IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/snopef/v4y2023i1d10.1007_s43069-023-00206-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Katrin Zulauf

    (University of Kassel)

  • Ralf Wagner

    (University of Kassel)

Abstract

One promise of computational decision support is enabling better solutions in interactions and social exchange by supporting human strengths (e.g. intuitive decision-making) with formal procedures. This study investigates whether mathematical post-negotiation procedures can guide parties to an efficient negotiation result and thus overcome the shortcomings of human-only approaches in the situation of power asymmetry. The results show that (a) an increase in power by means of a rise in issue authority for one of the two parties does not lead to an increase in humans’ negotiation efficiency, (b) the use of mathematical post-negotiation procedures eminently improves the overall results and (c) the powerful party is likely to benefit most from applying a neutral post-negotiation procedure. These differences highlight that power in commercial negotiations does not compensate for insufficient negotiation skills or efforts in the empowered party. On the contrary, unbalanced power decreases the likelihood of success. Despite the ability to prevail because of power, the post-negotiation procedure reveals options advantageous for both parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2023. "Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:snopef:v:4:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s43069-023-00206-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s43069-023-00206-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43069-023-00206-7
    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/s43069-023-00206-7?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. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2001. "Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 475-491, November.
    2. Manfred J. Holler & Stefan Napel, 2004. "Monotonicity of power and power measures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(2_2), pages 93-111, February.
    3. Kusum Ailawadi & Eric Bradlow & Michaela Draganska & Vincent Nijs & Robert Rooderkerk & K. Sudhir & Kenneth Wilbur & Jie Zhang, 2010. "Empirical models of manufacturer-retailer interaction: A review and agenda for future research," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 273-285, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1986. "Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 305-317, December.
    7. Tuncel, Ece & Kong, Dejun Tony & McLean Parks, Judi & van Kleef, Gerben A., 2020. "Face threat sensitivity in distributive negotiations: Effects on negotiator self-esteem and demands," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 255-273.
    8. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    9. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2021. "Negotiation Power and the Impact of Gender Differences," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Raith, Matthias G., 2000. "Fair-negotiation procedures," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 303-322, May.
    11. Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden, 2014. "Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 125-151, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Jehoshua Eliashberg & Gary L. Lilien & Nam Kim, 1995. "Searching for Generalizations in Business Marketing Negotiations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 47-60.
    14. Andreas Schwab & Eric Abrahamson & William H. Starbuck & Fiona Fidler, 2011. "PERSPECTIVE---Researchers Should Make Thoughtful Assessments Instead of Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1105-1120, August.
    15. Chwolka, Anne & Raith, Matthias G., 2001. "Group preference aggregation with the AHP - implications for multiple-issue agendas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 176-186, July.
    16. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    17. Sunil Gupta, 1989. "Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(7), pages 788-806, July.
    18. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    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. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    2. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2012. "Negotiating when outnumbered: Agenda strategies for bargaining with buying teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 280-291.
    3. 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.
    4. Andreas Schmid & Mareike Schoop, 2022. "Gamification of Electronic Negotiation Training: Effects on Motivation, Behaviour and Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 649-681, June.
    5. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    6. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    7. 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.
    8. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    9. Dezső, Linda & Loewenstein, George, 2019. "Self-serving invocations of shared and asymmetric history in negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Mortenson, Michael J. & Doherty, Neil F. & Robinson, Stewart, 2015. "Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 583-595.
    11. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    12. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    13. Syntetos, Aris A. & Kholidasari, Inna & Naim, Mohamed M., 2016. "The effects of integrating management judgement into OUT levels: In or out of context?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 853-863.
    14. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    15. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    16. Cecchi, Francesco & Melesse, Mequanint Biset, 2016. "Formal law and customary change: A lab-in-field experiment in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-85.
    17. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    18. Sabrina Artinger & Nir Vulkan & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2015. "Entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 737-757, April.
    19. Lucia Bellenzier & Jørgen Vitting Andersen & Giulia Rotundo, 2015. "Contagion in the world's stock exchanges seen as a set of coupled oscillators," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15078, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    20. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..

    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:snopef:v:4:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s43069-023-00206-7. 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.