Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication Quality in Business Negotiations

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The quality of a business negotiation process is usually assessed by its economic outcome, e.g. in terms of Pareto efficiency or distance to Nash equilibrium. We argue that this assessment method is insufficient in that it fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of business negotiations. Negotiators engage in highly complex communication tasks, and these communication processes should be analysed along with the outcome in the overall evaluation of a business negotiation. To this end, we will introduce Communication Quality as a new construct for analyzing the negotiation process. Furthermore, it will be argued that Communication Quality itself can affect economic negotiation outcomes both short- and long-term. We will present relevant aspects of Communication Quality, outline a scheme for its operationalisation and measurement, and discuss its probable impacts on business negotiations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev 27(1): 17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale PJ, De Dreu CKW (2004) Methods of negotiation research: introduction. Int Negotiat 9: 341–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter C, Kaufmann L (2007) The impact of electronic reverse auctions on supplier performance: the mediating role of relationship variables. J Supply Chain Manage 43(1): 16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Q 11(3): 355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Moor A, Weigand H (2002) Towards a semiotic communications quality model. In: (eds) Organisational semiotics: evolving a science of information systems. Kluwer, Boston, pp, pp 275–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmers-Sommer TM (2004) The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J Soc Personal Relationships 21(3): 399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson O (2002) Communication quality in the context of information systems and business processes. In: Liu K, Clarke RJ, Andersen PB, Stamper RK(eds) Coordination and communication using signs: studies in organisational semiotics 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 115–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth A (1995) Introduction and overview. In: Firth A(eds) The discourse of negotiation. Studies of language in the workplace. Pergamon Press, London, pp 3–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (2004) Das Harvard-Konzept—Der Klassiker der Verhandlungstechnik, vol 22. Campus, Frankfurt a. M.

  • Fortgang RS, Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2003) Negotiating the spirit of the deal. Harv Bus Rev 81: 66–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Frommeyer A (2005) Kommunikationsqualität in persönlichen Kundenbeziehungen. Konzeptualisierung und empirische Prüfung. Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Garcia SM (2002) Power and the illusion of transparency in negotiations. J Bus Psychol 17(1): 133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand M, Smith Major V, Raver J, Nishi L, O’Brien K (2006) Negotiating relationally—the dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Acad Manage Rev 31: 427–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb J (1961) Defensive communication. J Commun 11: 141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handels, 2 vols. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.

  • Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 3: 63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger K (2001) Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42: 414–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP, Lewis K (2004) Cross understanding in decision groups: analysis and support. In: Paper presented at the 3rd international conference entitled Decision support in an uncertain and complex world: the IFIP TC8/WG8, 2004, pp 381–391

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Org Sci Special issue: Commun Proc Virtual Org (Nov–Dec 1999) 10(6): 791–815

    Google Scholar 

  • Johlke MC, Duhan DF (2001) Testing competing models of sales force communication. J Personal Sell Sales Manage 21(4): 265–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhne F, Schoop M, Staskiewicz D (2005) Use patterns in different negotiation media. In: Proceedings of group decision and negotiation, Vienna

  • Lloyd SA (1987) Conflict in premarital relationships: differential perceptions of males and females. Family Relations 36(3): 290–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr JJ, Sohi RS (1995) Communication flows in distribution channels: impact on assessments of communication quality and satisfaction. J Retailing 71(4): 393–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery BM (1981) The form and function of quality communication in marriage. Family Relations 30(1): 21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery BM (1988) Quality communication in personal relationships. In: Druck SW, Hay DF, Hobfoll SE, Ickes W, Montgomery B(eds) Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 343–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Neurath O(eds) International encyclopedia of unified science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder I (1999) Understanding technology mediated interaction processes—a theoretical context. GigaCSCW. Telematica Instituut, Netherlands

  • Müller H (2004) Arguing, bargaining and all that: communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness. Eur J Int Relations 10(3): 395–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller H (2007) Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. In: Niesen P, Herborth B (eds) Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit—Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., pp 199–223

  • Orpen C (1997) The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. J Psychol 131(5):519–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt C, Johnson KK (1999) An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Commun Res 26(3): 303–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer E-M, Köszegi S (2005) The effects of communication mode in e-negotiations. In: Workshop on formal and informal information exchange during negotiations

  • Pesendorfer EM, Köszegi S (2006) Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: the impact of communication mode. Group Decis Negotiat 15(2): 141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters R (2000) Elektronische Märkte und automatisierte Verhandlungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5): 413–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam LL, Roloff ME (1992) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert LP, Dennis AR (2005) Paradox of richness: a cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(1): 10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson M (1991) Double-level languages and co-operative working. AI Soc 5: 34–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M (2001) An introduction to the language-action perspective. SIGGROUP Bull 22(2): 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M (2002) Business communication in electronic commerce. Habilitation thesis, Aachen University

  • Schoop M (2004) The worlds of negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modeling, http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aakhus/lap/Schoop.pdf, 18 May 2006

  • Schoop M (2005) A language-action approach to electronic negotiations. J Syst Signs Action 1(1): 62–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M, Köhne F, Staskiewicz D (2004) An integrated decision and communication perspective on electronic negotiation support systems: challenges and solutions. Decis Syst 13(4): 375–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakun M (2003) Right problem solving: doing the right thing right. J Group Decis Negotiat 12(6): 463–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelby AN (1998) Communication quality revisited. Exploring the link with persuasive effects. J Bus Commun 35(3): 387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JB, Barclay DW (1997) The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. J Marketing 61: 3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spörndli M (2003) Discourse quality and political decisions: an empirical analysis of debates in the German conference committee. Discussion paper, Social Science Research Center, Berlin

  • Swaab R, Postmes T, van Best I, Spears R (2007) Shared cognition as a product of and a precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality Soc Psychol Bull 33(2): 187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valley K L, Keros AT (2001) It takes two: social distance and improvisations in negotiations. In: Proceedings of E.M. Mindich conference on experimental methods 2002, http://www.iq.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/Conferences/ESS/Apr02/, 18 May 2006

  • Van Boven L, Thompson L (2003) A look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models in negotiation. Group Process Intergroup Relations 6(4): 387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick P (2000) Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Verlag Hans Huber, Bern

  • Weigand H, Schoop M, de Moor A, Dignum F (2003) B2B negotiation support: the need for a communication perspective. Group Decis Negotiat 12(1): 3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems I, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany

    Mareike Schoop, Frank Köhne & Katja Ostertag

Authors
  1. Mareike Schoop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Köhne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katja Ostertag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mareike Schoop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoop, M., Köhne, F. & Ostertag, K. Communication Quality in Business Negotiations. Group Decis Negot 19, 193–209 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9128-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9128-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation