Search results

The purpose of this paper is to study the relational impact of using win-win or win-lose negotiation strategies within different types of buyer-supplier relationships.

A multi-method approach is used. Qualitative interviews with supply chain managers reveal that relationship-specific assets and cooperation are important relational factors in buyer-supplier negotiations. Framing interview insights within the social exchange theory (SET), hypotheses are tested using a scenario-based behavioral experiment.

Experimental results suggest that win-lose negotiators decrease their negotiating partner’s commitment of relationship-specific assets and levels of cooperation. In addition, the use of a win-lose negotiation strategy reduces levels of relationship-specific assets and cooperation more in highly interdependent buyer-supplier relationships than relationships that are not as close.

Buyer-supplier relationships are complex interactions. Negotiation strategy choice decisions can have long-term effects on the overall relationship. As demonstrated in this study, previous research focusing on one side “winning” a negotiation as a measure of success has oversimplified this complex phenomenon.

The use of a win-lose negotiation strategy can have a negative impact on relational outcomes like cooperation and relationship-specific assets. For companies interested in developing strong supply chain relationships, buyer and suppliers should choose their negotiation strategy carefully as the relational impact extends beyond the single negotiation encounter.

Previous research predominantly advocates for the use of a win-win negotiation strategy within interdependent relationships. This research offers evidence that the use of a win-lose strategy does have a long-term relational impact.

This research examines the effects of winning–losing perception, generated from success and failure results, on consumers’ risk preference.

Using different manipulations of success and failure and different measurements of risk preference tendency, the authors conducted five experiments to carry out the research.

Using different manipulations of success and failure and different measurements of risk preference tendency, five experiments were conducted to demonstrate that a clear success increases consumer’ sense of power, which in turn raises their subsequent risk preference; a clear failure, however, decreases consumers’ sense of power, which in turn reduces their subsequent risk preference. Furthermore, a close result can moderate this effect; that is, the difference between narrow-winners and narrow-losers’ risk preferences is weakened.

This study further enriches the research on the impact of winning–losing perception on individuals’ behavior and provides suggestions on how to use the results of online and offline competitions to carry out marketing activities.

This study aims to investigate the effect of winning-losing perception, including the winning or losing result and the closeness of this result, on consumers’ subsequent variety-seeking behavior.

Four experimental designs, one with a modified version of the Tetris game, were used to show how and when winning or losing perceptions will influence individuals’ variety-seeking behavior.

Consumers who have failed in a competition or not achieved a goal tend to seek less variety in their later consumption than do consumers who have succeeded because losing feedback weakens consumers’ perception of their control of personal mastery. This effect only exists when the closeness of winning or losing is narrow (e.g. the success is just missed) and diminishes when the result is clear and obvious.

The current study has systematically explored the interaction between winning-losing outcomes and the closeness of these outcomes.

This study offers marketing managers practical guidance on how to use competition results to conduct marketing activities, such as transmitting advertisements for classic flavors to those who have lost in a video game or properly increasing the proportion of new flavors or products in stores or vending machines near sports venues.

This research adds to the literature on competition, which has largely overlooked the possible moderating role of the closeness of the competition result and its influence on individuals’ follow-up irrelevant behaviors and it also adds to the work on variety-seeking behavior, which has not explored the impact of winning-losing perception.

This study aims to examine how negotiators’ goal orientations may affect their negotiation strategy and consequently the negotiation outcomes.

Using cross-sectional data collected from a Fortune 500 Global firm based in France, this study empirically examines how goal orientations of negotiators may affect their value creation (win-win) and value-claiming (win-lose) negotiation behavior reflecting their desired outcome in a given sales negotiation. In so doing, this study proposes a conceptual model and tests a number of hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modeling.

This study shows that learning and performance goal orientations (PGO) are indeed related with two commonly used negotiation strategies: win-win (integrative) and win-lose strategies (distributive) strategies, respectively. The results indicate that while the learning orientation has a positive relationship with a win-win strategy and a negative relationship with a win-lose negotiation strategy, just the opposite is true with the PGO, which is positively related to win-lose strategy and negatively related to win-win strategy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research represents one of the first attempts to connect goal orientations with negotiations strategies to achieve desired negotiation outcome using data from salespeople with negotiation experience.

The purpose of this paper is to test the disposition effect at market level and propose an appropriate reference point for testing disposition at market level.

This is an empirical study conducted on 500 index stocks of NSE500 (National Stock Exchange). Winning and losing days for each stock are calculated using 52-week high and low prices as reference points. To test disposition effect, abnormal trading volumes of stocks are regressed on their percentage of winning (losing) days. Further using ANOVA, the difference between mean of percentage of winning (losing) days of high abnormal trading volume deciles and low abnormal trading volume deciles is tested.

Results show that a stock’s abnormal trading volume is positively influenced by the percentage of winning days whereas percentage of losing days show no such effect. Findings are consistent even after controlling for volatility and liquidity. ANOVA results show the presence of high percentage of winning days in higher deciles of abnormal trading volumes and no such pattern in case of losing days confirms the presence of disposition effect. Further an ex post analysis indicates that disposition prone investors accumulate losses.

This is the first study, which proposes the use of 52-week high and low prices as reference points to test the market-level disposition effect. Findings of this study enhance the limited literature available on disposition effect in emerging markets by providing evidence from Indian stock markets.

This paper argues that supply chain management sourcing strategies are unlikely to be implemented successfully by many organisations because of a lack of internal buy‐in and non‐conducive external power regime structures. Furthermore, the paper contends that many of those arguing the case for “win‐win” outcomes from buyer and supplier relationship management fail to properly define or conceptualise what the concept of mutuality means. The paper contends that mutuality and the search for value capture (profitability) are not fully commensurable in business relationships, but that, since “win‐win” is not an absolute but a variable concept, business relationships can be aligned even when unequal exchange and tension exists between buyers and suppliers. The paper also demonstrates that under some circumstances “win‐lose” can be a preferable outcome than “win‐win” for buyers and suppliers managing business relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of personality and negotiation and argues that the relationship between personality and negotiation is worth re‐examination and more research attention should be devoted to this area.

A cognitive model of personality and negotiation is constructed by integrating cognitive and social factors into the exploration of negotiation processes. The mediating roles of negotiator cognitions are discussed within this framework and relationships between personality and three negotiator cognitions: win–lose orientation, face‐saving and trusting are proposed.

This study provides an integrative model for studying the relationship between personality, negotiator cognition, negotiation behaviors and outcomes, and thus has impotent implications for future studies on negotiation.

The knowledge of the relationship between personality and negotiation will help organizations use personality assessment for better decisions about selection, promotion and training for improvement in negotiation skills.

This study attempts a complete exploration on the framework that integrates personality factors and negotiation behavior and outcomes, and provides potential directions for future studies on personality and negotiation.

The reasons and factors influencing business conversations are examined. The consequences of win/lose conversations, and how to develop win/win approaches are demonstrated and their advantages and disadvantages discussed.

Existing work on multi-level governance (MLG) has concentrated on decentring of the state (e.g., Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political Quarterly, 65(2), 138–141; Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. London: Open University Press; Rhodes, R. A. W. (2008). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisation Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264); growth of non-state actors in governing (e.g., Crouch, 2004; Jessop, B. (2004). Multi level governance and multi-level metagovernance-changes in the European Union as integral moments in the transformation and re-orientation of contemporary statehood. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press); classifying different types of governance (e.g., type 1 and type 2 MLG – see Hooghe & Marks, 2003; Ongaro, E., Massey, A., Holzer, M., & Wayenberg, E. (Eds.). (2010). Governance and intergovernmental relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). The purpose of the chapter is to complement these approaches by focusing on politics and political strategies in multi-level systems.

The chapter draws on an extensive literature in governance and political accountability and on political dynamics, management and strategies within multi-level state systems. Although in international context, particular accentuation is placed on the UK case.

There are three broad findings. First, while the growth of MLG and in particular supra state activities and institutions have undermined conventional conceptions of political accountability, more nuanced interpretations are provided; as are cases of successful popular challenge to a seemingly inevitable application of neo-liberal new public management driven approaches to public service provision, as witnessed in examples of public service de-privatisation and re-municipalisation. Second, as seen in the United Kingdom, political strategies in a multi-state system are presented in terms of zero sum or alternatively win-win scenarios. In Scotland, for example, though there have been difficulties for state wide parties in managing multi-level politics in the devolved arena, yet in that arena win-win strategies have been played out; and in Northern Ireland with a contextual backdrop of conflict, there is also evidence of win-win political actions. Third, some general findings are presented which outline a range of centrifugal and centripetal forces found in some European countries and how these affect the choice of political strategy.

This paper aims to show new ways of overcoming resistance during organizational change by applying insights from New Institutional Economics.

This is a conceptual paper that adapts findings from New Institutional Economics.

The paper highlights the relevance of interactions between managers and employees for value creation processes: interactions can generate either win–win or lose–lose situations. By altering the restrictions on managers’ and employees’ behavior, change managers can create mutual benefits for the staff and the firm. The paper thus explicitly considers the individual interests of employees and managers and highlights an approach to link individual interests with the collective interests of the firm by means of appropriate interactions. Additionally, the paper elaborates the relevant factors that determine the success of classical change management measures, like communication or participation, to overcome resistance during organizational change.

The developed framework also indicates important conditions where approaches inspired by management, psychological and sociological theories can be successfully applied and where change management will benefit from being complemented by New Institutional Economics.

Change managers can optimize inter-organizational competition or cooperation to generate a win–win situation by means of appropriate formal or informal restrictions (like incentives or binding mechanisms).

This paper applies insights from New Institutional Economics to show how organizational change can be facilitated by producing mutual benefits. This paper postulates that organizational change often fails or, at the very least, meets with stiff resistance due to dysfunctional interactions within the company. However, such interactions actually contain great opportunities for change managers: by shifting the focus of these interactions, they can generate the potential for win–win situations. In this approach, mutual benefits are a decisive factor in increasing the acceptance to organizational change and overcoming resistance.