Search results

This study develops a model and algorithm to solve the decentralized resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem (DRCMPSP) and provides a suitable priority rule (PR) for coordinating global resource conflicts among multiple projects.

This study addresses the DRCMPSP, which respects the information privacy requirements of project agents; that is, there is no single manager centrally in charge of generating multi-project scheduling. Accordingly, a three-stage model was proposed for the decentralized management of multiple projects. To solve this model, a three-stage solution approach with a repeated negotiation mechanism was proposed.

The experimental results obtained using the Multi-Project Scheduling Problem LIBrary confirm that our approach outperforms existing methods, regardless of the average utilization factor (AUF). Comparative analysis revealed that delaying activities in the lower project makespan produces a lower average project delay. Furthermore, the new PR LMS performed better in problem subsets with AUF < 1 and large-scale subsets with AUF > 1.

A solution approach with a repeated-negotiation mechanism suitable for the DRCMPSP and a new PR for coordinating global resource allocation are proposed.

In this investigation, the authors aim to ask whether engineers, as a profession, share distinct characteristics in their attitudes and behaviors relating to negotiations. Based on a review of the literature, the authors answer in the affirmative. Generally speaking, the existing studies on individual differences of engineers conclude that they are more conscientious, more goal-driven, more competitive and less people-oriented than non-engineers. The authors suggest that these differences have significant consequences on how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques.

This paper involves an integrated literature review, combining research in management, psychology and engineering to investigate whether engineers approach negotiations differently from non-engineers.

The authors suggest that individual differences between engineers and non-engineers have significant consequences for how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques.

The authors offer 11 research propositions in areas relating to how engineers engage in distributive versus integrative negotiations, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and their preferred persuasive techniques.

There are important implications for how engineers and their supervisors should be aware of these differences between how engineers and non-engineers view negotiations and how these differences may affect them and their employing organizations. There are also cultural implications, particularly for organizations for which engineers comprise a majority or a minority of the workforce composition.

There are important implications for diversity in the engineering profession, especially as it relates to the hiring of women in engineering (as they now comprise a small minority of the profession).

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that investigates how engineers negotiate. Because engineering is a hugely important contributor to society, the results of this have important implications for the society.

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.

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.

This paper aims to advance an integrative perspective of dynamic relationality in negotiation research by providing a symbiotic solution to modeling the cultural adaptation process in intercultural negotiations.

Based on a solution-oriented symbiotic approach, the authors analyze negotiators’ combination strategy to propose the dynamic convergence of dyadic relational negotiation behavior (RNB) both as a descriptive framework and a prescriptive solution to behavioral congruence in intercultural negotiations. The authors use spreadsheet platform with artificial data input to simulate various RNB dynamics between negotiators.

The authors identify the research gap between the arelational, static paradigm in negotiation literature and the relational, dynamic reality in negotiation practices, develop a fourfold typology of the existing negotiation research and propose the construct of RNB. The authors simulate the dyadic dynamics of RNB in a symbiotic framework. Results illustrate varied dyadic patterns of convergent RNB dynamics, demonstrating the effectiveness of the symbiotic solution to achieving behavioral congruence under multiple conditions. Propositions are then presented to predict negotiators’ initial relational behavior, describe dyadic coevolution of RNB in intercultural negotiations and explicate the relevant chronic consequences regarding relational and economic capital.

This paper fills a significant knowledge gap in the extant cross-cultural negotiation literature by addressing dynamic behavioral adaptation through a relational lens. This symbiotic framework is both descriptive in its predictive capacity to simulate the complexity of non-linear negotiation environment, and prescriptive in its directive capacity to guide negotiators’ plan of action given each other’s observed behavior with a probability estimation.

We bring together disparate negotiation theory research in order to identify a composite set of potential barriers to reaching agreement in environmental negotiations. This framework builds on behavioral decision theory, showing barriers that arise from personal values and institutional values and norms, as well as from situational elements that influence individual behaviors and organizational strategies. We contribute to the literature on organizational behavior by making explicit the relationship between the strength of the situation and organizational behavior related to negotiations. The elements of situational strength have not been addressed adequately in prior negotiation literature. We incorporate this concept into a comprehensive set of barriers to offer explanations for the intractability of many environmental disputes.

We survey several of the theoretical models that have been applied to the analysis of the GATT/WTO dispute settlement process. These include repeated game models, which emphasize the punishment aspect of dispute settlement, and incomplete contracting models, which emphasize the “gap-filling” aspect. Our analysis emphasizes the implications of these models for the strengthening of the dispute settlement process under the WTO and for its application to the TRIPS agreement. We also discuss how models of settlement bargaining can be applied to obtain empirical predictions about which cases will actually proceed to an actual finding by the dispute panel.

Negotiations with venture capitalists (VCs) play a crucial role in the entrepreneurial financing process. Habitual entrepreneurs are generally able to secure more venture capital funding and on better deal terms than novices. This study investigates the disparities in negotiation competencies between habitual and novice entrepreneurs during VC funding negotiations.

This study employed a qualitative approach to investigate the variation in negotiation competencies between habitual and novice entrepreneurs, utilizing the negotiation competency model (NCM). The data analysis and interpretation adopted an inductive concept development approach. A total of 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with seasoned VCs located in Europe, all of whom had actively engaged in funding negotiations with both habitual and novice entrepreneurs.

The findings revealed substantial disparities between novice and habitual entrepreneurs in VC negotiations. Although not all competencies of the NCM exhibited variances, the results indicate three primary dimensions contributing to these differences: expertise, reputation, and negotiation competence.

This study is groundbreaking as it represents one of the earliest empirical investigations into the entrepreneurial negotiation competencies within VC negotiations. The findings endeavor to narrow the gap between novice and habitual entrepreneurs in VC negotiations by pinpointing the distinct variations between these two groups, which hold significant practical implications. Furthermore, this study expands the conceptual framework of the NCM by identifying supplementary competencies within the realm of VC negotiations.

The present paper reviews the research literature on trust in bargaining and mediation. Several models of trust within the bargaining process are also described. It is concluded that trust means different things, depending upon the relationship under investigation. Trust among negotiators can refer to a personality trail (how trusting a negotiator is of others) or to a temporary state. Within the state perspective, trust often refers to one of three orientations: (1) cooperative motivational orientation (MO), (2) patterns of predictable behavior, (3) a problem‐solving orientation. Trust between a negotiator and constituents usually refers to a cooperative MO (i.e., shared loyalty) between these two groups. The addition of a mediator can impact both the opposing negotiators' relationship and each negotiator‐constituent relationship; the mediator also has direct and indirect relationships with the parties and their constituents. Future directions for research on trust are identified.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the history of a supply chain relationship impacts expectations concerning negotiation strategy use.

Following a grounded theory approach, experienced buyers and suppliers were interviewed to enhance understanding of the complexity of supply chain negotiations.

Qualitative analysis developed a theoretical framework emphasizing the impact of relationship history on negotiation strategy expectations in long-term buyer-supplier relationships. Data supports that previous negotiation interactions build a history between the involved organizations. This relationship history creates expectations. When negotiation strategy use is consistent with expectations, the relationship history will continue to develop in the same manner as it has previously. When negotiation strategy expectations are violated, the relationship impact will differ depending on evidence of an Extrarelational Factor that leads to the strategy change.

Results of this study present a theoretical framework that future research can quantitatively test, which has the potential to open up new streams of research on relationship history and supply chain negotiations.

Results show that buyers and suppliers should consider the strategy expectations of their negotiation partner. When actions are inconsistent with expectations, the effects impact the relationship.

Negotiation research has largely focussed on negotiations as discrete events with economic outcomes. This ongoing buyer-supplier relationship research highlights the impact that previous negotiations (relationship history) have on negotiation expectations. It also explores the relational impact when those expectations are or are not met.