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. Ailawadi, K.H. & Bradlow, E.T. & Draganska, M. & Nijs, V. & Rooderkerk, R.P. & Sudhir, K. & Wilbur, K.C. & Zhang, J., 2010. "Empirical models of manufacturer-retailer interaction : A review and agenda for future research," Other publications TiSEM 8cf81b4a-f2e9-485b-a5f5-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2021. "Negotiation Power and the Impact of Gender Differences," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Raith, Matthias G., 2000. "Fair-negotiation procedures," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 303-322, May.
    12. Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden, 2014. "Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 125-151, June.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Sunil Gupta, 1989. "Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(7), pages 788-806, July.
    19. 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. Marzanna Witek-Hajduk & Tomasz Marcin Napiórkowski, 2017. "Manufacturers’ Benefits from Their Cooperation with Key Retailers in the Context of Business Models: A Cluster Analysis," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 6(1), pages 97-114.
    2. 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.
    3. Desheng Wu, 2017. "Pass-through decision analysis in a supply chain," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 257(1), pages 297-316, October.
    4. Marzanna K. Witek-Hajduk & Andrzej Sznajder, 2017. "Sojusze marketingowe między detalistami i producentami dóbr konsumpcyjnych trwałego użytku," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 4, pages 83-98.
    5. Timothy J Richards & Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2018. "Complementarity and bargaining power," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 297-331.
    6. Els Breugelmans & Tammo Bijmolt & Jie Zhang & Leonardo Basso & Matilda Dorotic & Praveen Kopalle & Alec Minnema & Willem Mijnlieff & Nancy Wünderlich, 2015. "Advancing research on loyalty programs: a future research agenda," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 127-139, June.
    7. Wu, Lifang & Yang, Wei & Wu, Jessica, 2021. "Private label management: A literature review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 368-384.
    8. 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.
    9. Tereza Dean & David A. Griffith & Roger J. Calantone, 2018. "Reciprocal value sharing in manufacturer-retailer relationships: the case of new product introductions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 87-100, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Krafft, Manfred & Goetz, Oliver & Mantrala, Murali & Sotgiu, Francesca & Tillmanns, Sebastian, 2015. "The Evolution of Marketing Channel Research Domains and Methodologies: An Integrative Review and Future Directions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 569-585.
    12. Andrew Rhodes & Makoto Watanabe & Jidong Zhou, 2021. "Multiproduct Intermediaries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(2), pages 421-464.
    13. Arcan Nalca, & Tamer Boyaci, & Saibal Ray, 2017. "Brand positioning and consumer taste information," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-17-01_R1, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 04 Dec 2017.
    14. 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.
    15. Thomas Reutterer & Kurt Hornik & Nicolas March & Kathrin Gruber, 2017. "A data mining framework for targeted category promotions," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 337-358, April.
    16. Draganska, Michaela & Vitorino, Maria Ana, 2023. "Decomposing the effect of advertising: What happens in the retail channel?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 226-247.
    17. Myung Kyo Kim & Ram Narasimhan & Tobias Schoenherr, 2020. "Leveraging Logistics Competence in New Product Sourcing: The Role of Strategic Intent and Impact on Performance," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Marzanna Katarzyna Witek-Hajduk & Anna Napiórkowska, 2017. "A Framework of Retailer-Manufacturer Cooperation and Coopetition: Consumer Durable Goods Retailers’ Case Studies," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 5(1), pages 59-76.
    19. 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.
    20. Rajagopalan, S. & Xia, Nan, 2012. "Product variety, pricing and differentiation in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(1), pages 84-93.

    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.