More than a Phase: Form and Features of a General Theory of Negotiation

Jang, Daisung; Elfenbein, Hillary Anger; Bottom, William P.

doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0053

Cited by 55 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with recent work by Jang et al. (), who found that disputes over execution lead back to a renewed phase of negotiation between the parties, producing what they call a “dispute loop.” Clearly, many of our study participants do indeed deal with fluid agreements.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This suggests that while many negotiators view negotiation from a fixed mindset, the reality they face is often more fluid, suggesting a need for the development of science concerning effective mechanisms for managing change requests. This is consistent with recent work by Jang et al (2018), who found that disputes over execution lead back to a renewed phase of negotiation between the parties, producing what they call a "dispute loop." Clearly, many of our study participants do indeed deal with fluid agreements.…”

Section: Qualitative Reports On Experience With Contract Changessupporting

confidence: 91%

“…This intense focus on deals-as-endpoint both reflects and complements the most common methodological approaches to the study of negotiation-laboratory experiments with subjects engaging in simulated negotiations (Jang et al, 2018). With the exception of those few studies that directly focus on the phenomenon of friends negotiating with each other (Sondak, Neale, & Pinkley, 2000), the negotiating parties in these simulated processes neither meet before the start of the negotiation nor see each other after the deal is done.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implicit Theories of Negotiation: Developing a Measure of Agreement Fluidity

Friedman

Pinkley

Bottom³

et al. 2019

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiation scholars generally model agreement as the terminal “endpoint” of the process. From this perspective, parties instantaneously realize their outcomes when agreement is reached. Although this conception may also reflect the understanding of some negotiators (those with what we call a “fixed agreement” mindset), we argue that others actually envision agreement as one step in an ongoing process (what we call a “fluid agreement” mindset). To spur research on this topic, we report initial progress on development of a new measure of agreement fluidity. Basic psychometric properties for this measure were established using six correlational samples that demonstrate aspects of both discriminant and convergent validity. Fixed agreement mindset appears to predict important behaviors during and after the negotiation process.

show abstract

Section: Summary and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Qualitative Reports On Experience With Contract Changessupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implicit Theories of Negotiation: Developing a Measure of Agreement Fluidity

Friedman

Pinkley

Bottom³

et al. 2019

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The post-negotiation phase-when the terms of a deal are implemented-is critical, as this is when negotiators evaluate the success of their negotiation strategy (Jang, Elfenbein, & Bottom, 2018). The negotiated agreement represents obligations that each party will implement at some point in the future.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivated by guilt and low felt trust: The impact of negotiators' anger expressions on the implementation of negotiated agreements

Campagna

Mislin

Bottom

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research has identified benefits from certain emotion tactics in negotiation, particularly expressing anger to achieve short‐term gains. We demonstrate that such tactics can be strategically problematic due to their impact on an actor's emotions and felt trust. Through five studies, we find that negotiators' use of anger tactics during a negotiation increased their feelings of guilt and reduced the extent to which they felt trusted by their counterpart following the negotiation. We found this guilt to be the result of their aggressive tone and how they treated their counterpart. The guilt and diminished felt trust in turn motivated negotiators to engage in greater cooperative behaviors during the deal implementation process that benefited their counterpart, even if doing so was costly to the negotiator. Our results demonstrate that negotiator guilt and felt trust resulting from anger tactics influence the dynamic relationship between negotiators and their counterparts. This in turn has strategic implications for negotiators, who attempt to mitigate these negative feelings during the crucial implementation phase of a negotiated agreement.

show abstract

“…When there is a noticeable growth of business negotiations that involve more than two parties it becomes increasingly more difficult to reach a satisfactory agreement between numerous stakeholders (Klenk et al 2012;Sarabando et al 2013;Zhou et al 2014;Sagi & Diermeier 2017;Caputo, 2019;Lee et al 2019). This type of negotiation occurs during the establishment of strategic partnerships, while undertaking joint ventures, forming strategic alliances, performing mergers and acquisitions, creating networks and virtual organizations, maintaining industrial relations and within other complex transactions that comprise numerous issues and parties, as well as those involving considerable risk (Greenhalgh 2001;Inkpen & Ross 2001;Franco 2008;Crump 2015;Jang et al 2018). The most important factors that enhance the prominence of multiparty negotiation are technological development and a substantial broadening of knowledge in many domains of activities, as well as changes in management systems within contemporary organizations (mainly decentralization of decisionmaking) and the social manner of human nature (Heiskanen 1999;Kamiński 2003;Lee & Kwon 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiparty Negotiation: Conceptual Approach of Method Selection

2020

JSMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globalization, technological progress and transformation processes ranging from information to knowledge society affect not only organizations' structural management changes and behavioural patterns but also play an important part of business areas such as multiparty negotiations. Scientists and business practitioners underline that multiparty negotiation is one of the most dynamic and critical elements in a business exchange which leads to business leadership and is a research area that has need of further conceptual and empirical development. This study aims to develop an original conceptual framework of selecting methods for solving the crucial research problem of multiparty negotiations in order to facilitate the negotiation process and succeed. To reach the aim of the study a scientific literature review and G. Nadler's ideal system concept were applied as a basis for developing a multiparty negotiation conceptual framework of method selection.

show abstract

More than a Phase: Form and Features of a General Theory of Negotiation

Cited by 55 publications

References 113 publications

Implicit Theories of Negotiation: Developing a Measure of Agreement Fluidity

Implicit Theories of Negotiation: Developing a Measure of Agreement Fluidity

Motivated by guilt and low felt trust: The impact of negotiators' anger expressions on the implementation of negotiated agreements

Multiparty Negotiation: Conceptual Approach of Method Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About