Research Digest

The past is prologue. At least, that is what researchers found when comparing negotiators’ bargaining histories with their future performances.

In a study of 262 undergraduate students in two separate negotiation simulations, researchers Kathleen O’Connor, Ethan Burris, and Josh Arnold investigated the possible relationship between past and future negotiation success. They found that the outcome of the first negotiation strongly influenced the second. Subjects who were unable to reach a satisfactory deal in the first round tended to become less cooperative in the second and consequently reached lower‐quality agreements. The researchers contend that this reflects a link between intention and behavior, particularly when the intent is to be less accommodating.

Most striking was their finding that past experience remained a good predictor of future performance even when negotiators changed partners in the second round. This underscores the fact that negotiators often carry old baggage to the table even when they have the opportunity to start anew with a fresh partner.

This study suggests that impasses reached today can reverberate into the future. That is not to say that negotiators should always compromise in order to avoid long‐term repercussions — sometimes there is no alternative to walking away from an unattractive deal. On the other hand, self‐awareness is important, especially the ability to learn from the past, to put the past behind us, and then to adopt appropriately constructive strategies for the future.

Source: O’Connor, K., J. A. Arnold, and E. R. Burris. 2005. Negotiator's bargaining histories and their effects on future negotiation performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(2): 350–362.

Key words: bargaining history, impasses, efficacy, learning, time.

Threats sometimes work in negotiation. Sometimes they backfire spectacularly. The difference may lie in why and how they are made. Past research has mainly focused on the context or structure of the threat, but few studies have examined how the way in which the threat is delivered will influence negotiation outcomes. Marwan Sinaceur and Margaret Neale conducted an experiment to test the impact of timing on the effectiveness of implicit and explicit threats made at different stages of a negotiation. The success of those threats was determined on the willingness of the target party to make concessions. More than one hundred undergraduates were randomly recruited to play out unresolved negotiation scenarios and then surveyed to determine the outcomes.

Results showed that the timing and the implicitness of the threat were important factors in receiving concessions. Implicit threats were more effective when made earlier, while explicit threats were more effective when made later in the negotiations. In each case, the credibility of the negotiator making the threats is at stake. An early, implicit threat allows for both parties to recognize the seriousness of the case and work for a resolution. The targeted party, moreover, has time to deliberate the possible consequences of the threat. On the other hand, the study suggests that an explicit threat made too soon — with clear repercussions in the case for noncompliance — increases hostility between the negotiating parties. If used at all, overt threats should be made later in the negotiations when they are perceived to be more credible. While credibility is an important factor in negotiation success, the findings suggest that perceived aggressiveness is just as crucial. Early in the negotiations, explicit threats were deemed more aggressive. At the end of the negotiation, however, neither implicit nor explicit threats had an impact on the targeted party's perception of the aggressor. The most effective threats are those that do not damage the relationship between negotiating parties.

Source: Sinaceur, M. and M. A. Neale. 2005. Not all threats are created equal: How implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 14(1): 63–85.

Key words: negotiation, threats, communication, time.

Negotiation is increasingly taking place long distance by phone, fax, e‐mail, and meeting support systems. Some mediators are likewise beginning to do a portion of their work via these media. There has been considerable research on the impact of different modes of communication on simple negotiation, but there has been little study of what is gained and lost when mediation is electronic rather than face‐to‐face.

A recent study by Daniel Druckman, James Druckman, and Tatsushi Arai offers some tentative answers and also raises some intriguing questions. In a series of experiments, they compared the performance of negotiators who functioned on their own with those who had the help of a live mediator, who received written advice, or who were aided by an “electronic mediator” (a web‐based tool that provided diagnosis, analysis, and advice).

Subjects aided by the electronic mediator outperformed negotiators operating on their own in regard to both rate of agreement and positive perception of the outcomes. Subjects who received written advice agreed more often than those who received no help, although members of this group did not agree as often as the group using the web‐based software.

The researchers next compared the performance of the computer‐ supported group with another set of negotiators who had the (scripted) help of a live mediator. In this round, moreover, some of the electronically supported negotiators worked separately (so that each party was individually coached) while others used the computer support together. The joint e‐mediation outperformed live mediation in some respects, but the live mediator was perceived more favorably. With written or live mediation, negotiators believed the process to be more legitimate, while users of e‐mediation were less satisfied with the fairness of the negotiations. In order to combine the benefits of technology and live contact, the next step may be to find ways to humanize the negotiation support system and other forms of electronic mediation.

Source: Druckman, D., J. N. Druckman, and T. Arai. 2004. E‐mediation: Evaluating the impacts of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior. Group Decision and Negotiation 13(6): 481–511.

Key words: electronic mediation, impasse resolution, mediator functions.

One of the axioms of the classic negotiation book, Getting to Yes, is to “search for objective principles.” But persuading others that your principle is the appropriate one can be a challenge. If the parties are not careful, their debates over right and wrong can polarize them further.

Years ago, rhetoric was a key element in classical education. Students were taught to understand the structure of argumentation and thus may have been better equipped to identify underlying premises that offer opportunities for reconciliation. Today, rhetoric is popularly taken to mean self‐serving “spin.” However, some scholars still scrutinize how language is used to frame issues and advance positions.

For example, a recent study by Roy Suddaby and Royston Greenwood examined conflict about the proposed integration of law and accounting services, looking particularly at how language was used to naturalize new concepts, at one of the world's largest accounting and consulting firms, Ernst and Young. Their analysis showed that those who resisted change and those who embraced it used distinct vocabularies. The former based arguments on ethical grounds, emphasizing phrases of normative standing and traditions. By contrast, proponents used more practical terms to justify the inevitability of change and progress. Rhetoric, in both instances, served as a means to relate proposed changes to existing social standards.

This research suggests that unpacking rhetorical deadlock requires illuminating apparent contradictions in unstated assumptions (in this example, the tension between traditional values and commercial interests). Reconciling differences on that higher plane may be a precondition for resolving whatever practical problem first arose. Even the underlying assumptions may have their own rhetorical power, of course, depending on how well they connect to still broader beliefs and values of relevant stakeholders. Negotiators who seek “objective principles” may have to peel multiple layers of the proverbial onion before they locate the core issues that they must address.

Source: Suddaby, R. and R. Greenwood. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly (March): 35–62.

Key words: electronic mediation, impasse resolution, mediator functions.

Member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO) trying to negotiate multilateral agreements have often been frustrated, particularly in the last decade. The countless political barriers to agreements are compounded by the procedural requirement of consensus, which in theory gives even the smallest member of an authority the right to veto the will of a large majority. Although no one seems happy with the status quo, proposed changes in decision‐making procedures inevitably enhance some states’ power at the expense of others.

Stalemate over general governance, however, has not always prevented agreement in specific cases. International relations scholar John Odell has noted the recent emergence of ad hoc mediation carried out by chairs of specific WTO negotiating bodies. The fact that these chairs have little formal authority may paradoxically enhance their success. In these highly technical cases, the negotiators seem to recognize the need for third‐party assistance to identify possible common ground.

Odell interviewed a number of such chairs, as well as trade delegates with whom they have worked. He identified three different mediation roles that are most commonly adopted. Some chairs chose simply to facilitate better communication through private caucusing, orchestrating meetings, and disseminating technical information gathered by the WTO Secretariat; even in this limited role, a chair/mediator may be able to identify real interests lurking under public posturing and bluffs. Other WTO chairs regularly go further by organizing coalitions and sharpening issues in order to promote more effective decision making, and some become even more active by proposing specific deals and promoting horse trading. As the parties’ confidence in a chair/mediator increases, his or her role may expand as negotiations proceed.

The spectrum of roles that Odell describes, from facilitative to proactive, will be familiar to mediators in other fields. Interestingly, in the context that Odell examines, mediation has been entirely demand‐led, rather than being the product of some central initiative or design. Odell urges WTO officials to capture the knowledge that chair/mediators have gained so that newcomers to the process will benefit from their experience. This research may also offer scholars and practitioners in other fields some useful lessons about how stalemate over general governance need not always prevent pragmatic resolution of specific disputes.

Source: Odell, J. S. 2005. Chairing a WTO negotiation. Journal of International Economic Law 8(2): 425–448.

Key words: mediation, international, trade.

Successful negotiation is the lifeblood of most businesses. As a result, companies invest millions of dollars training their salespeople in this domain. Some innovative firms have taken the further step of redesigning their negotiation systems, so that discretion in the field is properly exercised consistently with broader corporate objectives.

A cornerstone of such efforts is so‐called “empowerment.” Some claim that it promotes greater self‐assurance and flexibility in employee–customer interaction, which in turn contributes to higher levels of job performance. But developing training programs that are appropriate to both veteran employees and newer hires poses a challenge. According to conventional wisdom, experienced sales employees are more responsive to empowerment than their lesser skilled counterparts, but the results of a recent study by Michael Ahearne, John Mathieu, and Adam Rapp challenge that view.

The authors surveyed salespeople and their customers, and also collected data from company archives. Among the salespeople in their study, the marginal increase in self‐efficacy and adaptability was far greater for people with less relevant sales experience. One explanation is that veterans may be reluctant to switch sales strategies and routines that they think are already effective. Other interpretations: giving novice salespeople a greater sense of authority likely bolsters their sense of self‐efficacy and/or makes them more proactive and persistent, which improves performance. Feeling more accountable may also enhance effectiveness.

If training resources are limited, managers may get the greatest benefit from empowerment training by focusing on employees with limited sales experience, as they have both the greatest room for improvement and are less resistant to changing their approaches. Enhanced confidence may be as important to a successful sale as product knowledge and experience.

Source: Ahearne, M., J. Mathieu, and A. Rapp. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(5): 945–955.

Key words: empowerment, training, self-efficacy, management, systems design.

Emotions play an important role in how people believe they have been treated. Not surprisingly, when layoffs and terminations are poorly negotiated, hard feelings can trigger lawsuits and other forms of retaliation. Laurie Barclay, Daniel Skarlicki, and Douglas Pugh examined the interaction between the emotional state of workers who had been laid off and their perceived fairness of the process. In their survey of more than seven hundred recently terminated workers, they identified two different types of negative emotions: inward‐focused feelings (those directed toward oneself, like guilt) and outward‐focused emotions (those directed toward others, such as anger).

The researchers hypothesized that individuals would attribute responsibility to themselves when they believed the termination procedure was just. By contrast, they expected employees who were dissatisfied by the process to externalize their feelings and blame the company or their superiors. Outward‐focused negativity was predictably lower when fired workers felt fairly treated. Notably, however, anger toward perceived unjust treatment was unmitigated by monetary compensation and favorable severance packages. The authors suggest that abuses of process under‐ mine a person's standing; such blows to self‐esteem may be especially pronounced during times of vulnerability and uncertainty, such as impending unemployment.

The lesson for managers seems clear: process may count at least as much as outcome. Or to put it another way, money alone may not compensate for what is perceived as ill‐treatment. Ensuring impartiality and treating workers with respect are appropriate in any event. Also, they can reduce terminated workers’ anger and the retaliation that termination can often spark.

Source: Barclay, L. J., D. P. Skarlick, and S. D. Pugh. 2005. Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 629–643.

Key words: emotions, fairness, workplace, retaliation, layoffs and terminations.