IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v26y2017i2d10.1007_s10726-016-9495-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blinded by Power: Untangling Mixed Results Regarding Power and Efficiency in Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Ricky S. Wong

    (Hang Seng Management College)

  • Susan Howard

    (The London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

Negotiators are often advised to seek information about their counterparts’ power. However, we know little about how such information affects negotiators’ behaviours and outcomes. Study 1 considered dyadic negotiations in which negotiators have symmetric or asymmetric best alternatives to the negotiated agreement (BATNAs). It also examined the impacts of (a)symmetry and knowledge of a counterpart’s BATNA on agreement efficiency (indexed by joint gains), and how knowledge alters negotiators’ realised power (indexed by percentage of resource claimed) in BATNA-asymmetric negotiations. Studies 2 and 3 focussed on BATNA-asymmetric negotiations. Study 2 tested the mechanism by which knowledge affects efficiency. Study 3 considered the impacts of knowledge on equity concerns, perceived power and information exchange about preferences. The findings indicate the following: knowledge of BATNA asymmetries (rather than the existence of BATNA asymmetries) adversely affects agreement efficiency; this knowledge increases strong negotiators’ focus on value claiming, judgement errors about counterparts’ preferences, perceived power and realised power, but impedes their information-sharing behaviour about preferences. Their focus on value claiming mediates the relationship between knowledge and judgement errors, whereas judgement errors mediate the relationship between their focus on value claiming and agreement efficiency. Furthermore, knowledge of BATNA asymmetries leads to contrasting perceptions of fairness. Strong negotiators with knowledge believe that a fair agreement should reflect their power advantage; weak negotiators generally tend to judge fairness based on equality. Counterintuitively, knowing one’s own strengths can lead to ‘winning’ a meagre prize and neglecting the opportunity for value creation by trading-off on negotiated issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricky S. Wong & Susan Howard, 2017. "Blinded by Power: Untangling Mixed Results Regarding Power and Efficiency in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 215-245, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-016-9495-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-016-9495-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-016-9495-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-016-9495-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinkley, Robin L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Bennett, Rebecca J., 1994. "The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 97-116, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:275-282 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    4. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    5. Ricky S. Wong, 2014. "Same Power But Different Goals: How Does Knowledge Of Opponents’ Power Affect Negotiators' Aspiration In Powerasymmetric Negotiations?," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(3), pages 77-89.
    6. Rebecca J. Wolfe & Kathleen L. Mcginn, 2005. "Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 3-20, January.
    7. Mannix, Elizabeth A., 1993. "Organizations as Resource Dilemmas: The Effects of Power Balance on Coalition Formation in Small Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-22, June.
    8. Ofir Turel, 2010. "Interdependence Issues in Analyzing Negotiation Data," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 111-125, March.
    9. Vairam Arunachalam & William Dilla & Marjorie Shelley & Chris Chan, 1998. "Market Alternatives, Third Party Intervention, and Third Party Informedness in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 81-107, March.
    10. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2009. "Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 347-365, March.
    11. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    12. Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Bazerman, Max H., 1996. "Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness in Asymmetric, Environmental Social Dilemmas: Explaining Harvesting Behavior and the Role of Communication," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 111-126, August.
    13. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.
    14. Thompson, Leigh & Loewenstein, George, 1992. "Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 176-197, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gert Jan Hofstede & Catholijn M. Jonker & Tim Verwaart & Neil Yorke-Smith, 2019. "The Lemon Car Game Across Cultures: Evidence of Relational Rationality," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 849-877, October.
    2. Sabina Ramona Trif & Petru Lucian Curșeu & Oana Cătălina Fodor, 2023. "Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 209-232, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kopelman, Shirli, 2009. "The effect of culture and power on cooperation in commons dilemmas: Implications for global resource management," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 153-163, January.
    2. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    3. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2005. "Does Impartial Deliberation Breed Fair Behavior?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 17(1), pages 116-136, February.
    4. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    6. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.
    7. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. McCarter, Matthew W. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Kamal, Darcy K. Fudge & Bang, H. Min & Hyde, Steven J. & Maredia, Reshma, 2020. "Models of intragroup conflict in management: A literature review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 925-946.
    10. Karen Huang & Regan M. Bernhard & Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman & Joshua D. Greene, 2021. "Veil-of-ignorance reasoning mitigates self-serving bias in resource allocation during the COVID-19 crisis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    12. Niklas Dreyer & Robert M. Gillenkirch, 2019. "Cash versus opportunity costs and revenues in bilateral bargaining," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 357-383, June.
    13. Matthew W. McCarter & Shirli Kopelman & Thomas A. Turk & Candace E. Ybarra, 2012. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How the tragedy of the anticommons emerges in organizations," Working Papers 12-14, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    14. Dezső, Linda & Loewenstein, George, 2019. "Self-serving invocations of shared and asymmetric history in negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    16. Peter H. Kriss & George Loewenstein & Xianghong Wang & Roberto A. Weber, 2011. "Behind the veil of ignorance: Self-serving bias in climate change negotiations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 602-615, October.
    17. Liu, Yanju & Lu, Hai & Veenstra, Kevin, 2014. "Is sin always a sin? The interaction effect of social norms and financial incentives on market participants’ behavior," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 289-307.
    18. Gelfand, Michele J. & Christakopoulou, Sophia, 1999. "Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 248-269, September.
    19. Bendoly, Elliot & van Wezel, Wout & Bachrach, Daniel G. (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management: Social and Psychological Dynamics in Production and Service Settings," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199357222.
    20. Hong Luo & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2017. "Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 499-528, June.
    21. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-016-9495-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.