Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation

This paper develops an adjustment to utility measurement in integrative negotiation where the negotiation information context is incomplete. The developed function reveals not only win-win outcomes but also deceptive practices where negotiators accept a win-lose deal and then compensate their loss in a deceptive way and greedy practices where negotiators realize their strong competitive position and try to extremely maximize their gains. However, to realize the objective, the utility measurement function literature and theories are reviewed to determine the relevant function structure and the necessary attributes that reveal the desired outcome in an incomplete information context. After examination, relationship measurement is added to the function under two utilities: Decision Utility and Experienced Utility. The foundation of the utility measurement function contributes to revealing satisfying win-win outcomes in an incomplete information negotiation context. Therefore, it develops the negotiation field by designing win-win deals that are beneficial and satisfying in which the advantage is distributed between the negotiators.

Building an Automated win-win Negotiation Process Model

This paper builds an automated negotiation process model for integrative negotiations. The process model defines and automates the necessary phases and activities along with the integrative negotiation approach principles to create win-win outcomes that mutually satisfy negotiating parties. However, to realize this objective, the negotiation literature and theories are reviewed to determine the relevant theories for integrative negotiations that help to develop and form the basis of the process model. After investigation, it became evident that three main theories, which are Decision Theory, Rational Choice Theory and Mutual Gains Theory, contribute to building the integrative process model by setting its phases and components. The model is composed of five main phases with several sub-phases. Decision theory with mutual gains theory provides the robust process model through several phases, and rational choice theory with mutual gains theory ensures they are implemented in a fair, objective manner to come up with a satisfying win-win solution. Hence, automated negotiation processes when designed in a robust manner that is based on the theory that serves integrative approaches could lead to win-win negotiation outcomes. The foundation of the win-win negotiation process model contributes to designing win-win negotiation outcomes through structuring automated negotiation and setting its phases along with the integrative negotiation principles. It develops the negotiation field by integrating automation and the integrative approach principles in a process model.

Increasing Integrative Negotiation in European Organizations Through Trustworthiness and Trust

Integrative negotiation in which employers and employees create value is a major necessity in the current challenging context. Collective labor negotiations in organizations are traditionally focused on mostly distributive issues, such as pay, working hours, and holidays. However, the current situation demands the inclusion of other issues of a potentially more integrative nature, such as telework, sustainability, and risk prevention, the enhancement of which is a major challenge for organizations. In this study, we explore the negotiation process between management and employee representatives (ERs), analyzing the roles of trust and trustworthiness. We collected data from 614 human resources managers from different organizations in 11 European countries. The results confirm that ERs who management perceive to be trustworthy have a greater influence on negotiation, particularly with regard to integrative as opposed to distributive issues, and that trust partially mediates this relationship.

Integrative Negotiation: Paying the Price of Popularity

While I had read Gerald Wetlaufer’s The Limits of Integrative Bargaining (Limits) early on in my conflict studies, and noticed that my colleagues often included it on their reading lists, I had never realized its profound value—in insight, and in academic approach—until my students taught me its importance....

Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy

Integrative and distributive negotiation strategies are a key paradigm of practice, teaching, and research. Are these US-formulated negotiation prototypes valid in the rest of the world? Adopting a cross-cultural view, we analyze a sample of 214 foreigners who detailed the negotiation behavior they faced in Italy (134) and in the United States (80). Implementing latent class analysis, we identify three clusters of negotiation prototypes. Our findings show how the Country is a predictor for cluster membership, and peculiar cultural traits of the two groups contribute to explain the differences in negotiation strategies. Three prototypes emerged: a typically distributive, an emotional integrative (mostly Italian), and an impersonal integrative (mostly American). Results show how the handling of emotions is a crucial part of the interaction for Italian negotiators, regardless of their orientation toward negotiation strategies, implying a cultural influence toward handling emotions in negotiations.

Negotiation and Bargaining

Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve. There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate. Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation. Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation

E-commerce is increasingly competitive and there is a constant need for new approaches and technology to facilitate exchange. Emerging techniques include the use of artificial intelligence (AI). One AI tool that has sparked interest in e-commerce is the automated negotiation agent (negotiation-agent). This study examines such agents, and proposes an offer strategy model of integrative negotiation for a negotiation-agent with a focus on negotiation agent-to-human interaction. More specifically, a new offer strategy was developed based on the integrative bargaining model, which emphasizes the importance of exchanging information among negotiators and multi-issue negotiation that includes package offers to achieve an integrative (win-win) outcome. This study incorporated an argumentation-based negotiation and the negotiation tactic of multiple equivalent simultaneous offers, which was programmed into the negotiation-agent. An experiment was conducted performing 49 negotiation-agent-to-human negotiations over three issues in online purchase tasks to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Experimental results indicated that the proposed offer strategy with agent negotiation can enhance the persuasiveness of an offer and the performance of negotiation outcome (human counterpart’s perception toward negotiation process, opponent–agent and desire for future negotiation). The findings confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed design and demonstrated an innovative approach to e-commerce transactions.

An exploration of whether engineers differ from non-engineers in their approach to negotiations

Purpose In this investigation, the authors aim to ask whether engineers, as a profession, share distinct characteristics in their attitudes and behaviors relating to negotiations. Based on a review of the literature, the authors answer in the affirmative. Generally speaking, the existing studies on individual differences of engineers conclude that they are more conscientious, more goal-driven, more competitive and less people-oriented than non-engineers. The authors suggest that these differences have significant consequences on how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques. Design/methodology/approach This paper involves an integrated literature review, combining research in management, psychology and engineering to investigate whether engineers approach negotiations differently from non-engineers. Findings The authors suggest that individual differences between engineers and non-engineers have significant consequences for how engineers engage in negotiations. In particular, the authors propose that engineers’ approach to negotiation includes differences related to distributive versus integrative negotiation, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and preferred persuasion techniques. Research limitations/implications The authors offer 11 research propositions in areas relating to how engineers engage in distributive versus integrative negotiations, emotional intelligence, perspective-taking and their preferred persuasive techniques. Practical implications There are important implications for how engineers and their supervisors should be aware of these differences between how engineers and non-engineers view negotiations and how these differences may affect them and their employing organizations. There are also cultural implications, particularly for organizations for which engineers comprise a majority or a minority of the workforce composition. Social implications There are important implications for diversity in the engineering profession, especially as it relates to the hiring of women in engineering (as they now comprise a small minority of the profession). Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that investigates how engineers negotiate. Because engineering is a hugely important contributor to society, the results of this have important implications for the society.