IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v21y2012i3d10.1007_s10726-009-9187-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen E. Weiss

    (Schulich School of Business, York University)

Abstract

This article analyzes the performance of 1,060 individuals in dyadic, mixed-agenda negotiations in order to further understanding of individual negotiators’ effectiveness and test the applicability of common negotiation advice. To evaluate performance, both established and new measures were employed. In general, individuals were not effective, although there was wide variation that included highly effective negotiators. In striking contrast to previous research, high-performing individuals’ achievements were not significantly related to maximum joint value creation or to maximum logrolling. Most of the variation in benchmarked (best-practices) effectiveness and in partner-compared effectiveness was explained by individuals’ decisions on three types of agenda items: pure conflict, reverse priorities, and no-conflict. Each had a significant effect (with one exception), but decisions on pure conflict influenced individual effectiveness much more than decisions on either of the other two. Additional results include the extent to which negotiators tended to compromise, logroll, agree on common values, and modify their decisions across items within an item type. Among other implications, these findings argue for richer, more nuanced treatment of individual effectiveness and for advice that is attentive to the structural features of particular negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-009-9187-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-009-9187-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-009-9187-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-009-9187-5?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. Naquin, Charles E., 2003. "The agony of opportunity in negotiation: Number of negotiable issues, counterfactual thinking, and feelings of satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 97-107, May.
    2. Pinkley, Robin L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Bennett, Rebecca J., 1994. "The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 97-116, January.
    3. Michael Filzmoser & Rudolf Vetschera, 2008. "A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 421-443, September.
    4. Sebenius, James K., 1983. "Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 281-316, April.
    5. Bikker, Annemieke P. & Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2006. "Predicting and comparing patient satisfaction in four different modes of health care across a nation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1671-1683, September.
    6. Arie Y. Lewin & John W. Minton, 1986. "Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 514-538, May.
    7. Rudolf Vetschera, 2006. "Preference Structures of Negotiators and Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 111-125, March.
    8. Jeffrey Teich & Pekka Korhonen & Hannele Wallenius & Jyrki Wallenius, 2000. "Conducting Dyadic Multiple Issue Negotiation Experiments: Methodological Recommendations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 347-354, July.
    9. Rebecca J. Wolfe & Kathleen L. Mcginn, 2005. "Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 3-20, January.
    10. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    11. John L. Graham & Alma T. Mintu & Waymond Rodgers, 1994. "Explorations of Negotiation Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures Using a Model Developed in the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 72-95, January.
    12. Graham, John L, 1988. "Buyer-Seller Negotiations around the Pacific Rim: Differences in Fundamental Exchange Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(1), pages 48-54, June.
    13. Dana R. Clyman & Thomas M. Tripp, 2000. "Discrepant Values and Measures of Negotiator Performance," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 251-274, July.
    14. May Tajima & Niall M. Fraser, 2001. "Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 217-235, May.
    15. Paul F. Diehl, 1992. "What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 29(3), pages 333-344, August.
    16. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dinkevych, Elena & Wilken, Robert & Aykac, Tayfun & Jacob, Frank & Prime, Nathalie, 2017. "Can outnumbered negotiators succeed? The case of intercultural business negotiations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 592-603.
    2. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.
    4. Wilken, Robert & Jacob, Frank & Prime, Nathalie, 2013. "The ambiguous role of cultural moderators in intercultural business negotiations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 736-753.

    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. Michael Filzmoser & Rudolf Vetschera, 2008. "A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 421-443, September.
    2. Schaerer, Michael & Loschelder, David D. & Swaab, Roderick I., 2016. "Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 156-171.
    3. Khavul, Susanna & Pérez-Nordtvedt, Liliana & Wood, Eric, 2010. "Organizational entrainment and international new ventures from emerging markets," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 104-119, January.
    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. Julie Smith David & Yuhchang Hwang & Buck K. W. Pei & J. Hal Reneau, 2002. "The Performance Effects of Congruence Between Product Competitive Strategies and Purchasing Management Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 866-885, July.
    6. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Gordon H. Lewis & Ashok Srinivasan & Eswaran Subrahmanian, 1998. "Staffing and Allocation of Workers in an Administrative Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 548-570, April.
    9. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    10. Brugha, Cathal M., 1998. "The structure of adjustment decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 63-76, January.
    11. Balaguer-Coll, Maria Teresa & Prior, Diego & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2007. "On the determinants of local government performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 425-451, February.
    12. W. Alexander & Alfred Haug & Mohammad Jaforullah, 2010. "A two-stage double-bootstrap data envelopment analysis of efficiency differences of New Zealand secondary schools," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 99-110, October.
    13. Verspagen, Bart, 2000. "Growth and Structural Change: Trends, Patterns and Policy Options," Research Memorandum 015, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Papadimitriou, Dimitra & Taylor, Peter, 2000. "Organisational Effectiveness of Hellenic National Sports Organisations: A Multiple Constituency Approach," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 23-46, May.
    15. Tey, Kian Siong & Schaerer, Michael & Madan, Nikhil & Swaab, Roderick I., 2021. "The Impact of Concession Patterns on Negotiations: When and Why Decreasing Concessions Lead to a Distributive Disadvantage," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 153-166.
    16. R. Rani Geetha Priyadarshini, 2005. "A Study on Organizational Effectiveness in Textile Mills at Coimbatore," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 30(3), pages 224-235, August.
    17. Abel A. Moreno & Raghu Tadepalli, 2002. "Assessing academic department efficiency at a public university," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 385-397.
    18. Offenbeek, M. van & Paul, L., 1997. "Redefining managerial effectiveness in a multilevel organization : a structurationist account," Research Report 97A49, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    19. Lovett, Steven Russell & Pérez-Nordtvedt, Liliana & Rasheed, Abdul A., 2009. "Parental control: A study of U.S. subsidiaries in Mexico," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 481-493, October.
    20. C. A. K. Lovell, 2016. "Recent Developments in Productivity Analysis," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 417-444, October.

    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:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-009-9187-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.