Negotiation Recognition and the Process of Decision Making

ABSTRACT Because of the complex pressures facing businesses, organizations must ensure that employees have the skills necessary to negotiate conflicts. A crucial question is how negotiation is defined, whether an individual knows they are involved in a negotiation process instead of a static situation, and to what degree they have control of the negotiated outcome. This paper informs future negotiation research on the correct approach to control for perceived negotiation appropriateness in studies of negotiation process and skills. OBJECTIVE A basic process of human behavior is the ability to negotiate both in interpersonal and organizational interactions. There is a large body of research on negotiator characteristics and the influence that these characteristics have upon the negotiation process and outcomes. Much of the existing literature focuses on the negotiation skill and traits associated with achieving a favorable outcome from the negotiation process. This concern for individual efficacy in the negotiation process is consistent with the pressures challenging global business. In the complex environment facing global business, organizations must ensure that employees have the skills necessary to negotiate conflicts. A potential shortcoming of this line of research is that individuals may differ in their perception of the appropriateness of negotiation, particularly intensive negotiation. Crucial questions that may influence the individual's reaction include how negotiation is defined; whether an individual knows they are involved in a negotiation process instead of a static situation; and to what degree they are perceived to have control of the negotiated outcome. A perceived situational ambiguity may influence who chooses to negotiate. The analysis is similar to the difference between problem recognition and problem solving skills. Recognizing the opportunity to negotiate precedes negotiation. This paper directly addresses the nature of negotiation recognition in the negotiation process. There are two potential approaches to situational ambiguity. First, it could be treated as a one-dimensional indexed trait like risk aversion. Just as some individuals are more risk averse, perhaps some individuals are more prone to avoid intense negotiation if it might not be appropriate. Alternatively, the appropriateness of negotiation may be a matter of individual perception. If so then different individuals will have different ratings for the appropriateness of a negotiation process. The relationship between these ratings will not show a dominance of negotiators versus negotiation avoiders, but rather a non-transitive ordering of when negotiation is appropriate. Educational and life experience define an individual's outlook on the negotiation process. LITERATURE REVIEW John Nash presented bargaining as a nonzero-sum two person game with the opportunity for mutual benefit. How much satisfaction each individual should expect from the situation determines the solution to the negotiation (1950). Although Rubin and Brown (1975) defined negotiation as the process of deciding what each will give and take in an exchange, the key element of negotiation occurs whenever the allocation of gains among participants to an agreement is subject to their own choice rather than predetermined by their circumstances (Cross, 1969, ? 1). Negotiation involves agreements in concert (Conger, 1998), but management educators who teach negotiation recognize that managers often have little experience and very differing views of when negotiation is appropriate (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Ross & Ward, 1 995, 1996; Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002). Filipczak in 1994 found an estimated $50.6 billion is spent on formal training programs and that there has been a 30-40%» increase in training for specific interpersonal skills in the area of negotiation. Education, gender, and life experience define an individual's outlook on how negotiation is used to control an outcome (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Stuhlmacher and Walters, 1999; Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Deaux & Major, 1987; Maccoby, 1990); Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002; ). …