Goals and negotiation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Goal setting in distributive and integrative negotiations: a meta-analysis
2019
Goal setting has been shown to be a strong predictor of attaining a negotiation outcome. However, neither the type of negotiation nor the outcome level, dyadic versus individual outcomes, has been systematically analyzed. Using multilevel meta-analysis, we investigate the effects of a) goal difficulty, b) goal specificity and c) scenario integrativeness on negotiation outcomes. We find that for individual outcomes, regardless of the negotiation setting, there is support for the effect of goal difficulty, but we do not find an effect of goal specificity in any setting. For integrative negotiations, we find an effect for the integrativeness of the scenario on joint outcomes: If the negotiation is rather integrative, more of the integrative potential is realized. Additional moderators such as goal symmetry are examined, and recommendations for more research on integrativeness and its impact in negotiations are made.
Marquette Law Review, 2004
In most negotiation courses, students are taught to consider their alternatives to reaching a negotiated agreement, identify their "BATNA," and determine their "bottom line." Yet, many courses fail to provide equal attention to the related but distinct notion of aspirations, that is, negotiator goals that exceed the bottom line. The topic of aspirations is, no doubt, addressed indirectly in negotiation courses that stress the importance of understanding interests and setting priorities, but the critical link between these concepts and setting specific goals is often missing. This brief essay attempts to rectify this omission by discussing the importance of aspirations in bargaining, how negotiators should determine their aspirations, and why negotiators often fail to follow this approach. First, this essay discusses why aspirations should be set and should be optimistic. Studies show that negotiators with higher goals accomplish more. This is based on a number of...
When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2004
The current study deals with the ability of teams to learn and transfer complex knowledge across situations and therefore achieve better long term performance. In an experiment on integrative (value-creating) negotiations, High Learning Teams (with learning goals, high learning values, and team discussions) and Low Learning Teams (with performance goals, low learning values, and no team discussions) participated first in a repeated integrative negotiation task and then in a new more complex one. In the first task both types of teams improved their performance over time. However, in the second transfer task, when conditions changed, High Learning Teams performed better than Low Learning Teams. Findings indicate that the High Learning TeamsÕ advantage cannot be attributed to the discussion alone. Furthermore, for the Low Learning Teams, negative transfer was observed: when faced with a new component, not experienced before, these teams performed worse than teams that had no experience at all.
Annual Review of Psychology, 2010
Negotiation occurs whenever people cannot achieve their own goals without the cooperation of others. Our review highlights recent empirical research that investigates this ubiquitous social activity. We selectively review descriptive research emerging from social psychology and organizational behavior. This research examines negotiation behavior and outcomes at five levels of analysis: intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, organizational, and virtual. At each level, we review research on negotiation processes and outcomes, and we discuss the implications of various processes and outcomes for the two functions of negotiation: value creation (integrative negotiation) and value claiming (distributive negotiation). 491 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010.61:491-515. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Pennsylvania on 07/31/10. For personal use only.
Experience in integrative negotiations: What needs to be learned
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2007
In this research we focus on the roles of experience and understanding in fostering integrative negotiation performance. We report on two experiments in which we distinguish between understanding opponents' general priorities among issues versus understanding their spe-ciWc gains for particular oVers. Although experience enhanced integrative performance even in the absence of understanding, we found that understanding the speciWc gains had an incremental eVect on performance. We conclude that while generally acknowledging opponents' interests is not suYcient, the additional inferential step of assessing their speciWc gains throughout the negotiation process is advantageous.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2010
In this study, we examine the effects of achievement motivational goals (Learning vs. Performance) and of debriefing on the ability of trainees to acquire integrative (i.e., value-creating) negotiation skills and to effectively transfer these skills across situations. Participants in four between-subject conditions: 2 motivational goal conditions (learning/performance goals) × 2 debriefing conditions (with/without debriefing) first gained experience by engaging in repeated negotiations within an unchanging market simulation, and then proceeded to negotiate a more complex integrative negotiation task. A fifth control condition in which participants performed the second task only was also included. Experience accompanied by subsequent debriefing was found to be more effective for learning than experience without debriefing; it enhanced both integrative performance in the transfer task as well as conceptual understanding. Contrary to our expectations, participants who were assigned learning goals did not show an advantage over participants who were assigned performance goals.
Getting to Best: Efficiency versus Optimality in Negotiation
Cognitive Science, 2000
Negotiation between two individuals is a common task that typically involves two goals: maximize individual outcomes and obtain an agreement. However, research on the simplest negotiation tasks demonstrates that although naive subjects can be induced to improve their performance, they are often no more likely to achieve fully optimal solutions. The present study tested the prediction that a decrease in a particular type of argumentative behavior, substantiation, would result in an increase in optimal agreements. As substantiation behaviors depend primarily on supplied content of the negotiation task, it was also predicted that substantiation behavior would be reduced by curtailing the content. A 2 ϫ 2 experimental design was employed, where both negotiation tactics (list of tactics present versus absent) and negotiation task content (high versus low) were varied to determine the processes leading beyond solution improvement to solution optimality. Sixty-one dyads engaged in a two-party, four-issue negotiation task. All negotiations were videotaped and analyzed. Although the list of negotiation tactics resulted in improved performance, only the content manipulation resulted in a significant increase in dyads achieving optimal solutions. Analyses of the coded protocols indicated that the key difference in achieving optimality was a reduction in persistent substantiation-related operators (substantiation, along with single-issue preferences and procedures) and an increase in a complex macro-operator, multi-issue offers that reduced the problem space, facilitating the search for optimality.
You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Strategic Issues in Negotiation
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012
Negotiation is a process based on strategic choices. Each participant must fix carefully its objectives and decide what are the most appropriate ways and means in order to attain those. While in practice negotiation is always a mix of cooperation and competition, these two elements correspond to different approaches of the relationship and also different and quite incompatible orientations in term of strategy. The techniques, tactics and arguments employed by the negotiators in both cases will have different related effects and in the end will produce different and initially undefined outcomes. The choice of a strategy can be influenced by many factors, from the negotiator's power to the level of trust, the stakes or the concern for the other party's outcome. Drawing on concepts from several disciplines, our intention in this paper is to clarify, in a specific negotiation, the aspects and elements of the relationship between the determinants of a strategic choice and its effects on the capacity to reach an agreement which fulfil the participants' expectations and objectives. This should allow uncovering new hypotheses for experimental research.
What Triggers A Negotiation – An Economic Or A Social Goal?
Ecoforum, 2017
Negotiation is a resource that, used correctly, can make the difference between success and failure and, at the same time, it is present in all activity fields, from economic to social or environmental. Therefore, the importance of the understanding of the negotiation process is paramount for all those interested in improving their own negotiation skills or in training others to do so. The present paper is focused on the beginning of the negotiation process: the objectives of the research were to assess the level of the propensity to negotiate and of the perceived right to negotiate and to observe if they are stimulated by the nature of negotiation goal – economic and self-advocacy, on one hand, and social and other-advocacy, on the other hand. Results indicated high levels for propensity to negotiate and right to negotiate in the social goal case and low levels for the economic goal. The nature of the objective influenced both the propensity to negotiate and the perceived right t...