Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workplace Mediation: Lessons from Negotiation Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advancing Workplace Mediation Through Integration of Theory and Practice

Part of the book series: Industrial Relations & Conflict Management ((IRCM))

  • 1465 Accesses

Abstract

To avoid impasses and to reach mutually beneficial agreements in negotiation and mediation, parties need to overcome a multitude of pitfalls—both of psychological and structural nature. En route to facilitating beneficial agreements, mediators can build on negotiation theory, which provides a number of key insights into the psychological and structural backdrop of conflicts. Capitalizing on these insights may alter parties’ willingness to concede, their problem-solving behavior, and their ability to discover hidden resources. In this chapter, we review some influential theories, models, and concepts from the field of negotiation research and illustrate how these can help to better understand the pitfalls of workplace conflicts. We furthermore discuss a number of implications that negotiation theory has for successful mediation in the workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nowadays, variations of these measures can also be found online which provides a simple and quick way of testing social orientations. See for example http://vlab.ethz.ch/svo/index-normal.html.

  2. 2.

    The term “miser” relates to Fiske and Taylor’s (1991) concept of the cognitive miser, for a person who thinks heuristically.

  3. 3.

    Again, there are also online tools for assessing NC and NFC which can for example be used in preparation for a face-to-face session.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1175–1199). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, N. (2008). The mediation metamodel: Understanding practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(1), 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartos, O. J. (1974). Process and outcome in negotiation. New York: Columbia University Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M., Benton, A. A., & Keys, C. B. (1975). Third party intervention and the bargaining behavior of group representatives. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(3), 532–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum, Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., Magliozzi, T., & Neale, M. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(3), 294–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R. D. (1995). The constructive uses of deception: Skills, strategies, and techniques of the folkloric trickster figure and their application by mediators. Mediation Quarterly, 13(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, A. A., & Druckman, D. (1973). Salient solutions and the bargaining behavior of representatives and nonrepresentatives. International Journal of Group Tensions, 3(1–2), 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, A. A., & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(4), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigoness, W. J. (1976). The impact of initial bargaining position and alternative modes of third party intervention in resolving bargaining impasses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(1), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal, 29(3), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & Müller, P. (2010). Why are subordinates less satisfied with mediation? The role of uncertainty. Negotiation Journal, 26(4), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., Ittner, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2012). Mediating hierarchical labor conflicts: Procedural justice makes a difference—for subordinates. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(5), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottom, W. P. (1998). Negotiator risk: Sources of uncertainty and the impact of reference points on negotiated agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 89–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boulle, L., Goldblatt, V., & Green, P. (2008). Mediation: Principles, process, practice (2nd New Zealand ed). Wellington: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookmire, D. A., & Sistrunk, F. (1980). The effects of perceived ability and impartiality of mediators and time pressure on negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(2), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2011). When are teams an asset in negotiations and when are they a liability? In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & J. R. Overbeck (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Negotiation and groups (Vol. 14, pp. 3–34). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, J. W. (2006). The mediator’s handbook: Advanced practice guide for civil litigation (2nd ed.). South Bend: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 235–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J. D., Emans, B. J. M., & van de Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(1), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B. J., & van de Vliert, E. (1995). Outcome frames in bilateral negotiation: Resistance to concession making and frame adoption. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, L., & Oldersma, L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3), 348–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000a). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Steinel, W. (2000b). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 975–987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 927–943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 507–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J. K., & Marriott, R. G. (1995). Mediation tactics: A comparison of field and laboratory research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(17), 1530–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis the role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25(2), 224–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 404–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. B. (1982). Grievance mediation: A step towards peace in the bituminous coal industry. West Virginia Law Review, 85, 777–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (in press). Perspective taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2016). Effectiveness of intergroup mediation: A comprehensive review. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harinck, F., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(5), 595–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harth, N. S., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict party. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18(5), 676–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 83–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology and society: Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (p. Xiii, 231-). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltrop, J. M., & Rubin, J. Z. (1982). Effects of intervention mode and conflict of interest on dispute resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 665–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höhne, B. P. (2015). It’s called joint venture for a reason. Allocation context and resource valence as determinants of agreement quality in shared resource negotiations. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://katalog.leuphana.gbv.de.

  • Höhne, B. P., Loschelder, D. D., & Trötschel, R. (2016). Keep your eyes on the prize when jointly venturing. Allocation context and resource valence as determinants of agreement quality in shared resource negotiations. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. F., & Pruitt, D. G. (1972). Preintervention effects of mediation versus arbitration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. F., & Tullar, W. L. (1972). Style of third party intervention, face-saving and bargaining behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., Beckman, L. L., & Fischer, C. S. (1967). Negotiating the division of a reward under incomplete information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(4), 361–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleef, G. A., Steinel, W., Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M. A., & Svensson, A. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrick, R. P., & Blount, S. (1997). The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 810–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, A. D., & Sebenius, K. J. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1175–1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liebrand, W. B., & McClintock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loschelder, D. D., & Trötschel, R. (2010). Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: Third-Party intervention in intergroup negotiations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loschelder, D. D., Swaab, R. I., Trötschel, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The first-mover disadvantage: The folly of revealing compatible preferences. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/095679761352016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loschelder, D. D., Friese, M., & Trötschel, R. (2015). Strategic offers for egoistic reasons: The interplay of social motivation and procedural framing at the bargaining table. Manuscript in revision.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loschelder, D. D., Trötschel, R., Swaab, R. I., Friese, M. & Galinsky, A. D. (2016a). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When and why first offers help vs. hurt negotiators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Loschelder, D. D., Trötschel, R., Swaab, R. I., Höhne, B. P., & Gaertner, S. L. (2016b). Common identity mediation in representative negotiations: Economic and psychological benefits of a shared identity. Manuscript in revision.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., & Messick, D. M. (1976). A framework for social motives. Behavioral Science, 21(2), 86–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, F. J., Vilches, V., Otero, M., & Munduate, L. (2014). How negotiators are transformed into mediators. Labor conflict mediation in Andalusia. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 30(3), 133–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. S. (2001). A just alternative or just an alternative? Mediation and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. M., & Tindale, R. (2002). Group vs individual performance in mixed-motive situations: Exploring an inconsistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 44–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 9(1), 107–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1992). Negotiating rationally: The power and impact of the negotiator’s frame. Academy of Management Executive, 6(3), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, K. M. (1997). Motives and cognitions in negotiation: A theoretical integration and an empirical test. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(2), 114–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzer, T. (1996). Intergroup negotiations: The effects of negotiating teams. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(4), 678–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89–150). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove: Brooks-Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20(4), 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, A. M. (1952). Needed research on the mediation of labor disputes. Personnel Psychology, 5(3), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. H., Conlon, D. E., & Lind, E. A. (1990). The mediator as leader: Effects of behavioral style and deadline certainty on negotiator behavior. Group and Organization Management, 15(1), 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinel, W., De Dreu, C. K., Ouwehand, E., & Ramírez-Marín, J. Y. (2009). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulberg, J. B., & Love, L. P. (2009). The middle voice: Mediating conflict successfully. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole: Monterey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Brodt, S. E. (1996). Team negotiation: An examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trötschel, R., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 579–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., & Loschelder, D. D. (2010). When yielding pieces of the pie is not a piece of cake: Identity-based intergroup effects in negotiations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 771–790.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trötschel, R., Loschelder, D. D., Höhne, B. P., & Majer, J. M. (2015). Procedural frames in negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 417–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (p. 239). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, L. (2009). Mediation and inequality reconsidered: Bringing the discussion to the table. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), 383–404. doi:10.1002/crq.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Distance Learning, Beuth University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany

    Benjamin P. Höhne

  2. Department of Business Psychology and Experimental Methods, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    David D. Loschelder

  3. Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Lisa Gutenbrunner

  4. Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Johann M. Majer & Roman Trötschel

Authors
  1. Benjamin P. Höhne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David D. Loschelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Gutenbrunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johann M. Majer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roman Trötschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin P. Höhne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Research and Development, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Katalien Bollen

  2. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Martin Euwema

  3. Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Lourdes Munduate

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Höhne, B.P., Loschelder, D.D., Gutenbrunner, L., Majer, J.M., Trötschel, R. (2016). Workplace Mediation: Lessons from Negotiation Theory. In: Bollen, K., Euwema, M., Munduate, L. (eds) Advancing Workplace Mediation Through Integration of Theory and Practice. Industrial Relations & Conflict Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42842-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation