Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how negotiation teams can rely on social networks to enhance their performance at the table.

The paper examines the impact of social relations on team performance in the negotiation task. It conducts a selective review and integration of negotiation, small group and social network research.

The paper's main argument is that teams can rely on social relations to locate and get hold of resources that will augment their ability to manage the bargaining process. To tap into the value of social networks, teams need to look beyond their internal processes and develop strategies that actively manage their environment. The paper examines three such strategies: membership change, knowledge acquisition, and ambassadorial activity.

The paper outlines a relational approach to team negotiation. This approach has the potential to improve team negotiation practice by opening up a new way to design and manage negotiation teams.

Purpose – Recent research has highlighted the importance of individuals' beliefs regarding the malleability or fixedness of negotiator characteristics as key determinants of negotiation processes and performance. In this chapter, we examine how these implicit negotiation beliefs affect negotiation at the team level.

Approach – We explore the effects of implicit negotiation beliefs on team negotiation by articulating a model that considers their impact on important group processes such as goal setting, conflict, and communication.

Findings – We propose that individuals' beliefs regarding the fixedness of negotiator characteristics affect team negotiation processes and outcomes, in particular through their effect on interpersonal processes within a negotiation team. We expect that individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are malleable will focus on long-term success, will devote relatively high levels of effort toward the team's goals, and will share and discuss important information with other members of the team. In contrast, individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are fixed will focus on short-term goals, will dedicate relatively low levels of effort to the team, and may put their own self interest ahead of the team by withholding key information from other team members. In light of these differences, teams characterized by heterogeneity in team members' implicit negotiation beliefs may experience high levels of intrateam conflict.

Value – This chapter suggests that implicit negotiation beliefs may have a powerful influence on team-level negotiation. Through our review and model development, we aim to stimulate research on implicit negotiation beliefs within groups and teams.

Purpose – We consider the question of when teams are an asset at the negotiating table and when they are a liability.

Methodology – We center our review on three key “empirical truths” about teams. First, teams are better than individuals at solving problems. Second, teams are more self-interested than individuals. Third, teams are trusted less and are less trusting than individuals.

Findings – Teams have an advantage over solo negotiators when there is unshared information and multiple issues on the table. Teams have an advantage in these contexts because of their superior problem-solving abilities. However, teams are more likely than solos to suffer from costly and uncertain legal action due to failures in dispute resolution and earn lower profits than solos in negotiations with a prisoner's dilemma structure. Thus, because teams are more self-interested and less trusted than individuals, they can be a liability in negotiations in which the parties' interests are opposed.

Implications – To the leverage the positive effects of teams in negotiation, it is critical that negotiators determine whether the context is one that allows for coordination and integrative tradeoffs, such as multi-issue deal-making negotiations, versus one that is characterized by noncorrespondent outcomes and incompatible interests, such as disputes and prisoner's dilemma interactions.

Value of the paper – The term “negotiation” has been applied rather broadly to a complex assortment of mixed-motive tasks. Our review indicates that distinguishing among these tasks is paramount to meaningfully address questions of individual versus group performance in negotiation.

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).

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.

Purpose – To provide a framework for organizing research on group negotiation, including the contributions of the current volume.

Methodology – The organizing framework arranges past research on group negotiation and the contributions offered in this volume according to the core negotiation elements of people, processes, and places, and their impact on the integration of negotiators' preferences.

Findings – There is an extensive literature on negotiation, but historically group negotiation has represented only a small part of that dialogue. There are three general categories of group negotiation: multiparty negotiation, team negotiation, and multiteam negotiation. The core issue addressed in this chapter is how – viewed through the lens of the four identified core negotiation elements of preferences, people, processes, and places – the quantity and arrangement of negotiators involved in a negotiation qualitatively changes the negotiation experience, and specifically how (different types of) negotiating groups make more complex the challenge of identifying, agreeing to, and implementing integrative agreements.

Implications – More than dyadic negotiation, the difficulty of reaching agreements that satisfy all parties can lead to agreements that some negotiators are less than enthusiastic about implementing. It is the difficulty and importance of finding agreements that satisfy all parties in group negotiation that makes it so important to understand the influence of group negotiation by people, processes, and places.

Value of the Paper – This chapter organizes the landscape of group negotiation research by illuminating both what we know about the people, processes, and places that influence the negotiation of group members' preferences, as well as pointing the way – both theoretically and methodologically – for future researchers to fill in the blanks that remain.

Introduction Vietnam is one of the new stars for foreign investment in the 1990s. As of mid‐1993, 685 projects were licensed with a total of US$6.1 billion. Major investors in Vietnam include Australia, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Japan, France, the UK and Thailand. However, almost every advanced industrial country is lined up for future projects, according to Vietnam's State Committee on Co‐operation and Investment.

Pervasive forms of worldwide communication now connect us instantly and constantly, and yet we all too often fail to understand each other. Rather than benefiting from our globally interconnected reality, the world continues to fall back on divisiveness, a widening schism exacerbated by some of the most pronounced divisions in history along lines of wealth, culture, religion, ideology, class, gender, and race. Cross-cultural dynamics are rife within multinational organizations and among people who regularly work with people from other cultures. This chapter reviews what we know from our scholarship on cross-cultural interaction among expatriates, negotiators, and teams that work in international contexts. Perhaps more important, this chapter outlines what we need to learn – and to unlearn – to be able to see diversity as an asset in helping individuals, organizations, and society to succeed rather than continuing to understand it primarily as a source of problems.

This study aims to identify effective behaviors in labor-management negotiation (LMN) and, on that basis, derive overarching psychological principles of successful negotiation in this important context. These empirical findings are used to develop and test a comprehensive negotiation training program.

Twenty-seven practitioners from one of the world’s largest labor unions were interviewed to identify the requirements of effective LMN, resulting in 796 descriptions of single behaviors from 41 negotiation cases.

The analyses revealed 13 categories of behaviors critical to negotiation success. The findings highlight the pivotal role of the union negotiator by illustrating how they lead the negotiations with the other party while also ensuring that their own team and the workforce stand united. To provide guidance for effective LMN, six psychological principles were derived from these behavioral categories. The paper describes a six-day training program developed for LMN based on the empirical findings of this study and the related six principles.

This paper has three unique features: first, it examines the requirements for effective LMN based on a systematic needs assessment. Second, by teaching not only knowledge and skills but also general psychological principles of successful negotiation, the training intervention is aimed at promoting long-term behavioral change. Third, the research presents a comprehensive and empirically-based training program for LMN.

This paper seeks to demonstrate the value and critical importance of negotiating skills within the wider context of “employability”. It posits that the intensity, rich context, and ambiguity of juxtaposing ancient and modern cases provides a creative, engaging format to stimulate learning about negotiating and power among parties.

This paper is the culmination of teaching undergraduate and graduate business students, as well as continuing education courses, in the USA and New Zealand respectively. The authors developed a participatory, mixed‐mode educational simulation. Using thematic analysis of student survey responses, they summarize learning points associated with the suggested teaching case.

An analysis of post‐exercise questions suggested six key themes identified by students: value of leadership, self‐knowledge, maturity, and judgment; need for creativity, versatility, and adaptability in bridging differences; focus on settlement (rather than absolute win‐lose scenarios); managing risk due to uncertainty and unidentified incentives among participants; dire consequences of inflexibility, self‐righteousness, and unhealthy ego; and need for increasing negotiating skill proficiency is valuable and timeless.

The outlined teaching case is put forward as providing a creative, interesting and rich format to stimulate learning about negotiating and power among parties, as well as team dynamics.

The paper outlines a novel teaching tool that allows students to learn and appreciate the dynamics of negotiating in complex environments.