcomes are examined.

In total, 230 Brazilian professionals from a large financial institution participated in two-party, property-leasing negotiations involving eight issues with assigned point values. Negotiations were conducted online and, from the recorded transcripts, seven competitive-unethical tactics were tracked and analyzed with respect to the negotiation process and outcomes (individual and joint, perceived and actual).

The study found that most participants employed one or more tactics, the stage and incidents of initial use affected overall employment, and participants often reciprocated when tactics were employed. Reciprocation was best described by a logarithmic function, with a small number of tactics answered with as many or more tactics, but a large number of tactics producing a smaller response. Also, number of messages exchanged and number of tactics per message were related to likelihood of reaching an agreement and, to some extent, to individual outcomes (actual and perceived). Reaching an agreement and perceived individual outcome were associated with a participant's desire to negotiate with a counterpart in the future.

The vast majority of studies to date have employed questionnaires to measure ethical attitudes or intentions, or have limited their empirical studies to competitive tactics only. This study moves beyond these methodologies to examine the actual use of a range of competitive-unethical tactics, and their effects on process and outcomes.

The purpose of this study is to examine the negotiation tactics used in business-to-business (B2B) negotiations in creative sectors and to shed light on some of the characteristics of creative sectors that might drive these behaviors.

This is a multiple-case study involving interviews with 18 creative sector negotiators engaged in B2B negotiations.

The findings suggest that negotiators in B2B firms in creative sectors use a variety of negotiation tactics to reach agreement, but that there are some differences compared with other sectors. One group of tactics, not represented in existing taxonomies, is identified and termed closure-seeking tactics, referring to tactics intended to speed up the negotiation process and reach agreement as quickly as possible. The reasons for creative sector negotiators’ choice of closure-seeking tactics might stem from their desire to expedite the start of new projects to enable them to fulfill their creative drive.

In addition to the identification of group of tactics observed in creative sectors, but not anticipated by existing research, the findings indicate that negotiators in creative sectors seem to lack interest in, and expertise for, negotiating and might be driven more by the desire to get on with the creative process than by concerns over monetary gains when negotiating. This could reflect unique characteristics of creative sectors and the people who work in these sectors.

This work offers new insights and understanding about tactics used in B2B negotiations in creative sectors. These findings have important implications for both practitioners in creative sectors, who might be too eager to reach closure quickly, and practitioners negotiating with firms in creative sectors, who need to understand the unique characteristics of these firms.

The originality of this work lies in its consideration of tactics used in B2B negotiations in the under-studied context of creative sectors and investigation of the reasons that drive the choice of tactics.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the connection between the type of negotiation tactics auditors use when they ask their clients to make adjustments to their financial reports, focusing on three distributive and two integrative negotiation tactics, and whether the auditors identify with their clients.

A survey was used to capture 152 experienced Swedish audit partners’ perspectives on what type of negotiation technique they would use thinking about their largest client in a hypothetical situation.

The results show that the more auditors identify with their clients, the more likely they are to adopt two of the distributive negotiation tactics, conceding and compromising.

Building on the findings in the accounting literature that auditors’ identification with clients constrains their judgments, this study finds that auditors’ identification with clients also has an impact on the auditors’ initial selection of negotiation tactics.

This study aims to investigate when integrative tactics are more effective in generating higher joint outcomes in an integrative negotiation. The authors test whether, first, the moral identity of the negotiators and, second, the concurrent use of distributive tactics increase the effectiveness of integrative tactics on joint outcomes.

Two weeks prior to the experiment, moral identity was measured using SIMI. Participants were classified into three groups: high, medium, and low SIMI. Two participants from the same group played a modified version of the Towers Market negotiation exercise. Distributive and integrative tactics were measured.

Results show that negotiators with high moral identity achieve higher joint outcomes in an integrative negotiation by using integrative tactics more effectively. In addition, the positive effects of integrative tactics on joint outcomes increase as the two negotiators employ distributive tactics along with integrative tactics rather than integrative tactics alone.

Results support the firm‐flexibility rule and dual‐concern model of negotiation. In addition, the results of this study are consistent with the argument of the differentiation‐before‐integration principle.

Contradictory to the assumption that negotiators should not use distributive tactics to increase joint outcome, negotiators can increase joint outcome when they use distributive tactics along with integrative tactics. In addition, this study shows that negotiators with high morality do a better job in an integrative negotiation not because they adopt integrative tactics more frequently, but because they use them more effectively, especially when coupled with negotiators with a similar level of morality.

The purpose of this study is to refine theory of negotiation by empirically investigating the extent to which national-, societal- and individual-level cultures relate to negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics.

To assess the hypothesized relationships between culture and ethically questionable negotiation tactics at three cultural levels of analysis, the authors collected data from Turks who reside in Turkey and in Germany and from Greeks who reside in Greece and in Cyprus. Respondents' national-level cultural values were inferred from their nationality, respondents' societal-level cultural values were inferred from their country of residency, and respondents' individual-level cultural values were inferred from their discrete and unique individuality.

At the national level, the authors found that Turks in Turkey and Germany scored significantly higher than Greeks in Greece and Cyprus on the endorsement of pretending negotiation tactics. At the societal level, the authors found that Turkish negotiators in Germany displayed higher levels of lying negotiation tactics and lower levels of pretending negotiation tactics than Turkish negotiators in Turkey. Greek negotiators in Greece endorsed deceiving and lying tactics more than Greek negotiators in Cyprus. At the individual level, the authors found that negotiators who score high on vertical individualism and collectivism endorse questionable negotiation tactics significantly more than negotiators who score high on horizontal individualism and collectivism.

The authors empirically demonstrate how national-, societal- and individual-level cultures differentially influence negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics. The study's trilevel analysis allows for integrating the societal-level theories of negotiators' acculturation and cultural adjustment to a host culture, highlighting the importance of bicultural identity.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of individualism‐collectivism, trust, and ethical ideology on ethically questionable negotiation tactics, such as pretending, deceiving and lying, in Turkey.

Survey questionnaires translated from English to Turkish were administered to 400 respondents, of whom 379 fully completed the questionnaires.

The research empirically corroborated a classification of three groups of negotiation tactics, namely, pretending, deceiving and lying. Turkish negotiators who scored high on horizontal individualism tended to score highly on pretending and deceiving and less on lying, and presented an inverse relationship between scores on those tactics and score on idealism. Trust was not found to be related to any of the negotiation tactics.

The study investigated the respondents' perceptions rather than their actual negotiation behavior. The sample size, though large and inclusive of public and private sector employees, provided limited ability to generalize Turkish negotiator conduct.

The study provides hints to managers negotiating in Turkey of the extent to which Turkish managers would employ ethically questionable negotiation tactics.

This empirical field research is the first to present a model of the antecedents of negotiation tactics in Turkey, a country where negotiation studies are limited and are mostly conducted within the safe controls of the laboratory.

This study aims to investigate the use of deceptive negotiation tactics to explain why teams can attain higher negotiation profits than individual negotiators. The study distinguishes deception by commission (i.e. active misrepresentation of preferences) from deception by omission (i.e. passive misrepresentation of preferences).

The sample used to test the mediation hypothesis was made up of data from two electronically mediated negotiation simulations encompassing 75 negotiation dyads with 278 participants. The methodology involved coding deceptive negotiation tactics from the log files by counting utterances related to indifference options that enabled negotiation parties to deceive.

The results show that teams do apply deceptive negotiation tactics more frequently than individual negotiators and that this behavior helps them increase their negotiation profits.

The findings are valuable for two reasons. First, the study included controls for other important antecedents of deceptive behavior and negotiation outcome (e.g. negotiators’ nationalities, first bids). Consequently, the empirical results underline the importance of considering team size to understand its impact on profits through the use of deceptive tactics. Second, although this study does show that deception increases negotiation profits, the absolute level of deception is rather small (on average just one deceptive statement per negotiation).

Trust plays a significant role in business peoples’ choices of negotiating tactics. This study compares the use of generally accepted negotiating tactics with dubious ones. Findings from a sample of Mexican business people indicate that the type of negotiation (intra‐cultural vs cross‐cultural) is predictive of the level of trust that a negotiator will place in an opponent and of the likelihood of using various negotiation tactics.