Suchergebnisse

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine two opposing approaches to the effects of power on negotiation: a "collaborative approach" of power and a "competitive approach" of power. Accordingly, the authors state oppositional hypotheses based on each approach. This study further investigates the mediating role of the perceived threat of the negotiation and the moderating role of negotiation topic (i.e. topics that touch on one's power position versus topics that are related to the tasks one needs to perform) in this relationship. Finally, the authors state a moderated mediation hypothesis where they expected that the negotiation topic would moderate the indirect effect of power on negotiation strategies.


Design/methodology/approach
A vignette study (N = 279) and a negotiation game (N = 138) were conducted where the power within dyads was manipulated.


Findings
Study 1 showed that powerholders prefer collaborative strategies, whereas powerless negotiators prefer competitive strategies. Perceived threat of the negotiation mediated this effect. Furthermore, both Studies 1 and 2 showed that the negotiation topic moderates the effect of power on negotiation strategies providing further support for the collaborative approach of power. Finally, Study 1 provided partial support for the moderated mediation hypothesis.


Research limitations/implications
Both Studies 1 and 2 are experimental studies. A field study should try to replicate these results in the future.


Practical implications
This study illuminates the effects of power on negotiation and addresses inconsistent findings in the negotiation literature. The results might be of great importance to large organizations where power asymmetries constitute an integral part of the employee/manager interactions.


Originality/value
To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to show the moderating role of negotiation topic in the relationship between power and negotiation.

AbstractWhile organizations strive for ethical conduct, the activity of negotiating offers strong temptations to employ unethical tactics and secure benefits for one's own party. In four experiments, we examined the role of constituency communication in terms of their attitudes towards (un)ethical and competitive conduct on negotiators' willingness and actual use of unethical tactics. We find that the mere presence of a constituency already increased representatives' willingness to engage in unethical behavior (Experiment 1). More specifically, a constituency communicating liberal (vs. strict) attitudes toward unethical conduct helps negotiators to justify transgressions and morally disengage from their behavior, resulting in an increased use of unethical negotiation tactics (Experiment 2–3). Moreover, constituents' endorsement of competitive strategies sufficed to increase moral disengagement and unethical behavior of representative negotiators in a similar fashion (Experiment 4ab). Our results caution organizational practice against advocating explicit unethical and even competitive tactics by constituents: it eases negotiators' moral dilemma towards unethical conduct.

Relatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this conflict management style composition may be pivotal given the strong task focus rather than establishing norms to guide or manage conflict. Therefore, we examined whether conflict style asymmetry within short-term project groups affects the link between intragroup conflict and the performance of groups. Data were collected among short-term project groups and the results suggest that asymmetry in both forcing and the problem-solving conflict management styles moderates the negative effect of task, relationship, and process conflicts on the performance of groups. We offer a discussion of the implications of these findings.

It is a common belief that high offers are more readily accepted than low offers. In contrast to this general notion, the current set of studies shows that there is a limit to the beneficial effects of making high offers and that becoming too generous may backfire. This paradoxical finding is observed when offers are made in an ambiguous situation of asymmetric information. In three studies, we found that when bargaining opponents had private information over the total amount that was to be distributed, participants became suspicious about high offers (i.e., offers that were beneficial to themselves), but not about low or equal offers. Due to suspicion, participants rejected high offers more often than equal offers.

This experiment ( N = 68 dyads) tested the influence of experience and advice on behavior and joint outcomes in integrative two-party negotiations. Dyads in an advice condition received short tactical advice to question fixed-pie assumptions and to exchange information. Afterward, they negotiated once. Dyads in an experience condition negotiated twice in successive rounds. Finally, dyads in an experience-and-advice condition negotiated twice and received advice prior to the second negotiation. Dependent measures were negotiation behavior, negotiation duration, joint outcome, and judgmental accuracy. Results showed that the combination of advice and experience led dyads to apply more problem solving and fewer contentious strategies, which mediated the higher joint outcomes that these dyads reached in shorter times. Experience or advice alone was not sufficient to make negotiators use different strategies or to exploit the integrative potential of the negotiations better than they did before they received advice and/or gained experience.

This experiment (N = 68 dyads) tested the influence of experience and advice on behavior and joint outcomes in integrative two-party negotiations. Dyads in an advice condition received short tactical advice to question fixed-pie assumptions and to exchange information. Afterward, they negotiated once. Dyads in an experience condition negotiated twice in successive rounds. Finally, dyads in an experience-and-advice condition negotiated twice and received advice prior to the second negotiation. Dependent measures were negotiation behavior, negotiation duration, joint outcome, and judgmental accuracy. Results showed that the combination of advice and experience led dyads to apply more problem solving and fewer contentious strategies, which mediated the higher joint outcomes that these dyads reached in shorter times. Experience or advice alone was not sufficient to make negotiators use different strategies or to exploit the integrative potential of the negotiations better than they did before they received advice and/or gained experience.

This study explores the role of intragroup dynamics in intergroup conflict. In a computer-mediated negotiation experiment (N = 107), we investigated how a group representative's standing in the group, group norm, and the representative's need to belong influence behavior in intergroup negotiations. We hypothesized that the extent to which peripheral representatives adhere to group norms is contingent on their need to belong, whereas prototypical representatives behave in norm-congruent ways regardless of their need to belong. In support of this idea, results showed that prototypicals behaved more cooperatively when the group norm prescribed cooperation rather than competition. By contrast, peripherals only adhered to the group norm when they had a high need to belong. These findings suggest that peripherals only represent the interests of their group when doing so furthers their self-interest. We discuss implications for theorizing about prototypicality, social exclusion, and conformity to group norms.