Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiations: The Role of Values and Institutions

Wade‐Benzoni, Kimberly A.; Hoffman, Andrew J.; Thompson, Leigh; Gillespie, James; Bazerman, Max H.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2944066

Cited by 67 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If, for example, one refuses to negotiate things such as air quality and yet, negotiating such trades is the only possibility for reaching a solution, then an impasse is inevitable. Behavioral negotiation theories-which focus on agreements over scarce resources with clearly defined and objective values, as well as competing issues and/or situations in which the basic nature of the dispute is understood (Thompson & Gonzalez, 1997)-are not particularly useful for examining negotiations which do not fit these criteria, such as those that are rooted in differences in ideological beliefs (Wade-Benzoni et al, 2002).…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These hypotheses were tested using an environmental negotiation context. Past research has documented that sacred values are seen as an inherent component of environmental negotiations (Thompson & Gonzalez, 1997;Wade-Benzoni et al, 2002). Environmental negotiations are difficult, involving both limited resources and individuals' core ideological beliefs.…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theorists have identified sacred issues, which are issues for which worth or utility is based on sacred values, as a central barrier to optimizing outcomes in ideologically based negotiations and have recognized the need for empirical work in this area (Wade-Benzoni et al, 2002). In this article, we investigate the impact that sacred values and issues have in a negotiation context, including the effect on negotiation outcomes and perceptions of one's opponent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Reality and Myth of Sacred Issues in Negotiations

Tenbrunsel

Wade‐Benzoni

Tost

et al. 2009

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the role of sacred issues in a dyadic negotiation set in an environmental context. As predicted, a focus on sacred issues negatively impacts the negotiation, producing more impasses, lower joint outcomes, and more negative perceptions of one’s opponent; however, this is only true when both parties perceive that they have a strong alternative to a negotiated agreement. When negotiation parties perceive that they have weak alternatives, sacred issues did not have any effect on negotiation outcomes or opponent perceptions. These results suggest that the negative effects of sacred issues are driven in part by whether negotiators have recourse; in other words, exercising one’s principles and values may depend on whether people can afford to do so. We conclude by suggesting that the impact of certain sacred issues may be contextually dependent and that the term “pseudo‐sacred” may actually be a more accurate label for certain contexts.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Reality and Myth of Sacred Issues in Negotiations

Tenbrunsel

Wade‐Benzoni

Tost

et al. 2009

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, individual differences will lead to different environmental management styles. One important influence may be an individual's own personal values or beliefs (Wade-Benzoni et al 2002;Bansal2003). Others may be the values or beliefs of others, whether peers or superiors, whose support is needed for action on environmental issues.…”

Section: Variation In Environmental Manugemmat Stylementioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Shades of Green: Why Do Companies Act Differently on Similar Environmental Issues?

Howard‐Grenville

2005

Law & Social Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulations governing corporate environmental practice have undoubtedly become more stringent over the past several decades, and companies' environmental performance records have, on balance, improved markedly as well. But substantial variation remains in how companies act on issues of environmental protection. Within any industry, leading companies gamer praise from regulators for voluntary initiatives and creative approaches, while laggards gamer penalties for failure to comply with permits. Even within a single firm, different facilities perform differently, and within a single facility, some environmental actions may be exemplary while others are remedial (Prakash 2000; Howard-Grenville 2000). Yet scholarship on corporate environmental management has largely ignored these facts. Concerned with advancing arguments for how corporations ought to act on environmental issues (Roome 1992; Gladwin, Kennelly, and Krauss 1995; Shrivastava 1995),' much early work failed to adequately account for how they do act. Shades of Green is one of the rare books grounded in the messy facts of corporate environmental practice. Not all companies are capable of being environmental leaders, nor do they aspire to be. Not all corporate environmental Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Boston University School of Management. 1 thank Andy Hoffman for helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay. 1. These works argue for the paradigmatic shift of corporate management toward more "ecocentric" thinking and action, while others (e.g., Porter and van der Linde 1995) make the same argument from the perspective of competitive corporate strategy.

show abstract

“…They require a shift in actors' self-perception from "self as independent" to "self as part" of a larger whole (Bigelow 1992). This is vividly illustrated by negotiation over such environmental issues as global climate change and how to address it, which fail to reach settlements after many negotiations (Wade-Benzoni et al 2002).…”

Section: What We Can Learn From Negotiation Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Umbrella Agreements

Mouzas

2006

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experienced negotiators know that it is often impossible to define all terms of a complex agreement. By negotiating umbrella agreements, the negotiating parties try to balance the need for certainty and calculability of give‐and‐take processes with the need to remain sufficiently flexible to embrace new or emerging business opportunities. Umbrella agreements describe a joint consent that explicitly articulates a framework of rules and principles that guides future agreements. It is argued that negotiators are better able to maximize their joint gains if they differentiate between agreements and the framework in which agreements are made.

show abstract

Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiations: The Role of Values and Institutions

Cited by 67 publications

References 39 publications

The Reality and Myth of Sacred Issues in Negotiations

The Reality and Myth of Sacred Issues in Negotiations

Explaining Shades of Green: Why Do Companies Act Differently on Similar Environmental Issues?

Negotiating Umbrella Agreements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About