IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v157y2020icp143-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Kern, Mary C.
  • Brett, Jeanne M.
  • Weingart, Laurie R.
  • Eck, Chase S.

Abstract

Mixed-motive negotiations are strategically, socially, and motivationally complex. Theorists argue that multiparty negotiations exacerbate these complexities leading to inefficient outcomes. In contrast, we propose that multiparty negotiators respond to the complexities of their negotiation context by using strategy differently than dyadic negotiators and that one reason why is that they arrive at the negotiation table with weaker fixed pie perceptions than dyadic negotiators. Results across three studies showed that multiparty negotiators had weaker fixed pie perceptions compared to dyadic negotiators. Multiparty negotiators also engaged in more integrative strategic behavior and used more complex complementary and structural sequences of behavior than dyadic negotiators. These differences in use of strategy helped multiparty negotiators achieve Pareto efficient outcomes equal to those of dyads. To obtain a conservative estimate of the effect size of context on fixed pie perceptions, we conducted an internal meta-analysis of our file drawer.

Suggested Citation

  • Kern, Mary C. & Brett, Jeanne M. & Weingart, Laurie R. & Eck, Chase S., 2020. "The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 143-158.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:157:y:2020:i:c:p:143-158
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597818305387
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinkley, Robin L. & Griffith, Terri L. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1995. ""Fixed Pie" a la Mode: Information Availability, Information Processing, and the Negotiation of Suboptimal Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 101-112, April.
    2. Staats, Bradley R. & Milkman, Katherine L. & Fox, Craig R., 2012. "The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 132-142.
    3. Gelfand, Michele J. & Christakopoulou, Sophia, 1999. "Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 248-269, September.
    4. Thompson, Leigh & DeHarpport, Terri, 1994. "Social Judgment, Feedback, and Interpersonal Learning in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 327-345, June.
    5. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    6. Mary C. Kern & Jeanne M. Brett & Laurie R. Weingart, 2005. "Getting the Floor: Motive-Consistent Strategy and Individual Outcomes in Multi-Party Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 21-41, January.
    7. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    8. Tripp, Thomas M. & Sondak, Harris, 1992. "An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sujin Lee, 2005. "Judgment of Ingroups and Outgroups in Intra- and Intercultural Negotiation: The Role of Interdependent Self-Construal in Judgment Timing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 43-62, January.
    2. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    3. Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Liu, Leigh Anne & Ma, Li, 2021. "Negotiation beliefs: Comparing Americans and the Chinese," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).
    4. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    5. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.
    6. Bereby-Meyer, Yoella & Moran, Simone & Unger-Aviram, Esther, 2004. "When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 142-154, March.
    7. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    8. Janice Nadler & Leigh Thompson & Leaf Van Boven, 2003. "Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 529-540, April.
    9. De Dreu, Carsten K. W., 2003. "Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 280-295, July.
    10. Junjun Cheng, 2020. "Bidirectional Relationship Progression in Buyer–Seller Negotiations: Evidence from South Korea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 293-320, April.
    11. Michael Filzmoser & Patrick Hippmann & Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1169-1188, November.
    12. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Matthew V. Champagne, 2000. "The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 471-491, November.
    13. Allred, Keith G. & Mallozzi, John S. & Matsui, Fusako & Raia, Christopher P., 1997. "The Influence of Anger and Compassion on Negotiation Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 175-187, June.
    14. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    15. Kihwan Kim & Nicole L. Cundiff & Suk Bong Choi, 2015. "Emotional Intelligence and Negotiation Outcomes: Mediating Effects of Rapport, Negotiation Strategy, and Judgment Accuracy," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 477-493, May.
    16. Caputo, Andrea & Ayoko, Oluremi B. & Amoo, Nii & Menke, Charlott, 2019. "The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 23-36.
    17. Donghee Han & Hyewon Park & Seung-Yoon Rhee, 2021. "The Role of Regulatory Focus and Emotion Recognition Bias in Cross-Cultural Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Vairam Arunachalam & William Dilla & Marjorie Shelley & Chris Chan, 1998. "Market Alternatives, Third Party Intervention, and Third Party Informedness in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 81-107, March.
    19. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Preston, Jared N. & Neale, Margaret A. & Kim, Peter H. & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C., 1998. "Non-linear Preference Functions and Negotiated Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 54-75, January.
    20. Swaab, Roderick I. & Lount, Robert B. & Chung, Seunghoo & Brett, Jeanne M., 2021. "Setting the stage for negotiations: How superordinate goal dialogues promote trust and joint gain in negotiations between teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 157-169.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:157:y:2020:i:c:p:143-158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.