Abstract
The aim of the present study was to test the extent to which groups manage to attain synergy (both strong and weak) in the context of multiparty systems. We also aimed to test the effects of power (budget size), and goal difficulty, alongside their interaction effect. We have used a behavioral multiparty simulation in which Romanian participants first negotiated individually and then, in the second stage, they were organized into groups and asked to engage in intergroup negotiations. Results showed that, in general, best negotiators outperform groups, yet groups obtain higher negotiation payoffs than the average payoff obtained by their members in the first negotiation stage, but only for dyads. Moreover, powerful stakeholders and those that have high goals end up with the highest payoff. Last, our results show that power accentuates the positive relationship between goal difficulty and payoffs. The results have important implications for delegating representatives to multiparty negotiations and for the management of power asymmetry in multiparty systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data is available upon substantiated request from the corresponding author.
References
Agndal H, Åge LJ, Eklinder-Frick J (2017) Two decades of business negotiation research: an overview and suggestions for future studies. J Bus Ind Market. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2015-0233
Anderson C, Brion S (2014) Perspectives on power in organizations. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav 1(1):67–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259
Beersma B, De Dreu CKW (2002) Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87(2):227–252. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2964
Borker DR (2012) Accounting, culture and emerging economies: IFRS in central and Eastern Europe. Int Bus Econ Res J (IBER) 11(9):1003–1018
Brodt S, Thompson L (2001) Negotiating teams: a levels of analysis approach. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 5(3):208–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.5.3.208
Cairo H, Oslender U, Suárez CEP, Ríos J, Koopman S, Arango VM, Muñoz FBR, Quintero LZ (2018) “Territorial peace”: the emergence of a concept in Colombia’s peace negotiations. Geopolitics 23(2):464–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1425110
Caputo A (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. Int J Confl Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064
Carey HR, Laughlin PR (2012) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of induced strategies. Group Process Intergroup Relat 15(2):231–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211419174
Casciaro T, Piskorski MJ (2005) Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: a closer look at resource dependence theory. Adm Sci Q 50(2):167–199. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.167
Cohen TR, Leonardelli GJ, Thompson L (2014) Avoiding the agreement trap: teams facilitate impasse in negotiations with negative bargaining zones. Negot Confl Manage Res 7(4):232–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12038
Curşeu PL, Schruijer S (2008) The effects of framing on inter-group negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17(4):347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9098-2
Curşeu PL, Schruijer SG (2017) Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: the role of collaboration and conflict. Curr Op Environ Sustain 28:114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.007
Curşeu PL, Schruijer S (2018) Cross-level dynamics of collaboration and conflict in multi-party systems: an empirical investigation using a behavioural simulation. Adm Sci 8(3):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030026
Curşeu PL, Schruijer SG (2020) Participation and goal achievement of multiparty collaborative systems dealing with complex problems: a natural experiment. Sustainability 12(3):987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030987
Curşeu PL, Jansen RJ, Chappin MM (2013) Decision rules and group rationality: Cognitive gain or standstill? PloS One 8(2):e56454. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056454
Curșeu PL, Janssen SE, Meeus MT (2014) Shining lights and bad apples: the effect of goal-setting on group performance. Manag Learn 45(3):332–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507613483425
Fleştea AM, Curșeu PL, Fodor OC (2017) The bittersweet effect of power disparity: implications for emergent states in collaborative multi-party systems. J Manag Psychol 32(5):401–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2016-0289
Fodor OC, Fleștea AM, Onija I, Curșeu PL (2018) Networks originate in minds: an exploration of trust self-enhancement and network centrality in multiparty systems. Adm Sci 8(4):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040060
Freier R, Odendahl C (2015) Do parties matter? Estimating the effect of political power in multi-party systems. Eur Econ Rev 80(3):310–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.09.011
Gibson C, Vermeulen F (2003) A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Adm Sci Q 48(2):202–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556657
Greenhalgh L, Neslin SA, Gilkey RW (1985) The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations. Acad Manag J 28(1):9–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/256058
Gulati R, Nickerson JA (2008) Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organ Sci 19(5):688–708. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0345
Halpert JA, Stuhlmacher AF, Crenshaw JL, Litcher CD, Bortel R (2010) Paths to negotiation success. Negot Confl Manage Res 3(2):91–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00051.x
Hinsz V (2015) Teams as technology: strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs in cognitive task performance. Team Perform Manag 21(5/6):218–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-02-2015-0006
Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121(1):43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
Huber VL (1985) Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy on performance of a heuristic task. J Appl Psychol 70(3):492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.492
Huber VL, Neale MA (1986) Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiator performance and subsequent goal setting. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38(3):342–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90005-1
Huber VL, Neale MA (1987) Effects of self-and competitor goals on performance in an interdependent bargaining task. J Appl Psychol 72(2):197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.197
Hüffmeier J, Zerres A, Freund PA, Backhaus K, Trötschel R, Hertel G (2019) Strong or weak synergy? Revising the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. J Manag 45(7):2721–2750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318770245
Insko CA, Schopler J, Hoyle RH, Dardis GJ, Graetz KA (1990) Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(1):68–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.68
Jang D, Choi H, Loewenstein J (2021) Integration through redefinition: revisiting the role of negotiators’ goals. Group Decis Negot 30(5):1113–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 131(4):285–358. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358
Kaasa A, Vadi M, Varblane U (2014) Regional cultural differences within European countries: evidence from multi-country surveys. Manag Int Rev 54(6):825–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0223-6
Kang PK, Kim YC, Palmon D (2020) Client’s bargaining power and audit negotiation over earnings: evidence from audit processes in a business groups environment. Group Decis Negot 29(6):1207–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09702-1
Kapoutsis I, Volkema RJ, Nikolopoulos AG (2013) Initiating negotiations: the role of machiavellianism, risk propensity, and bargaining power. Group Decis Negot 22(6):1081–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9306-6
Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 55(1):623–655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
Kim PH, Pinkley RL, Fragale AR (2005) Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad Manag Rev 30(4):799–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159169
Knight D, Durham CC, Locke EA (2001) The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Acad Manag J 44(2):326–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069459
Kristensen H, Gärling T (2000) Anchor points, reference points, and counteroffers in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 9(6):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008722223618
Larson JR Jr (2007) Deep diversity and strong synergy: modeling the impact of variability in members’ problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Res 38(3):413–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301972
Larson JR (2010) In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press
Larson JR, Christensen C (1993) Groups as problem-solving units: toward a new meaning of social cognition. Br J Soc Psychol 32(1):5–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00983.x
Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(4):644–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644
Livingston BA (2014) Bargaining behind the scenes: spousal negotiation, labor, and work–family burnout. J Manag 40(4):949–977
Locke EA, Latham GP (1990) A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall Inc, Hoboken
Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol 57(9):705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Locke EA, Shaw KN, Saari LM, Latham GP (1981) Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychol Bull 90(1):125–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
Magee JC, Smith PK (2013) The social distance theory of power. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 17(2):158–186
Magee JC, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH (2007) Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33(2):200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294413
Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL, Bagherzadeh M (2015) A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. J Manag 41(5):1338–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314563399
Mallinger M (1999) The endowment decision: an exercise in negotiation and conflict management. J Manag Educ 23(5):607–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300509
Mannix EA, Neale MA (1993) Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation. Group Decis Negot 2(2):119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884767
Mannix EA, Thompson LL, Bazerman MH (1989) Negotiation in small groups. J Appl Psychol 74(3):508–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.508
McAlister L, Bazerman MH, Fader P (1986) Power and goal setting in channel negotiations. J Mark Res 23(3):228–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300303
Minkov M, Dutt P, Schachner M, Morales O, Sanchez C, Jandosova J, Khassenbekov Y, Mudd B (2017) A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cult Strateg Manag 24(3):386–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197
Moran S, Ritov I (2002) Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers. J Behav Decis Mak 15(2):101–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.405
Neale MA, Huber VL, Northcraft GB (1987) The framing of negotiations: contextual versus task frames. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39(2):228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90039-2
O’Reilly C III (1980) Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Acad Manag J 23(4):684–696. https://doi.org/10.5465/255556
Polzer JT, Neale MA (1995) Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting within the context of negotiation. Hum Perform 8(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0801_2
Saguy T, Kteily N (2014) Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 25(1):107–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.957579
Schaerer M, Teo L, Madan N, Swaab RI (2020) Power and negotiation: review of current evidence and future directions. Curr Opin Psychol 33:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.013
Schei V, Rognes JK (2005) Small group negotiation: when members differ in motivational orientation. Small Group Res 36(3):289–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404273145
Shinkle GA (2012) Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. J Manag 38(1):415–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419856
Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(6):1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
Stoshikj M (2014) Integrative and distributive negotiations and negotiation behavior. J Serv Sci Res 6(1):29–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12927-014-0002-8
Sundarraj RP, Mok WWH (2011) Models for human negotiation elements: validation and implications for electronic procurement. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 58(3):412–430. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2010.2058856
Swann WB Jr, Milton LP, Polzer JT (2000) Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(2):238–250. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.238
Tasa K, Celani A, Bell CM (2013) Goals in negotiation revisited: the impact of goal setting and implicit negotiation beliefs. Negot Confl Manage Res 6(2):114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12006
Thompson L, Peterson E, Brodt SE (1996) Team negotiation: an examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. J Pers Soc Psychol 70(1):66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.66
Trif S, Curseu PL, Fodor OC, Flestea AM (2020) An attributional account of power in multi-party negotiations. Int J Confl Manag 31(5):821–842. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-10-2019-0189
Trif SR, Curșeu PL, Fodor OC (2022) Power differences and dynamics in multiparty collaborative systems: a systematic literature review. Systems 10(2):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10020030
Vangen S, Huxham C (2012) The tangled web: unraveling the principle of common goals in collaborations. J Public Admin Res Theory 22(4):731–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur065
Vrânceanu CA, Iorgulescu MC (2016) A look at Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in two service sectors from Romania. Amfiteatru Econ J 18(10):875–884
Weinberger A, Nistor N (2010) Culture, profession, and attitudes towards educational technology: a large-scale, German-Romanian study. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Intercultural collaboration (pp 199–202). https://doi.org/10.1145/1841853.1841886
Wolfe RJ, Mcginn KL (2005) Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decis Negot 14(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-3873-8
Wong RS, Howard S (2017) Blinded by power: untangling mixed results regarding power and efficiency in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 26(2):215–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9495-5
Wright PM (1992) An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives, goal level, goal commitment, and performance. J Manag 18(4):677–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800405
Zetik DC, Stuhlmacher AF (2002) Goal setting and negotiation performance: a meta-analysis. Group Process Intergroup Relat 5(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001537
Zhang H, Zhang K, Warsitzka M, Trötschel R (2021) Negotiation complexity: a review and an integrative model. Int J Confl Manag 32(4):554–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2020-0051
Acknowledgements
The article was supported by a grant of the Executive Unit for Financing Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation (UEFISCDI), project number PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2016–0778. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Trif, S.R., Curșeu, P.L. & Fodor, O.C. Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task. Group Decis Negot 32, 209–232 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09805-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09805-x