St Johns University Negotiation Strategies and Interaction Model Discussion Your submission must include the following information in the following format:

St Johns University Negotiation Strategies and Interaction Model Discussion Your submission must include the following information in the following format:

Journal Ariticle Analysis

Negotiation Strategies

DEFINITION: a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement.

SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 word range. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term.

ANALYSIS: Using 300-350 words, write a brief analysis, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. An analysis is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment.

REFERENCES: All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format.

Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment are completed as required.

Any form of plagiarism, including cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire assignment.

CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY: A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
Images

Go to all 10 images >>
Authors:
BRETT, JEANNE M.1
GUNIA, BRIAN C.2
TEUCHER, BROSH M.3
Source:
Academy of Management Perspectives. Nov2017, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p288-308. 21p.
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*NEGOTIATION
*STRATEGIC planning
CROSS-cultural differences
TRUST
RESEARCH personnel
CROSS-cultural studies
Abstract:
The literature on the use and effectiveness of negotiation strategies reveals intriguing yet unexplained patterns of cultural differences. Negotiators in some regions of the world rely on the questions and answers (Q&A) strategy, typically associated with high trust and high joint gains, while negotiators in other regions of the world rely on the substantiation and offers (S&O) strategy, typically associated with low trust and low joint gains. Yet negotiators from some low-trust cultures use Q&A, negotiators from some high-trust cultures use S&O, and negotiators from some cultures achieve low joint gains through Q&A or high joint gains through S&O. To explain these anomalies, we propose an integrated framework involving three constructs from cultural psychology: cultural levels of trust, tightness-looseness, and holistic versus analytic mindset. Specifically, we propose that the interaction between trust and tightness-looseness can explain cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategies, while the interaction of these strategies with holistic versus analytic mindset can explain cultural differences in the effectiveness of negotiation strategies. In sum, we extend the boundaries of current research to develop a cultural rationale for anomalies in extant research, encouraging negotiation and management researchers to consider new constructs as their research “goes global”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1Northwestern University
2Johns Hopkins University
3Saint Michael’s College
ISSN:
1558-9080
DOI:
10.5465/amp.2015.0195
Accession Number:
126836857
Database:
Business Source Premier r Academy of Management Perspectives
2017, Vol. 31, No. 4, 288–308.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0195
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
S
CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY: A FRAMEWORK
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
JEANNE M. BRETT
Northwestern University
BRIAN C. GUNIA
Johns Hopkins University
BROSH M. TEUCHER
Saint Michael’s College
The literature on the use and effectiveness of negotiation strategies reveals intriguing yet
unexplained patterns of cultural differences. Negotiators in some regions of the world
rely on the questions and answers (Q&A) strategy, typically associated with high trust
and high joint gains, while negotiators in other regions of the world rely on the substantiation and offers (S&O) strategy, typically associated with low trust and low joint
gains. Yet negotiators from some low-trust cultures use Q&A, negotiators from some
high-trust cultures use S&O, and negotiators from some cultures achieve low joint gains
through Q&A or high joint gains through S&O. To explain these anomalies, we propose
an integrated framework involving three constructs from cultural psychology: cultural
levels of trust, tightness–looseness, and holistic versus analytic mindset. Specifically, we
propose that the interaction between trust and tightness–looseness can explain cultural
differences in the use of negotiation strategies, while the interaction of these strategies
with holistic versus analytic mindset can explain cultural differences in the effectiveness of negotiation strategies. In sum, we extend the boundaries of current research to
develop a cultural rationale for anomalies in extant research, encouraging negotiation
and management researchers to consider new constructs as their research “goes global.”
Two constraints hinder an understanding of the
reasons for these cultural differences in negotiation strategy and outcomes. The first is the plethora of cultural constructs used to explain cultural
differences in negotiation: individualism versus
collectivism, high-context versus low-context communication, hierarchical versus egalitarian social
structure, and relational versus transactional motivational orientation, to name a few (see Lügger,
Geiger, Neun, & Backhaus, 2015, for a review). The
second, and far more limiting, constraint is the absence of a theoretically grounded framework to
provide an integrated explanation for patterns of
cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategies and associated outcomes.
To address these constraints, we propose a framework that integrates research on culture and negotiation
The global economy rests on a bedrock of negotiation, with global deal making hitting an all-time
peak of $4.2 trillion in 2015 (Hammond, 2015).
Whenever interdependent parties interact to work
out the terms of their relationship—whether they
represent themselves, their businesses, their governments, or some other institution—they are
negotiating.
Negotiation scholarship dating from Herodotus to
a plethora of recent empirical articles documents
national cultural differences in the strategies negotiators use and the effectiveness of those strategies
for creating value (for a review see Gunia, Brett, &
Gelfand, 2016). This research generally reveals that
negotiators in different cultures systematically use
different strategies, and that the strategies that create
value in one culture may not do so in another.
288
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2017
Brett, Gunia, and Teucher
with emerging knowledge from cultural psychology.
Our framework encourages researchers to shift their
focus across the boundary of what is known to what is
suggested by the evidence. Our immediate goal is to
stimulate new research on culture and negotiation that
pushes beyond the boundaries of current knowledge
regarding the strategies and outcomes of negotiators
from around the world. Our broader goal is to provide
a new direction for management researchers investigating how interdependent decision making
unfolds across cultures.
We develop our perspective across three sections.
First, we review the theory and existing evidence
concerning negotiation strategy and joint gains. Negotiation strategy represents the way that people
negotiate—the goal-directed behaviors they use to
reach agreement (Weingart, Thompson, Bazerman, &
Carroll, 1990). The research we review focuses on the
use of two strategies: Q&A (questions and answers,
an integrative, value-creating negotiation strategy
typically associated with high trust) and S&O (substantiation and offers, a distributive, value-claiming
negotiation strategy typically associated with low
trust) (Kong, Dirks, & Ferrin, 2014). The reviewed
research emphasizes the effects of these strategies on
the important outcome of joint gains: a measure of
the value created in a negotiation (Raiffa, 1982).
Second, we review the literature documenting
cultural differences in negotiation strategy. This review reveals that, at the cultural level of analysis,
Q&A is not always the prototypical negotiation
strategy in high-trust cultures, and S&O is not always
the prototypical negotiation strategy in low-trust
cultures. To address these anomalies, we propose
a new theoretical explanation grounded in the
cultural-level constructs of trust and tightness–
looseness. Trust is the willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another in social interaction
(Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). At the
cultural level, it refers to the general belief that others
are trustworthy. Tightness–looseness is the degree to
which cultural norms are strongly endorsed, conformity to those norms is socially monitored, and
violations are socially sanctioned (Gelfand, Nishii, &
Raver, 2006). We propose that the interaction of trust
and tightness–looseness can explain the culturallevel anomalies associated with the use of the Q&A
and S&O strategies.
Third, we turn to the literature documenting cultural differences in the effectiveness of particular
negotiation strategies for producing joint gains.
Although it is theoretically possible to consider
negotiation strategies or outcomes in isolation, we
289
include outcomes in our analysis because a discussion of cultural differences in strategy naturally raises
the question of what effect the strategies used in
different cultures will have on negotiators’ outcomes. Our review of the literature reveals that in
some cultures, high joint gains are associated with
the prototypical use of S&O, not of Q&A as widely
documented (Brett & Thompson, 2016). To address
this anomaly, we propose a theoretical explanation
grounded in the construct of holistic versus analytic
mindset. Mindset refers to a pattern of attention and
reasoning that emphasizes context (holistic mindset)
versus content (analytic mindset), and mindset varies systematically with culture (Nisbett, Peng, Choi,
& Norenzayan, 2001). We propose that the interaction of negotiation strategy and mindset can explain cultural-level differences in the relationship
between the use of negotiation strategy and joint
gains.
We complete our new perspective by integrating
three cultural constructs—trust, tightness–looseness,
and holistic versus analytic mindset—into a theoretical framework that provides an explanation for
cultural differences in the use and effectiveness of
negotiation strategy. In proposing our framework,
we do not rely on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural values,
which have shown a dearth of explanatory power
in culture and negotiation research (Kirkman, Lowe,
& Gibson, 2006). Instead, our framework offers a novel
yet evidence-based and integrated explanation for
cultural differences in the use and effectiveness of
negotiation strategies.
We propose this new framework in the interest of
encouraging negotiation researchers to cross knowledge boundaries by questioning preconceptions,
challenging assumptions, and integrating new or different theory into their research on culture and negotiation. Our new framework—based on cultural
levels of trust, tightness–looseness, and holistic versus analytic mindset—offers a fresh perspective with
clear, theoretically grounded guidance for future research. In the following sections, as we review the
literature and develop the reasoning for our perspective, we seek to distinguish between what the evidence indicates and what it suggests.
NEGOTIATION STRATEGY AND JOINT GAINS
Negotiation is the social process by which two or
more interdependent parties make decisions, allocate resources, or resolve disputes (Brett, 2014). In
essence, negotiators try to reach an agreement that
works out the details of their interdependence while
290
Academy of Management Perspectives
protecting and advancing their interests. Negotiated
agreements produce outcomes for the involved
parties, of which joint gains are one particularly
important type. Joint gains represent the total value
created and subsequently divided by the negotiated
agreement. Because agreements involving high joint
gains tend to create advantageous economic outcomes for all sides, generate satisfaction, and facilitate relationships and agreement implementation,
they are an important metric for gauging negotiation
effectiveness (Brett, 2014). Yet agreements involving
high joint gains are difficult to achieve, at times
because negotiators fail to use optimal strategies
(Thompson, 2014).
Foundational negotiation theory (Walton &
McKersie, 1965) proposes two types of strategy:
distributive strategy, in which the negotiator’s goal is
focused narrowly on claiming value for the self, and
integrative strategy, in which the negotiator’s goal is
focused more broadly on creating value for both the
self and the other (and then claiming a sufficient
portion of the joint value). Distributive strategy
consists of behaviors such as making and substantiating offers. Here, we use the term S&O (Gunia,
Brett, Nandkeolyar, & Kamdar, 2011) to refer to the
behaviors underlying distributive strategy. Negotiators intent on claiming value rely heavily, although
not exclusively, on distributive strategy (De Dreu,
Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). Integrative strategy consists of behaviors such as asking questions and
sharing information about interests (motives underlying a party’s requests), priorities (what a party
values more or less), and potential trade-offs. Here,
we use the term Q&A (Gunia et al., 2011) to refer to
the behaviors underlying integrative strategy. Negotiators intent on creating value rely heavily, though
not exclusively, on integrative strategy (De Dreu
et al., 2000). In general, research (e.g., Kong et al.,
2014) shows integrative strategies (Q&A) are more
conducive to high joint gains than distributive
strategies (S&O), as the former facilitate an information exchange that helps negotiators understand
negotiators’ interests and priorities—that is, to
achieve “insight” (Pruitt, 1981; Thompson & Hastie,
1990).
Although Walton and McKersie’s (1965) conceptualization summarizes much of the research on
negotiation strategy, we also integrate the foundational work of Pruitt (1981), who proposed a conceptualization of negotiation strategy that departs
from Walton and McKersie’s in several ways. Most
important here, Pruitt proposed that, at least in
principle, negotiators could use strategies such as
November
S&O to generate high joint gains. Though he did not
use the term S&O, Pruitt suggested that because
negotiators make offers in their own interest and
substantiate them in accordance with subjective
importance, S&O-like strategies implicitly communicate information about interests and priorities that
the counterpart could use to make trade-offs and
create joint gains. He conceded that extracting such
information from S&O takes second-order processing, and that the negotiators in his studies (American
undergraduate students) did not do so.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE USE OF
NEGOTIATION STRATEGY
Culture describes the unique character of a group,
extending from norms (standards of appropriate behavior) to beliefs (expectations of others’ behaviors)
to values (what is more or less important to people) to behaviors (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, &
Janssens, 1995). In this section, we review research
on negotiations that is both intracultural, which
means that negotiations occur between two members
of the same culture, and comparative, which means
that the studies compare the use of strategy in intracultural negotiations in two or more cultures. This
research tests for the relative degree of betweenversus within-group differences, where groups are
national cultures. When significant differences are
reported, cultural group means reflect distinct central tendencies or cultural prototypes. Note that
a prototype implies not only a central tendency, but
also variation around that central tendency. This
means that a prototype differs from a stereotype,
which implies no variation. Finally, neither we nor
the research we review means to suggest that culture
is the only factor influencing negotiators’ choice of
strategy—only that it represents a potentially important influence.
With these considerations in mind, we identified
relevant studies by drawing from a meta-analysis on
negotiation strategy and joint gains that made cultural comparisons (Vogel, Brett, & Ramirez-Marin,
2017). Please see Appendix A for details on the metaanalysis search process. Appendix B lists the
national cultures under investigation in each of the
studies we identified. Appendix C reports the negotiation strategy results from each of the identified
papers and summarizes the studies’ characteristics.
We note that the studies included in our analysis
span a number of years. Although we cannot rule out
the possibility of changes over time, cultures change
very slowly because they represent collectively
2017
Brett, Gunia, and Teucher
created social environments that provide predictability (Yamagishi & Hashimoto, 2016). Thus, we
consider older and newer studies broadly comparable. We did not include intercultural studies because
the observed strategies could not be attributed to
a single culture.
We reviewed the methods sections of each of the
included studies to identify the use of Q&A and S&O.
Indicators of Q&A included information sharing and
seeking, collaborating, questions and answers about
information and priorities, and problem solving. Indicators of S&O included emotional tactics; appeals
to logic; influence tactics (putdowns, demands,
threats); punishment; contending, avoiding, forcing,
contentious behavior, and concession making; persuasive arguments; and undifferentiated offers.
We then used the studies’ statistical results to
classify a culture as Q&A or S&O prototypical. First,
we collected all of the studies comparing the use of
negotiation strategy in a focal culture with the use of
negotiation strategy in other cultures. We then
reviewed the statistical differences. For example,
three studies reported data comparing Chinese and
U.S. negotiators’ use of strategy (Aslani et al., 2016;
Dong, 2006; Liu, 2009). In all three studies, the Chinese negotiators used S&O statistically more often
than the U.S. negotiators, and the U.S. negotiators
used Q&A statistically more often than the Chinese
negotiators. A fourth study (Lügger et al., 2015)
291
compared German and Chinese negotiators. The
Chinese again used S&O statistically more often than
the Germans, and the Germans used Q&A statistically more often than the Chinese. Patterns of results
like these, which were remarkably consistent across
studies, samples, and simulations, led us to classify
a culture as Q&A or S&O prototypical. Our national
culture classifications appear in Appendix C.
In classifying a national culture as Q&A (S&O)
prototypical, we do not mean that all negotiators in
that culture use only Q&A (S&O). We also do not
mean that negotiators in a prototypically Q&A culture never use S&O. Rather, we mean that the extant
research implies that negotiators from some cultures
devote relatively more of their negotiating time to
Q&A (S&O) than to S&O (Q&A).
Our classification of national cultures as Q&A or
S&O prototypical revealed similarities within and
differences between four regions of the world: the
West, East Asia, “Latin cultures” (including Latin
America, Spain, and Portugal), and the Middle East/
South Asia. Global organizations like the World
Bank (World Bank Annual Report, 2016) commonly
use such regional designations. Recognizing that the
number of studies available for review is limited, the
results of our classification reveal three patterns in
the data. Figure 1 shows that Western culture nations
(Germany, Israel, Norway, Sweden, the U.S.) were
classified as Q&A prototypical, while East Asian
FIGURE 1
Frequency of Cultures by Negotiation Strategy by Region
6
5
4
3
Q&A
S&O
2
1
0
Latin Countries
Middle East/
South Asia
East Asia
West
Data are from Appendices A. and B.
The data are from Wave 6 (1999–2011) of the World Values Survey for the 33 countries for which there is tightness–looseness data.
See http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp.
292
Academy of Management Perspectives
(China, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand) and Middle
Eastern/South Asian nations (India, Qatar) were
classified as S&O prototypical. The limited studies
reporting on the use of negotiation strategy in the
Latin cultures show a mix of Q&A (prototypical in
Brazil) and S&O (prototypical in Mexico and Spain).
These intriguing patterns naturally raise the question of how to explain these differences in the use of
negotiation strategies.
A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE USE OF
NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES
Culture and negotiation studies have used many
different constructs to explain cultural differences,
with limited success. One reason why traditional
cultural constructs (e.g., individualism–collectivism)
have demonstrated limited explanatory power (Kirkman
et al., 2006) may be the lack of a theoretically grounded
framework that links the cultural constructs to the
context of negotiation. Trust and cultural tightness–
looseness are two psychological constructs that vary
systematically between cultures and have relevance in
the context of negotiation. We propose that the interaction between the two constructs may provide
a potential explanation, and therefore a theoretically
grounded opportunity, for research on cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategy. The next
sections develop our reasoning.
Proposed Influence #1: Trust
Trust is an important predictor of the use of negotiation strategy (Kong et al., 2014). Negotiators
who trust that their counterpart will not exploit
shared information about interests and priorities
tend to use Q&A. Trust enables them to accept the
vulnerability inherent in exchanging such information. Conversely, negotiators who do not trust
tend to use S&O, as they are unwilling to accept the
vulnerabilities inherent in exchanging information
and may disbelieve information shared by the
counterpart (Gunia et al., 2011).
Building on research that generalizes from the individual to the cultural level of analysis (Gunia et al.,
2011), we propose that cultural differences in trust
may partially explain cultural differences in the use
of strategy. Trust varies across cultures (Branzei,
Vertinsky, & Camp, 2007; Delhey & Newton, 2005;
Yamagishi, Cook, & Watabe, 1998). This variation
does not seem to be attributable to differences in
the core conceptualization of trust. Terms like reliability, benevolence, responsibility, integrity, and
November
dependability turn up repeatedly in studies comparing the conceptualizations of trust across cultures
(Ferrin & Gillespie, 2010). Appe…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment