Search results

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 the study is to empirically investigate the similarities and differences between dyads and four‐party groups in an integrative negotiation.

Data are collected in a between subjects experiment. A total of 182 participants completed a negotiation role play and questionnaire. Hypotheses are tested using t‐tests, MANOVAs and two multiple regression analyses.

Results demonstrate that dyads do outperform groups on both the economic and subjective measures of outcomes. Sharing of priority information and the fixed pie bias was higher in groups than in dyads. For dyads the procedure used (considering more than one issue at a time) led to higher economic outcomes, and both procedure and problem solving were important for subjective outcomes. For four‐party negotiations, problem solving was significantly related to higher outcomes, on both economic and subjective outcomes, and procedure was moderately related to economic outcomes. Problem solving was significantly more important for the groups than for dyads on economic outcomes.

The controlled experimental setting could limit the generalizabiltiy of the findings. Measures of the intermediate variables could be improved by including additional items and observations. Future research is required in field settings using multiple measures of the process.

In multiparty negotiation information sharing and the presence of cognitive biases may not be as important as focusing on a problem solving approach.

An empirical investigation that groups under‐perform dyads in an integrative negotiation has not been conducted before.

This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on interpersonal trust, negotiation behavior, amount of impasses, and joint outcomes in three‐person negotiations. Students participated in a joint venture negotiation, in which motivational orientation was manipulated by allocating individual incentives (egoistic motive) vs. team incentives (prosocial motive). Results indicated that prosocially motivated negotiators achieved more integrative agreements and fewer impasses, and reported higher trust, more problem solving, and less contending behavior than egoistically motivated negotiators. Hierarchical regression suggested that the finding that prosocial groups achieved higher joint outcomes can be explained by higher levels of trust, more problem solving behavior, and less contending behavior in prosocial groups.

Two studies were conducted examining the effects of power, distribution norms, and the scope of future interaction on small group negotiation. Subjects participated in a three‐person negotiation exercise in which they had to reach agreements between two or three players to receive resources. In study one the effects of power position (high, medium, low), dominant distribution norm (contribution, need), and the expectation of future interaction (expected, not expected) on the distribution of resources were examined. Power interacted with both dominant distribution norm and the expectation of future interaction. The ability of high power, less needy players to achieve resources was reduced under a dominant need‐based distribution norm, and when future interaction was expected. In addition, groups expecting future interaction were more likely to form exclusive coalitions than those not anticipating future interaction. In study two the effects of power position (high, medium, low), type of need (pure‐need need + future potential), and the scope of future interaction (full group, coalition‐only) on the distribution of resources were examined. Power interacted with both the type of need and the scope of future interaction. Low power, more needy players achieved greater resources when need was linked to future potential and when future interaction with the entire group was anticipated. In addition, groups anticipating future interaction with only those included in the final agreement were more likely to form exclusive coalitions than those anticipating future interaction with all group members.

This paper aims to explore cross-cultural differences in perceived ethicality of negotiation strategies among China, Taiwan and Canada by examining five categories of strategies often used in business negotiations.

This paper uses a survey method to investigate a group of over 600 business students’ opinions on the ethicality of a variety of negotiation strategies often used during the bargaining process.

The results show that the Chinese both from the mainland and from Taiwan consider it more appropriate to use ethically questionable negotiation strategies than Canadians. In addition, significant gender differences are found for Canadians, in that male Canadians are more likely to consider it appropriate to use ethically questionable strategies in all five categories than females, while no gender differences are found for mainland Chinese in all but one category, with a moderate level of gender differences found for the Taiwanese.

The findings of this paper help explain why there are different understandings toward what is ethical and what is not in negotiations, which can be used to better equip practitioners to accurately label and understand negotiation strategies they may otherwise deem unethical. A better understanding of cross-cultural differences in business ethics can also help practitioners avoid the feelings of anger and mistrust toward their opponents and thus avoid using tactics that might incite more anger and hatred from the other party.

This paper contributes to the cross-cultural literature on ethical attitudes and behaviors and helps us better understand cross-cultural differences in business ethics in a negotiation context. This paper narrows this gap by empirically validating some of the Western findings in China and Taiwan. The results also provide support for a set of commonly accepted strategies to be used in business negotiation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of ethical climate on the use of deception during negotiation for both individuals and groups. It aims to focus on the use of “ethical climate” as a shared task representation at the group level.

Participants were 458 undergraduate students who earned course credit. Participants engaged in a simulated negotiation task about the selling/purchase of a new car, via an instant messenger program. Those assigned to the “seller” role either negotiated individually or as a three‐person group, and received one of three ethical climate manipulations (honesty, competitive, or control). The main dependent variable was whether the seller(s) disclosed information about a possible defect.

As predicted, groups were less honest than individuals. Participants in the honesty condition were most likely to be honest while those in the competitive condition were the least likely to be honest, although this difference was not statistically significant. Finally, there was a significant interaction effect between size of negotiating party and ethical climate indicating that groups' “default” response was to lie, but they lied significantly less often in the “honesty” condition. Alternatively, individuals' default response was to be honest.

Decision‐making groups have a tendency to compete even if it means being dishonest. However, organizations can help to overcome this tendency by establishing an ethical climate.

While there have been studies published on the effects of ethical climate on decision making at the individual level, there is a gap in the literature on these effects at the group level. Decisions are made at the group level too often to not pay attention to these differences.

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.

Subjects participated in a three‐person negotiation exercise, in which they had to form two‐ or three‐way coalitions to receive resources. The effects of power position (high, medium, low), distribution norms (contribution, need), and task meeting structure (caucus, joint) on the distribution of resources were examined. Most coalition theories assume that the power position of the players calls into play different levels of entitlement which will determine the allocation of resources. There has, however, been little attempt to manipulate entitlement, in the form of distribution norms, separately from power structure. In the research reported here, three‐person groups contained a high, medium, and low power player. The dominant group distribution norm was manipulated as either contribution‐based or need‐based. Task meeting structure was manipulated by beginning each group meeting with either a three‐way meeting between all players (joint) or a series of one‐on‐one meetings (caucus). As predicted, groups that began by caucusing had a higher incidence of two‐way agreements than groups that began with joint meetings. The task meeting structure interacted with power position such that caucusing increased the high power player's outcome, while the joint meeting structure increased the low power player's outcome. In addition, the distribution norm interacted with power position such that the contribution‐based norm increased the outcomes of high power players, while the need‐based norm increased the outcomes of the low power players.

Examines the history of the Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR) 1969‐74 ‐ its origins, organization and policies ‐ and then evaluates its contribution as an agent of reform in the context of the perceived problems of the 1960s and 1970s. Considers whether there are any lessons to be learnt for the future given the possibility of a Labour Government, developments in Europe and the 1995 TUC policy document Your Voice at Work. Despite the drastic changes in industrial relations and in the economic, political and social environment, the answer is in the affirmative. In particular, the importance of a new third‐party agency having an independent governing body like the CIR and not a representative body like the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS); in its workflow not being controlled by government; and in its decisions on recognition being legally enforceable.

The purpose of this article is to outline ways in which the large body of empirical work on creativity can meaningfully inform negotiation. In doing so, two general streams of creativity research and their implications for negotiation theory and empirical analysis are considered. Negotiation pundits advise that negotiators should engage in creative problem-solving to craft integrative agreements, and it is widely believed by both negotiation theorists and practitioners that “out-of-the-box” thinking and creative idea generation are necessary for win–win negotiation. Although practitioners have strongly encouraged parties to engage in creative problem-solving, there are remarkably few empirical investigations of creative thinking, brainstorming and other idea-generation methods in negotiation.

First, creativity as a trait is considered and the relationship between individual differences in creativity and negotiation performance is examined. Then, creative thinking as a causal factor is examined and how it may influence the negotiation process and outcomes is suggested. Finally, three considerations for further integrating creativity and negotiation research are suggested: communication media, idea-generation strategies and morality and social motivation.

A literature review revealed four studies that have empirically tested the influence of trait creativity on negotiation performance. Even less research has manipulated creative thinking or training to analyze creativity as a causal factor of negotiation outcomes.

This research will benefit both creativity and negotiation scholars by suggesting the limited amount of work at their intersection yet the opportunities that exist for further research.