Workplace Mediation: Lessons from Negotiation Theory

  • Benjamin P. HöhneEmail author
  • David D. Loschelder
  • Lisa Gutenbrunner
  • Johann M. Majer
  • Roman Trötschel
Part of the Industrial Relations & Conflict Management book series (IRCM)


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.


Negotiation Research Negotiation Theory Labor Conflict Organizational Conflict Epistemic Motivation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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
  2. Alexander, N. (2008). The mediation metamodel: Understanding practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(1), 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartos, O. J. (1974). Process and outcome in negotiation. New York: Columbia University Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum, Associates.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Benton, A. A., & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal, 29(3), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & Müller, P. (2010). Why are subordinates less satisfied with mediation? The role of uncertainty. Negotiation Journal, 26(4), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Boulle, L., Goldblatt, V., & Green, P. (2008). Mediation: Principles, process, practice (2nd New Zealand ed). Wellington: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  19. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Cross, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 507–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  36. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 404–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Goldberg, S. B. (1982). Grievance mediation: A step towards peace in the bituminous coal industry. West Virginia Law Review, 85, 777–782.Google Scholar
  45. Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (in press). Perspective taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.Google Scholar
  46. Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2016). Effectiveness of intergroup mediation: A comprehensive review. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology and society: Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (p. Xiii, 231-). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Johnson, D. F., & Pruitt, D. G. (1972). Preintervention effects of mediation versus arbitration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lax, A. D., & Sebenius, K. J. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Messick, D. M. (1976). A framework for social motives. Behavioral Science, 21(2), 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 9(1), 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Polzer, T. (1996). Intergroup negotiations: The effects of negotiating teams. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(4), 678–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  84. Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rose, A. M. (1952). Needed research on the mediation of labor disputes. Personnel Psychology, 5(3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stulberg, J. B., & Love, L. P. (2009). The middle voice: Mediating conflict successfully. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  91. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  92. Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  93. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 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
  101. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin P. Höhne
    • 1
    Email author
  • David D. Loschelder
    • 2
  • Lisa Gutenbrunner
    • 3
  • Johann M. Majer
    • 4
  • Roman Trötschel
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Distance LearningBeuth University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Business Psychology and Experimental MethodsLeuphana UniversityLüneburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyPhilipps-University of MarburgMarburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyLeuphana UniversityLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations