Search results

The purpose of this study is to refine theory of negotiation by empirically investigating the extent to which national-, societal- and individual-level cultures relate to negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics.

To assess the hypothesized relationships between culture and ethically questionable negotiation tactics at three cultural levels of analysis, the authors collected data from Turks who reside in Turkey and in Germany and from Greeks who reside in Greece and in Cyprus. Respondents' national-level cultural values were inferred from their nationality, respondents' societal-level cultural values were inferred from their country of residency, and respondents' individual-level cultural values were inferred from their discrete and unique individuality.

At the national level, the authors found that Turks in Turkey and Germany scored significantly higher than Greeks in Greece and Cyprus on the endorsement of pretending negotiation tactics. At the societal level, the authors found that Turkish negotiators in Germany displayed higher levels of lying negotiation tactics and lower levels of pretending negotiation tactics than Turkish negotiators in Turkey. Greek negotiators in Greece endorsed deceiving and lying tactics more than Greek negotiators in Cyprus. At the individual level, the authors found that negotiators who score high on vertical individualism and collectivism endorse questionable negotiation tactics significantly more than negotiators who score high on horizontal individualism and collectivism.

The authors empirically demonstrate how national-, societal- and individual-level cultures differentially influence negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics. The study's trilevel analysis allows for integrating the societal-level theories of negotiators' acculturation and cultural adjustment to a host culture, highlighting the importance of bicultural identity.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of individualism‐collectivism, trust, and ethical ideology on ethically questionable negotiation tactics, such as pretending, deceiving and lying, in Turkey.

Survey questionnaires translated from English to Turkish were administered to 400 respondents, of whom 379 fully completed the questionnaires.

The research empirically corroborated a classification of three groups of negotiation tactics, namely, pretending, deceiving and lying. Turkish negotiators who scored high on horizontal individualism tended to score highly on pretending and deceiving and less on lying, and presented an inverse relationship between scores on those tactics and score on idealism. Trust was not found to be related to any of the negotiation tactics.

The study investigated the respondents' perceptions rather than their actual negotiation behavior. The sample size, though large and inclusive of public and private sector employees, provided limited ability to generalize Turkish negotiator conduct.

The study provides hints to managers negotiating in Turkey of the extent to which Turkish managers would employ ethically questionable negotiation tactics.

This empirical field research is the first to present a model of the antecedents of negotiation tactics in Turkey, a country where negotiation studies are limited and are mostly conducted within the safe controls of the laboratory.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of collectivism on conflict management styles in Turkey and to help conflict management researchers and practitioners better understand conflict and conflict management in an international context.

Self‐administered questionnaires with the ROCI scale were used in this study. Data were collected by surveying 244 managerial employees from both public and private organizations. Factor analysis and regression analysis were then used to explore the relationships between conflict management styles and different aspects of collectivism. Differences in demographic factors were also discussed.

This study shows Turkish people are more likely to use collaborating style, instead of compromising or avoiding as expected from a collectivistic culture. Further, different aspects of collectivism have different effects on Turkish conflict management styles: the importance of competitive success leads to preferences for competing style; the value of working alone leads to less collaboration; the norms of subordination of personal needs to group interest are positively related to more collaborating and accommodating; and the beliefs of the effects of personal pursuit on group productivity are positively related to more compromising.

While Turkey has become more important in world markets, very few studies have been conducted to explore Turkish conflict management styles. This paper examines the ranking of preferences in conflict management methods in Turkey, as well as the impact of collectivism on different conflict management styles, which extends the understanding of cross‐cultural differences in conflict management.