1999•Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision AnalysisOpen access

Rational inefficient compromises in negotiation

Gregory E. Kersten, Geoffrey R. Mallory

Open full text 18 citations

Abstract

It has often been assumed that rational negotiators who achieve inefficient compromises should accept Pareto improvements suggested by some external party, such as an expert mediator, or a computer system. Following this assumption an argument is made to give legitimacy to efficient compromises generated by a negotiation support system or to entice a partymove to a Pareto improvement. The simplificatons made in model construction on the one hand and the very narrow and limited considerations of rationality in present negotiation support systems on the other, suggest a different approach to support. This approach is based on engaging users to a sound process confronting them with their inconsisencies rather than providing solutions or promoting improvements.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

It has often been assumed that rational negotiators who achieve inefficient compromises should accept Pareto improvements suggested by some external party, such as an expert mediator, or a computer system. Following this assumption an argument is made to give legitimacy to efficient compromises generated by a negotiation support system or to entice a partymove to a Pareto improvement. The simplificatons made in model construction on the one hand and the very narrow and limited considerations of rationality in present negotiation support systems on the other, suggest a different approach to support. This approach is based on engaging users to a sound process confronting them with their inconsisencies rather than providing solutions or promoting improvements.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

It has often been assumed that rational negotiators who achieve inefficient compromises should accept Pareto improvements suggested by some external party, such as an expert mediator, or a computer system. Following this assumption an argument is made to give legitimacy to efficient compromises generated by a negotiation support system or to entice a partymove to a Pareto improvement. The simplificatons made in model construction on the one hand and the very narrow and limited considerations of rationality in present negotiation support systems on the other, suggest a different approach to support. This approach is based on engaging users to a sound process confronting them with their inconsisencies rather than providing solutions or promoting improvements.

Key concepts: Negotiation, Fallacy, Sociology, International business, Management, Media studies, Library science, Operations research

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Rational inefficient compromises in negotiation — Research Paper | ScholarLens