Skip to main content

Integration Through Redefinition: Revisiting the Role of Negotiators’ Goals

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, access via your institution.

Data availability

Data will be available on request.

Code availability

Code used to perform data analysis will be available on request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Exercise materials are available on the Negotiation and Team Resources website: https://www.negotiationandteamresources.com/.

References

  1. Bazerman MH, Gillespie JJ (1999) Betting on the future: the virtues of contingent contracts. Harv Bus Rev 77:155–160

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brett JM, Thompson LL (2016) Negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 136:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Follett MP (1940) Dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. Harper & Row, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg S (2008) Texoil. In: Brett JM (ed) Negotiation and decision making exercises. Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gulliver PH (1979) Disputes & negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective. Academic Press, New York, NY, US

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hampson FO, Hart M (1999) Multilateral negotiations: lessons from arms control, trade, and the Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim PH, Pinkley RL, Fragale AR (2005) Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad Manage Rev 30:799–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kolb DM, Williams J (2003) Everyday negotiation: navigating the hidden agendas in bargaining. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewicki RJ, Bowen DD, Hall DT, Hall FS (1988) Experiences in management and organizational behavior. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New York, NY, US

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27:167–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276483027002005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Putnam LL (1994) Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. Int J Confl Manag 5:284–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Putnam LL, Holmer M (1992) Framing, reframing, and issue development. Communication and negotiation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, US, pp 128–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sebenius JK (1983) Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties. Int Organ 37:281–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830003438X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sebenius JK (1992) Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Manag Sci 38:18–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.1.18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Simon HA (1947) Administrative behavior. Macmillan Company, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thompson L (2014) The mind and heart of the negotiator. Pearson, Boston, MA, US

    Google Scholar 

  42. Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: an analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daisung Jang.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Negotiation
  • Integration
  • Bargaining zone
  • Goal setting
  • Interest pursuit