Negotiation and Groups: Volume 14

The expansion of negotiation processes to the group level not only increases the number of parties (with an accompanying increase in range of issues, interests, and positions), but may also change the nature of the negotiation process. More parties means more complexity. Instead of simply revealing, comparing, and trying to reconcile two parties' clear interests, a group may encounter challenges in identifying its interests at all. The existence of the group may exacerbate perceptions of conflict (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006), interfere with information sharing (Stasser & Titus, 1985), create conformity pressures (Asch, 1955), and bias the group toward more extreme positions (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Just as situating conduct in a group, rather than an individual, qualitatively changes decision making (Janis, 1972), interactions (Tajfel, 2010), and even basic cognition (Hargadon, 1999), so too is it likely to change negotiation.

Purpose – We consider the question of when teams are an asset at the negotiating table and when they are a liability.

Methodology – We center our review on three key “empirical truths” about teams. First, teams are better than individuals at solving problems. Second, teams are more self-interested than individuals. Third, teams are trusted less and are less trusting than individuals.

Findings – Teams have an advantage over solo negotiators when there is unshared information and multiple issues on the table. Teams have an advantage in these contexts because of their superior problem-solving abilities. However, teams are more likely than solos to suffer from costly and uncertain legal action due to failures in dispute resolution and earn lower profits than solos in negotiations with a prisoner's dilemma structure. Thus, because teams are more self-interested and less trusted than individuals, they can be a liability in negotiations in which the parties' interests are opposed.

Implications – To the leverage the positive effects of teams in negotiation, it is critical that negotiators determine whether the context is one that allows for coordination and integrative tradeoffs, such as multi-issue deal-making negotiations, versus one that is characterized by noncorrespondent outcomes and incompatible interests, such as disputes and prisoner's dilemma interactions.

Value of the paper – The term “negotiation” has been applied rather broadly to a complex assortment of mixed-motive tasks. Our review indicates that distinguishing among these tasks is paramount to meaningfully address questions of individual versus group performance in negotiation.

Purpose – We apply theories of physical distance to better understand behavior and judgment in intragroup and intergroup negotiations.

Approach – By applying theories of physical distance to the domain of intragroup and intergroup negotiations we develop predictions about how large magnitudes of physical distance from in-group and out-group members should affect individuals' trust, interpretation of behavior, and willingness to use negotiation to resolve conflict.

Findings – Based on the current application of physical distance theories, several predictions are made for how increased distance should differentially impact the negotiation process when negotiating with in-group versus out-group members. Notably, it is predicted that because of increased schema-reliance associated with increased physical distance, negotiations with out-groups should have increased challenges.

Implications – The current chapter yields several interesting avenues for future empirical research. Moreover, we propose specific strategies that may be of use in reducing the potential harmful impact of increased physical distance in intergroup negotiations.

Value of the paper – We integrate several theories of physical distance to generate novel predictions for group negotiation.

Purpose – In this chapter, we propose a process model of emergent multiculturally shared mental models (MSMM) in multiparty negotiation.

Methodology – Building on existing models of collective cognition, we incorporate our research on culture, negotiation, and shared mental models to propose a three-stage model that addresses the unique challenges of a multiparty and multicultural context at each stage.

Implications – The challenges of multiparty negotiation (e.g., increased information load, managing coalitions, etc.) are exacerbated in a multicultural context because negotiators each bring unique approaches and expectations that are grounded in their national cultural values and norms. Our model addresses these complexities and illustrates moderators that can facilitate or hinder the development of a shared understanding in multicultural multiparty negotiation.

Originality – Multicultural multiparty negotiations are common in international business mergers, international peace keeping efforts, and international political, economic, and environmental treaties. This chapter is the first to consider the process of shared cognition in the context of multicultural multiparty negotiations.

Purpose – This chapter proposes a theoretical framework – the Conflict Templates Model – that depicts how people conceptualize their outcome interdependence in conflict and negotiation situations. We focus on perceptions of outcome interdependence in dyadic conflicts, with a particular emphasis on intergroup interactions.

Approach – Integrating ideas and concepts from game theory with social psychological principles, we propose that: (a) people's mental representations of interdependence are predictably constrained to a small set of mixed-motive games; (b) different motivational goals often lead group members to endorse different games to describe the same intergroup conflict; and (c) these interdependence perceptions influence parties' strategic behavior, and ultimately, their outcomes.

Findings – We review empirical evidence that provides initial support for each of these propositions and discuss future directions for research on the mental representation of conflict and negotiation.

Originality/value – We generate a number of novel predictions concerning the mental representation of conflict. We also discuss how identifying disputants' mental representations can help conflict managers devise effective strategies for managing and resolving conflicts.

Purpose – Although extensive research shows that power affects negotiator performance, few efforts have been made to investigate how status conflict among negotiators affects negotiation. This chapter addresses this limitation and explores the question that when groups experience status conflict while simultaneously conducting negotiations, how this status conflict affects negotiator behavior and negotiation outcome.

Approach – We define three basic forms of status contest and develop 12 propositions about the impact of status conflict on between-group negotiator behavior and negotiation outcome.

Findings – We propose that when negotiating with an outgroup, negotiators who experience within-group status conflict will use the outgroup to increase their status within group by demonstrating their value to their own group. In the situation of wholly within-group status conflict and within-group negotiation, individual negotiators will use group concern to gain status. This group concern leads to more value-creating behaviors, but lessens the likelihood of reaching an agreement. When groups experience intergroup status conflict alongside intergroup negotiation, the likelihood of agreement, and the likelihood of integrative agreement, decreases and this is due to an increase in contentiousness.

Value – This chapter suggests that status conflict is an important, albeit neglected, aspect of negotiation and it can affect the outcome of the negotiation. Greater research attention toward status conflict in negotiation should help to improve negotiation effectiveness and the quality of agreements.

Purpose – Recent research has highlighted the importance of individuals' beliefs regarding the malleability or fixedness of negotiator characteristics as key determinants of negotiation processes and performance. In this chapter, we examine how these implicit negotiation beliefs affect negotiation at the team level.

Approach – We explore the effects of implicit negotiation beliefs on team negotiation by articulating a model that considers their impact on important group processes such as goal setting, conflict, and communication.

Findings – We propose that individuals' beliefs regarding the fixedness of negotiator characteristics affect team negotiation processes and outcomes, in particular through their effect on interpersonal processes within a negotiation team. We expect that individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are malleable will focus on long-term success, will devote relatively high levels of effort toward the team's goals, and will share and discuss important information with other members of the team. In contrast, individuals who believe that negotiator characteristics are fixed will focus on short-term goals, will dedicate relatively low levels of effort to the team, and may put their own self interest ahead of the team by withholding key information from other team members. In light of these differences, teams characterized by heterogeneity in team members' implicit negotiation beliefs may experience high levels of intrateam conflict.

Value – This chapter suggests that implicit negotiation beliefs may have a powerful influence on team-level negotiation. Through our review and model development, we aim to stimulate research on implicit negotiation beliefs within groups and teams.

Purpose – Past research on emotions in negotiation has focused primarily on the impact of the emotional state of one negotiator in a negotiation. We focus instead on the group emotional tone of the negotiation, defined as the joint emotional experience of all negotiators in the negotiation. Past research also has focused only on one dimension of emotions in negotiation: valence. We focus instead on two additional dimensions of emotions: uncertainty and action tendencies. Examining emotions at the group level, and taking a multidimensional perspective on emotions in negotiation, provides a more nuanced examination of the effects of emotions in negotiation, and also highlights the possibility of emotional ambivalence (and its effects) both within and across negotiators within a negotiation.

Approach – We examine emotions at the group level, and take a multidimensional approach to understanding the impact of group-level emotions within the context of a negotiation.

Findings – We propose that groups characterized by certain versus uncertain emotional tone will have different perceptions of risk in the environment, which can prompt different behavioral outcomes that affect group negotiation processes and outcomes. Furthermore, we propose that groups characterized by different action tendencies will display differences in willingness to engage others during negotiation, which can significantly influence group negotiation processes and outcomes. Evaluating these additional dimensions should provide a more comprehensive perspective on the effects of group-level emotions on negotiation processes and outcomes.

Value – This review is intended to illuminate the powerful role that negotiation-level emotional tone might play in group negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Part of the importance of understanding the impact of group emotional tone is for group leaders to anticipate – and possibly proactively manage – its impact. This can provide managers a reference point to better understand – and effectively manage – negotiations among group members.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to introduce new methods to behavioral research on group negotiation.

Design/methodology/approach – We describe three techniques from the field of Machine Learning and discuss their possible application to modeling dynamic processes in group negotiation: Markov Models, Hidden Markov Models, and Inverse Reinforcement Learning. Although negotiation research has employed Markov modeling in the past, the latter two methods are even more novel and cutting-edge. They provide the opportunity for researchers to build more comprehensive models and to use data more efficiently. To demonstrate their potential, we use scenarios from group negotiation research and discuss their hypothetical application to these methods. We conclude by suggestions for researchers interested in pursuing this line of work.

Originality/value – This chapter introduces methods that have been successfully used in other fields and discusses how these methods can be used in behavioral negotiation research. This chapter can be a valuable guide to researchers that would like to pursue computational modeling of group negotiation.

Purpose – Negotiations can be stressful, yet are unavoidable in many organizations. Members of organizational workgroups for instance need to negotiate about issues such as task division and different ideas on how to complete a project. Until recently little research effort has been directed to understanding negotiators' stress responses. Similarly, little is known about the consequences that these stress responses may have on negotiation outcomes. In this chapter we argue that group members' physiological stress responses are a key determinant of the outcomes of intragroup negotiations.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We focus on two distinct physiological responses (i.e., threat and challenge) and argue that relative to threat responses, challenge responses will be related to superior information sharing, information processing, and decision-making quality. Moving beyond a uniform relationship between physiological reactions and negotiators' behaviors and outcomes, we also focus on two moderating characteristics: the relative power of group members, and whether the negotiation is purely task related, or co-occurs with relationship issues. We discuss effects on both the individual and the group level, extend our ideas to other forms of negotiations, and end with practical and theoretical implications.

Originality/Value – A better understanding of psychophysiological processes during intragroup negotiations may help to explain when intragroup disagreements help or hinder group outcomes and, therefore, may help to solve the paradox of intragroup conflict.

Purpose – To provide a framework for organizing research on group negotiation, including the contributions of the current volume.

Methodology – The organizing framework arranges past research on group negotiation and the contributions offered in this volume according to the core negotiation elements of people, processes, and places, and their impact on the integration of negotiators' preferences.

Findings – There is an extensive literature on negotiation, but historically group negotiation has represented only a small part of that dialogue. There are three general categories of group negotiation: multiparty negotiation, team negotiation, and multiteam negotiation. The core issue addressed in this chapter is how – viewed through the lens of the four identified core negotiation elements of preferences, people, processes, and places – the quantity and arrangement of negotiators involved in a negotiation qualitatively changes the negotiation experience, and specifically how (different types of) negotiating groups make more complex the challenge of identifying, agreeing to, and implementing integrative agreements.

Implications – More than dyadic negotiation, the difficulty of reaching agreements that satisfy all parties can lead to agreements that some negotiators are less than enthusiastic about implementing. It is the difficulty and importance of finding agreements that satisfy all parties in group negotiation that makes it so important to understand the influence of group negotiation by people, processes, and places.

Value of the Paper – This chapter organizes the landscape of group negotiation research by illuminating both what we know about the people, processes, and places that influence the negotiation of group members' preferences, as well as pointing the way – both theoretically and methodologically – for future researchers to fill in the blanks that remain.