Are Women Less Likely to Ask than Men Partly Because They Work Fewer Hours? A Commentary on Artz et al. (2018)

A long debate in negotiation research concerns the question of whether gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations, in behaviors shown during negotiations, and in negotiation performance actually exist. Whereas past negotiation research suggested that women are less likely to initiate negotiations than men, a recent study by Artz et al. (2018) seems to suggest that women are as likely as men to “ask” for higher pay. However, this finding by Artz et al. (2018) was obtained once the number of weekly hours worked was added as a covariate in the statistical analysis. Following extant work, we suggest that the number of weekly hours worked could be—and, from a theoretical stand-point, perhaps should be—considered a mediator of gender differences. Conducting a Monte Carlo analysis based on the results and statistics provided by Artz et al. (2018) also yielded empirical evidence suggesting that weekly hours could be a mediator. Thus, women may be less likely than men to ask for higher pay, among other potential reasons, because they work fewer weekly hours. Based on this alternative conceptualization of the role of weekly hours, our commentary has theoretical implications for the understanding of gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and practical implications for the effective reduction of gender inequalities.

Wielding power in multiparty negotiations: the impact of communication medium and assertiveness

Purpose The medium negotiators choose for communication will influence both process and outcome. To understand how medium influences power expression, this paper aims to compare value claiming by asymmetrically powerful negotiators, using face-to-face and computer-mediated messaging across two studies. Following up on long-standing conjectures from prominent coalition researchers, the authors also directly tested the role of the apex negotiator's personality in coalition formation and value expropriation. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two laboratory experiments which manipulated communication medium (computer-mediated vs face-to-face) in three- and four-person bargaining. They also varied asymmetry of power so the apex negotiator either could not be left out of a winning coalition (Study 1) or could be (Study 2). The authors measured trait assertiveness along with multiple indicators of hard bargaining behavior. Findings Communicating using instant messages via a computer interface facilitated value claiming for powerful negotiators across both studies. Trait assertiveness correlated with hard bargaining behavior in both studies. An index of hard bargaining behavior mediated the effect of assertiveness on value expropriation but only in the context where the powerful negotiator held a genuine monopoly over coalitions. Originality/value The authors contribute to the literature on multiparty negotiations by demonstrating persistent media effects on power utilization and by finally confirming the conjectures of prominent coalition researchers regarding personality. Though personality traits generate consistent effects on behavior, their influence on negotiation outcomes depends on the power structure. Negotiation theory needs to incorporate structural and situational factors in modelling effects of enduring traits. Negotiation research should move beyond a rigid focus on dyads.

Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Transformative and mutually beneficial solutions require decision-makers to reconcile present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflicts over time) and to align them with those of other decision-makers (i.e., interpersonal conflicts between people). Despite the natural co-occurrence of intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability, both types of conflicts have been studied predominantly in isolation. In this conceptual article, we breathe new life into the traditional dialog between individual decision-making and negotiation research and address critical psychological barriers to the transformation toward sustainability. In particular, we argue that research on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be tightly integrated to provide a richer understanding of the interplay between these conflicts. We propose a novel, unifying framework of interdependent conflicts that systematically structures this interplay, and we analyze how complex interdependencies between the social (i.e., conflict between decision-makers) and temporal (i.e., conflict within a decision-maker) dimensions pose fundamental psychological barriers to mutually beneficial solutions. Since challenges to conflict resolution in the transformation toward sustainability emerge not only between individual decision-makers but also frequently between groups of decision-makers, we scale the framework up to the level of social groups and thereby provide an interdependent-conflicts perspective on the interplay between intra- and intergenerational conflicts. Overall, we propose simple, testable propositions, identify intervention approaches, and apply them to transition management. By analyzing the challenges faced by negotiating parties during interdependent conflicts and highlighting potential intervention approaches, we contribute to the transformation toward sustainability. Finally, we discuss implications of the framework and point to avenues for future research.

Opening the Black Box of I-Deals Negotiation: Integrating I-Deals and Negotiation Research

Individualized work arrangements (“i-deals”) negotiated by employees are increasingly common in contemporary employment. Existing research largely focuses on phenomena emerging after the creation of i-deals, particularly their consequences for employees and organizations. This focus overlooks the fundamental processes associated with negotiating i-deals in the first place. I-deals research originating in the last two decades can benefit from the more advanced body of research on negotiations, particularly in its attention to negotiation preparation and the bargaining process. We examine how negotiation research and theory inform our understanding of the dynamics operating in the creation of i-deals. In doing so, we identify key features of negotiation research that apply to i-deal formulation and use these to develop an agenda for future research on i-deals.

Negotiation communication revisited

Negotiators communicate with each other and decide on offers or requests. Whilst the decision side of negotiations has long been a focus of negotiation research, the communication side has not been extensively supported. The current paper revisits the need for a communication perspective in business negotiations and reviews current research on negotiation communication. Both strands of relevant work are then integrated to provide a concept of electronic negotiation communication and to discuss how this concept was implemented in the system Negoisst and thus operationalised.

Client negotiation strategy spillover to integrated audit judgments

Purpose This study aims to explore the effect of negotiating audit differences on auditors’ internal control deficiency (ICD) severity assessments, an ensuing, non-negotiated judgment, in an integrated audit. Design/methodology/approach The experiment manipulates the client’s concession timing strategy as either immediate or gradual, holding the outcome constant. A total of 34 auditors (primarily managers) resolve an audit difference with the client. Findings The client’s concession timing strategy during the negotiation of an audit difference spills over to affect auditors’ severity assessment of a related ICD. Auditors judged the ICD severity to be higher (lower) in the immediate (gradual) condition. Client retention risk inferences mediate this effect. Research limitations/implications The effect on auditors’ ICD severity assessments may not ultimately affect the audit report. Participants did not control their negotiation strategy, allowing the client’s negotiation strategy and the outcome to be held constant; it is possible that interactive effects between the client and auditor’s strategy might affect the study’s implications. Practical implications Features of the auditor–client negotiation process may influence auditors’ downstream, post-negotiation judgments and may therefore help to explain empirical evidence and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspection findings that show auditors often fail to identify an internal control material weakness after identifying a financial statement misstatement. Originality/value This paper expands current negotiation research by exploring the impact of inferences made based on counterparty concession strategy for downstream, non-negotiated judgments and current integrated audit research by identifying client retention perceptions as a driving factor of lower ICD severity assessments.

Toward a Better Understanding of the Mindsets of Negotiators

This article introduces and discusses the 15-item Scale for the Integrative Mindset (SIM) of negotiators, that is of people involved in joint decision-making processes. The scale is based on the integrative mindset ( Ade, Schuster, Harinck, & Trötschel, 2018 ), which describes a set of three inclinations of parties approaching negotiations: a collaborative, a curious, and a creative one. Using a first sample ( N = 1,030) of online survey participants, we provide evidence for a high psychometric quality of the SIM as suggested by high reliabilities and good fit indices. We also compare the SIM with scales that measure well-known and possibly related psychological constructs and show the SIM’s distinction to them. Using a second sample ( N = 417), we show how the SIM differs from a Scale on Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies (SINS) that has been used in previous negotiation research. The findings of the present studies are discussed with respect to potential applications of the SIM in experimental research.

Commentary - Women Ask Less Often Than Men Partly Because They Work Fewer Hours (Revised Manuscript)

A long debate in negotiation research concerns the question of whether gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations, in behaviors shown during negotiations, and in negotiation performance actually exist. Whereas past negotiation research suggested that women are less likely to initiate negotiations than men, a recent study by Artz et al. (2018) seems to suggest that women are as likely as men to “ask” for higher pay. However, this finding by Artz et al. (2018) was obtained once the number of weekly hours worked was added as a covariate in the statistical analysis. Following extant work, we suggest that the number of weekly hours worked could be—and, from a theoretical standpoint, perhaps should be—considered a mediator of gender differences. Conducting a Monte Carlo analysis based on the results and statistics provided by Artz et al. (2018) also yielded empirical evidence suggesting that weekly hours could be a mediator. Thus, women may be less likely than men to ask for higher pay, among other potential reasons, because they work fewer weekly hours. Based on this alternative conceptualization of the role of weekly hours, our commentary has theoretical implications for the understanding of gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and practical implications for the effective reduction of gender inequalities.

The Influence of Perspective Taking Encouraged by the Audit Committee on Auditor and Client Judgments during Accounting Disputes

SUMMARY We examine the influence of an audit committee (AC) that encourages auditors (partners and managers) and clients (CFOs and controllers) to consider an accounting dispute from the other party's perspective. Experiment 1 suggests this approach leads to a higher likelihood of agreement and greater concessionary behavior than an AC that does not encourage perspective taking. Perspective taking also impacts the negotiators in different ways. Auditors' solution sets (concessions less reservation price) shift closer to the client's desired adjustment, while clients' solution sets get wider, suggesting greater flexibility. When the AC subsequently provides a resolution recommendation to all negotiators, the AC's initial approach carries over and impacts the negotiators' subsequent behavior. We support these findings in Experiment 2, which was designed to rule out a potential confound and to use a different perspective taking manipulation. This paper extends negotiation research and has implications for practitioners, regulators, and those charged with governance. Data Availability: Available upon request from the authors.