Abstract
Effective negotiation rests in part on generating integrative agreements, or agreements advancing parties’ interests through generating joint gains. Theorists have outlined multiple possibilities to achieve integrative agreements (Pruitt in Negotiation behaviour, Academic Press, New York, 1981; Carnevale in: Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus (eds) Handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2006), but negotiation research relies disproportionately on studies of one method of integration—making efficient tradeoffs on existing issues. The current studies examine integration through redefinition—modifying the issues under discussion. Doing so encourages revisiting the role goals play in negotiation. Study 1 found that positive and negative bargaining zones are not just indicators of agreement rates, but also cues to consider redefining issues. Specifically, negative bargaining zones spurred attempts to create value that positive bargaining zones did not. Study 2 found that focusing on interests was useful for redefining issues, whereas focusing on ambitious targets was no better than focusing on reservation points. Implications for negotiation theory are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data will be available on request.
Code availability
Code used to perform data analysis will be available on request.
Notes
Exercise materials are available on the Negotiation and Team Resources website: https://www.negotiationandteamresources.com/.
References
Bazerman MH, Gillespie JJ (1999) Betting on the future: the virtues of contingent contracts. Harv Bus Rev 77:155–160
Brett JM, Thompson LL (2016) Negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 136:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.003
Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2008) Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecol Soc 13:30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02616-130230
Carnevale JP (2006) Creativity in the outcomes of conflict. In: Deutsch M, Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 414–435
Daft RL, Macintosh NB (1981) A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Adm Sci Q 26:207. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392469
Druckman D, Olekalns M (2013) Motivational primes, trust, and negotiators’ reaction to a crisis. J Confl Resolut 57:966–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712453707
Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA
Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin, New York, NY
Follett MP (1940) Dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. Harper & Row, New York, NY
Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T, Medvec VH (2002) Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1131
Gelman A, Carlin J (2014) Beyond power calculations: Assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspect Psychol Sci 9:641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642
Goldberg S (2008) Texoil. In: Brett JM (ed) Negotiation and decision making exercises. Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Gray B (1997) Framing and reframing of intractable environmental disputes. In: Lewicki RJ, Bies RJ, Sheppard BH (eds) Research on negotiation in organizations. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 163–188
Gray B (2004) Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to collaboration. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14:166–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.773
Gray B (2005) Framing in mediation and mediation as framing. In: Herman M (ed) Mediation from beginning to end. Blackwell, New York, NY, pp 195–216
Gulliver PH (1979) Disputes & negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective. Academic Press, New York, NY, US
Hampson FO, Hart M (1999) Multilateral negotiations: lessons from arms control, trade, and the Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
House R (1982) The ugli orange exercise. In: Bowen DD, Lewicki RJ, Hall FS (eds) Hall DT. Experiences in management and organizational behavior. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, US
Jang D, Elfenbein HA, Bottom WP (2018) More than a phase: form and features of a general theory of negotiation. Acad Manag Ann 12:318–356. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0053
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1991) Structuring and analyzing values for multiple-issue negotiations. In: Young HP (ed) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, US, pp 131–151
Kim PH, Pinkley RL, Fragale AR (2005) Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad Manage Rev 30:799–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159169
Kolb DM (1995) The love for three oranges or: what did we miss about Ms. Follett in the library? Negot J 11:339–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1995.tb00750.x
Kolb DM, Williams J (2003) Everyday negotiation: navigating the hidden agendas in bargaining. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2002) Dealcrafting: the substance of three-dimensional negotiations. Negot J 18:5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2002.tb00248.x
Lewicki RJ, Bowen DD, Hall DT, Hall FS (1988) Experiences in management and organizational behavior. Wiley, New York, NY
Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol 57:705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Pinkley RL, Northcraft GB (2000) Get paid what you’re worth: the expert negotiator’s guide to salary and compensation. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, US
Pinkley RL, Neale MA, Bennett RJ (1994) The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 57:97–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1006
Pinkley RL, Conlon DE, Sawyer JE et al (2019) The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: how what could be haunts what is. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 151:34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.008
Polzer JT, Neale MA (1995) Constraints or catalysts? reexamining goal setting with the context of negotiation. Hum Perform 8:3–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0801_2
Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New York, NY, US
Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27:167–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276483027002005
Pruitt DG, Lewis SA (1975) Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 31:621–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.621
Putnam LL (1994) Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. Int J Confl Manag 5:284–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022748
Putnam LL, Holmer M (1992) Framing, reframing, and issue development. Communication and negotiation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, US, pp 128–155
Putnam LL, Wilson SR, Waltman MS, Turner D (1986) The evolution of case arguments in teachers’ bargaining. Argum Advocacy 23:63–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1986.11951331
Sebenius JK (1983) Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties. Int Organ 37:281–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830003438X
Sebenius JK (1992) Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Manag Sci 38:18–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.1.18
Simon HA (1947) Administrative behavior. Macmillan Company, New York, NY
Spector BI (1995) Creativity heuristics for impasse resolution: reframing intractable negotiations. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 542:81–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716295542001006
Thompson L (2014) The mind and heart of the negotiator. Pearson, Boston, MA, US
Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: an analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Zetik DC, Stuhlmacher AF (2002) Goal setting and negotiation performance: a meta-analysis. Group Process Intergroup Relat 5:35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001537
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declaraes there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jang, D., Choi, H. & Loewenstein, J. Integration Through Redefinition: Revisiting the Role of Negotiators’ Goals. Group Decis Negot 30, 1113–1131 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8