Dimensions of International Negotiation: A Test of Iklé's Typology

Results from statistical analyses of 30 cases of international negotiations supported Iklé's typology of negotiating objectives. The cases, sampled from the collection of Pew Case Studies in International Affairs, were distinguished in terms of five objectives: innovation, redistribution, extension, normalization, and side effects. In addition, a sixth objective was identified: negotiations concerning the creation of multilateral regimes. These cases focused on issues that surfaced on the international agenda during the 1980s. Each type had a relatively distinct profile based on such aspects of negotiation as the number of parties and issues, bargaining strategies, media exposure, stability of the process, and types of outcomes. The methodology contributes to the state-of-the art in comparative analysis and the results have implications for the development of middle-range theories of negotiation. They also contribute to practice, by enabling negotiators to evaluate future cases in terms of knowledge about past cases.     

Communication Quality in Business Negotiations

The quality of a business negotiation process is usually assessed by its economic outcome, e.g. in terms of Pareto efficiency or distance to Nash equilibrium. We argue that this assessment method is insufficient in that it fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of business negotiations. Negotiators engage in highly complex communication tasks, and these communication processes should be analysed along with the outcome in the overall evaluation of a business negotiation. To this end, we will introduce Communication Quality as a new construct for analyzing the negotiation process. Furthermore, it will be argued that Communication Quality itself can affect economic negotiation outcomes both short- and long-term. We will present relevant aspects of Communication Quality, outline a scheme for its operationalisation and measurement, and discuss its probable impacts on business negotiations.     

Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation

In order to better deal with the complexity in multi-issue negotiation, a quantitative method which produces Pareto optimal solutions through jointly improving exchange of issues is proposed. The trade-off process is modelled using logrolling, in which loss in some issues is traded for gain in others, resulting in overall gain for all parties. This mutual gain approach is designed based on the integrative negotiation strategy. The objective of the logrolling method is in negotiation support by providing a structure and systematic analysis for ill-defined multi-issue negotiation problems. This study presents a formal representation of logrolling, the sequential logrolling procedure that is based on the exchange of two issues, and the general properties of the efficient frontier produced by logrolling under a linear preference assumption. The study also includes some discussion on implementation aspects of the logrolling method.     

An empirical study of an interactive,session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Negotiating is one of the four major decisional roles played by managers. In fact, resolving conflict is said to occupy 20% of a manager's working hours. This growing frequency of negotiation scenarios coupled with the increasing complexity of the issues which need to be resolved in a negotiation make the possibility of computer enhancement for negotiation very appealing. Implementations of computerized Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) in the business world, international affairs, labor law, and environmental and safety disputes have demonstrated their potential for making negotiation problems more manageable and comprehensible for negotiators. Still, pioneers in NSS research have expressed their dismay at the lack of rigorous empirical research and evaluation of NSS. In particular, research is needed which will determine how and under what circumstances negotiation processes can be enhanced by NSS support.This article describes empirical research on the effects of a highly structured, interactive NSS on the outcome of face-to-face issues resolution and the attitudes of negotiators in both low- and high-conflict situations. In a laboratory experiment, bargaining dyads played the roles of manufacturers negotiating a four-issue, three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent in conditions of high and low conflict of interest. The results of the study showed that NSS support did help bargainers achieve higher joint outcomes and more balanced contracts, but that the NSS support increased negotiation time. Satisfaction was greater for NSS dyads in both conflict levels, and perceived negative climate was reduced in low conflict.One primary implication of the results of this study is that NSS developers should keep in mind the importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not only enhance the decision-making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reaching the solution, as was done in this study.     

Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation

Using a simulated, two-party negotiation, we examined how characteristics of the actor, target, and situation affected deception. To trigger deception, we used an issue that had no value for one of the two parties (indifference issue). We found support for an opportunistic betrayal model of deception: deception increased when the other party was perceived as benevolent, trustworthy, and as having integrity. Negotiators’ goals also affected the use of deception. Individualistic, cooperative, and mixed dyads responded differently to information about the other party’s trustworthiness, benevolence, and integrity when deciding to either misrepresent or leverage their indifference issue. Mixed dyads displayed opportunistic betrayal. Negotiators in all-cooperative and all-individualistic dyads used different information in deciding whether to leverage their indifference issues and used the same information (benevolence) differently in deciding whether to misrepresent the value of their indifference issue. Mara Olekalns is a Professor of Management (Negotiations) at the Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne. Her research focuses on communication processes in negotiation. In her research, she has investigated how strategy sequences shape negotiation outcomes. She is extending this research to investigate how impressions and communication shape trust in negotiation. Her work on communication processes in negotiation has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Communication Research, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Philip L. Smith is a Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne. His primary research interest is in building quantitative models of the human visual system. He also applies his modeling expertise to analyses of communication processes in negotiation, focusing on the relationships between situational and dispositional factors, strategy sequences and negotiation outcomes. It has been published in leading management and psychology journals, including Human Communication Research, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Authors' Note The research reported in this paper was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council. We thank Ania Ratzik and Rudi Crncec for assistance with data coding. Correspondence should be addressed to Mara Olekalns, Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia or via email to m.olekalns@mbs.edu     

Justice and Fairness in Negotiation

In this special issue we display a variety of approaches to the study of justice. Articles from scholars working on questions involving justice and fairness in decision making exchanges calls attention to variety of research approaches, issue domains, cases and hypotheses used to explore these questions. All of the contributions emphasize analysis, using quantitative and qualitative methods including simulation-experiments, comparative case studies, statistical analyses and game theory. The articles in this collection reveal that justice and fairness concerns extend from the negotiation process to the outcome and into the implementation stage. They share the underlying expectation that individuals and groups gravitate toward fairness and justice in their exchanges with others. Therefore, a full understanding of group decision processes will be incomplete if justice and fairness issues are not considered alongside issues such as power distributions and alternatives to an agreement. The authors also suggest that outcomes built on justice and fairness principles will enhance the efficiency, stability and implementation of the negotiated agreements.     

A Comparative Analysis of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations

Global environmental problems pose important diplomatic and legal challenges to the international community. The nature of these problems requires an unprecedented degree of international cooperation that is achieved through multilateral negotiation, which is often shaped by scientific uncertainty, the complexity of the issues, and the wide range of actors and interests. One way of analyzing and explaining this complicated process is through the use of comparative analysis. By breaking down the negotiating process into a series of phases and turning points, it becomes easier to analyze the roles of different actors, the management of issues, the formation of groups and coalitions, and the art of consensus building. This article uses comparative analysis to characterize, develop, and specify a model of the multilateral environmental negotiation process. The model is elaborated upon inductively through a comparative analysis of eleven cases of multilateral environmental negotiations. Statistical techniques are used to determine whether there is any relationship among attributes of the process (within the phases or at the turning points) and between these characteristics and outcomes.     

Negotiation beliefs: Comparing Americans and the Chinese

We address the micro foundations of international business research by examining negotiation beliefs as a parsimonious guide for international business negotiators. We conceptualise the construct of ‘negotiation beliefs’ as a negotiator’s cognition about the nature of negotiation and effective negotiation strategies. We integrate the negotiation literature and empirically investigate the differences and similarities in the negotiation beliefs of Americans and the Chinese. Across two studies, we conduct a conceptual analysis of negotiation beliefs and develop measures for the culturally similar and culturally different factors of the negotiation beliefs of Chinese and American negotiators. We find that negotiation beliefs can predict negotiation outcomes. Our findings indicate that Americans and the Chinese share negotiation beliefs about cooperation and competition. They also understand negotiation using culturally different factors, namely hierarchy and relationship for the Chinese and economic interest and confrontation for the Americans. We further discuss the theoretical and practical implications for international negotiations, particularly regarding disputes between the US and China.     

A Recursive Protocol for Negotiating Contracts Under Non-monotonic Preference Structures

Negotiating contracts with multiple interdependent issues may yield non-monotonic preference spaces for the participating agents. These negotiations are specially challenging because of the complexity and dimension of the search space. Automated negotiation mechanisms designed and proven useful for monotonic utility spaces may fail in these negotiation scenarios. This paper presents a novel solution to the problem of automated multi-issue negotiations in the context of complex utility spaces. We seek to address the challenge of intractably large contract spaces and utility functions with multiple local optima in automated negotiation scenarios. A protocol for automated bilateral multi-attribute negotiation processes is proposed, in which the individual agents??preferences can be non-monotonic and discontinuous. The protocol is based on a recursive non-mediated bargaining mechanism, which involves two agents who simultaneously exchange proposals defined as regions within the negotiation space. An agreement on a region implies a new bargaining which is restricted to that region. This recursive process is governed by a set of rules which modulate the joint exploration of the negotiation space until an agreement is found or a deadline expires. The protocol is experimentally evaluated under monotonic and non-monotonic preference scenarios, confirming that the protocol is able to produce outcomes close to the Pareto frontier in acceptable negotiation time, outperforming previous approaches.     

Culture and negotiation

Negotiation has three elements: predisposing factors, process, and outcomes. Process is the art and outcomes is the science of negotiation. Culture adds a new consideration that affects each element. Culture's effects on negotiation are studied using Geert Hofstede's dimensional model of culture. The negotiation process and Hofstede's culture model are combined in four settings. The settings are defined by two factors, if the negotiation is within or between cultures and the role of the participant as a negotiator or intervener. The predicted effects of culture on the process and outcome are detailed for each setting. Then the outcomes of the negotiation decision are discussed in terms of Hofstede's model, especially “Uncertainty Avoidance” and “Masculinity-Femininity” dimensions. Culture clearly influences each aspect of negotiation. Understanding culture can make the participants more effective negotiators and interveners.     

The effects of Hispanic bilinguals language use and stereotype activation on negotiations outcomes

Service encounters often become negotiations between the customer and the service provider. For speakers of multiple languages, the language used in a negotiation can be a critical factor in the success of that encounter. By investigating how U.S. bilinguals negotiate in either English or Spanish, this research examines the effect that the activation of the stereotype related to the minority language-speakers has on negotiation outcomes. The results of two experiments support the general notion that, among U.S. Hispanic bilinguals, the majority language (English) yields more favorable outcomes compared to the minority language (Spanish); a third study with a comparison group of bilinguals in Mexico, where no language-related stereotype exists, shows no effect of the negotiation language on the outcome. The paper discusses theoretical and practical implications of the findings and areas for future research.     

Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making

This study explores the direct and interactive effects of individual differences in interpersonal trust and negotiation style on ethical decision-making processes across commonly faced negotiation situations. Individual differences influence basic ideas about legitimate negotiating behaviors, affect behavioral intentions directly, and interact with the favorability of negotiating situations, resulting in direct, indirect, and interactive effects on ethical decision-making processes. Using a sample of 298 participants in executive education workshops, the study analyzes the relationship between interpersonal trust, competitiveness, moral judgment, and behavioral intentions in different negotiating conditions through a series of structural equation models and regression analyses. Our results suggest that individual difference variables exert a significant influence not only on how managers assess the morality of ethically ambiguous negotiation practices but also directly on their behavioral intentions, and that this effect changed across specific negotiation situations. We discuss these results in terms of their usefulness in explaining ethical decision-making processes in negotiations.     

Analytical Support to Negotiations: An Empirical Assessment

Twenty-three cases of international negotiation are analyzed and compared to better understand the role of analytical and informational tools in supporting practical negotiators. For each case, data were gathered through interviews with Austrian diplomats on the type and amount of analytical support provided, associated bureaucratic support, and problems encountered, along with a host of key factors about the case itself-the issues, situation, strategies, process, structures, and outcomes. These data were coded and analyzed statistically. It was found that most analytical support is qualitative in nature and can be categorized as information organizing tools, comparison methods and creativity techniques; economic negotiations, in particular, tended to be supported more by quantitative methods, including forecasting and statistical models. Analytical support is particularly important to understand own and other side positions and strategies and to bolster complex negotiations that require issue packaging. A generational gap between senior and mid-level diplomats emerged: junior practitioners expressed a greater interest in analytical support tools. In general, the application of analytical support was perceived positively among practitioners and was correlated with the achievement of treaties and comprehensive solutions. These findings suggest that there needs to be greater investment in developing and providing practical analytical support to negotiators, more supporting infrastructure to facilitate the use of these techniques, and increased training opportunities.     

A method for examining learning in negotiation

The impact of feedback on interpersonal learning in negotiation was examined. An interactive computer program was developed to isolate the effect of individual judgment on performance. Subjects negotiated three times with a computerized opponent whom they were led to believe was another subject. Some subjects received a complete diagnosis of their opponents' interests following each negotiation (full feedback); others only learned about their opponents' payoffs (outcome feedback); some did not receive any information about the opponent (control). The prediction was that subjects who received a complete diagnosis would make more accurate judgments about their opponents' interests and reach more integrative agreements in subsequent negotiation situations. The results provided weak support for the model. Two indices of performance were studied: negotiators' ability to recognize compatible issues and logrolling, or the ability to make mutually beneficial tradeoffs among issues. The pattern of findings was dramatically different for the two performance measures: Whereas logrolling improved as negotiators gained experience, recognition of compatible issues worsened over trials. The degradation of performance for compatible issues was curbed for negotiators who were provided with full feedback. The feedback did not affect logrolling performance.The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation #SES89211926.     

On automated e‐business negotiations: Goal,policy, strategy,and plans of decision and action

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in automated e‐business negotiations. The automation of negotiation requires a decision model to capture the negotiation knowledge of policymakers and negotiation experts so that the decision‐making process can be carried out automatically. Current research on automated e‐business negotiations has focused on defining low‐level tactics (or negotiation rules) so that automated negotiation systems can carry out automated negotiation processes. These low‐level tactics are usually defined from a technical perspective, not from a business perspective. There is a gap between high‐level business negotiation goals and low‐level tactics. In this article, we distinguish the concepts of negotiation context, negotiation goals, negotiation strategy, and negotiation tactics and introduce a formal decision model to show the relations among these concepts. We show how high‐level negotiation goals can be formally mapped to low‐level tactics that can be used to affect the behavior of a negotiation system during the negotiation process. In business, a business organization faces different negotiation situations (or contexts) and determines different sets of goals for different negotiation contexts. In our decision model, a business policymaker sets negotiation goals from different perspectives, which are called goal dimensions. A negotiation policy is a functional mapping from a negotiation context to some quantitative measures (or goal values) for the goal dimensions to express how competitive the policymaker wants to reach that set of goals. A negotiation expert who has the experience and expertise to conduct negotiations would define the negotiation strategies needed for reaching the negotiation goals. Formally, a negotiation strategy is a functional mapping from a set of goal values to a set of decision‐action rules that implement negotiation tactics. The selected decision‐action rules can then be used to control the execution of an automated negotiation system, which conducts a negotiation on behalf of a business organization.     

The Profile of Research on Exporter–Importer Relationships: A Chronological Analysis

This article presents a chronological analysis of bibliographic and thematic aspects of exporter–importer business relationships research based on a systematic review of 211 articles published between the years 1975 and 2017 in business journals. The study findings indicate that, in terms of bibliographic aspects, this literature is characterized by (a) an increasing collaboration among different institutions and countries, despite a heavy concentration of authors from Europe and North America; (b) a predominance of a small number of scholars producing a substantial part of the literature; and (c) dominance of empirical articles with relatively moderate average impact. In terms of thematic aspects, behavioral dimensions and relationship characteristics constitute the nucleus of the literature, with research efforts focusing on their environmental and internal drivers and performance outcomes. These study findings carry significant implications for major stakeholders of the exporter–importer relationships research, including authors, editors, and conference organizers.     

WTO电子商务谈判与数字贸易规则博弈

2019年1月,76个WTO成员签署《电子商务联合声明》,确认启动与贸易有关的电子商务议题谈判,旨在制订电子商务/数字贸易领域的国际规则。本文在对谈判成员、提案内容和规则议题进行梳理的基础上,研究分析了数字贸易规则博弈焦点和国家间立场分歧。研究发现:从成员构成看,发达经济体是谈判的主导者,发展中经济体参与谈判和提交提案的比例偏低;从议题设计看,谈判内容远超以往电子商务谈判,更多聚焦于跨境数据流动、源代码披露等数字贸易规则议题;从博弈焦点看,谈判核心包括数据要素、市场空间、监管治理、技术发展与收益分配5个方面,发达经济体和发展中经济体的诉求差异巨大。在此形势下,中国既要加快完善国内体制机制,营造有利于数字经济和数字贸易发展的环境,又要积极参与数字贸易国际规则制订,提出中国规则主张。     

Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation

We investigate how a key structural aspect of negotiation—power—combines with aspiration level to affect the interaction pattern of negotiators. Conflicting research findings have revealed that in most cases negotiators with anequal balance of power reach agreements of higher joint gain than negotiators with an unequal power balance, but in some instances the opposite result has been found. We suggest that it is important to consider the interaction between the negotiators to explain these varying findings. We propose that when unequal power negotiators are able to reach agreements of high joint gain it is due to the efforts of the low power party. In addition, we argue that the low power player will be most likely to drive the search for a solution of high joint gain when he or she also has high aspirations. We tested these proposals in a market negotiation with integrative potential. To examine the pattern of negotiation, all offers and counter-offers were written. The results indicated that overall, equal power dyads achieved higher joint outcomes than unequal power dyads. Under unequal power, the hypothesis that higher joint outcomes would be obtained when the low power player had high aspirations received partial support. In addition, support was found for the hypothesis that in unequal power dyads low power players would be responsible for driving solutions of higher joint gain.