Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine gender and competitiveness in relation to the likelihood of using unethical negotiation strategies. Additionally, this study seeks to determine if gender serves as a predictor or moderator variable in this relationship.

Questionnaires were used to collect data from 169 working adults enrolled in evening business programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The sample was split evenly between female (82) and male (81) respondents. Six respondents did not provide their gender classification. Stepwise hierarchical moderated regression analysis was used to test the effects of competitiveness and gender as predictor and moderator variables in relation to the ethicality of negotiation strategies.

The results show that while men are more generally competitive than women, both men and women who score highly on the hypercompetitive scale are more likely to embrace the use of unethical bargaining behavior. However, women with high scores on personal development competitiveness (PDC) are more likely to engage in accepted bargaining behavior than are men. It was also found that there is a positive relationship between PDC and the use of acceptable, normative bargaining behavior (NBB) for both women and men.

There is the question of generalizability since the subjects were virtually all between ages 24 and 34. In addition, they live in the same metropolitan area and attend the same southern US private university.

This study provides a clearer understanding of the differences between women and men competitively and as negotiators. It also provides prima facie evidence for the value of women as preferred organizational negotiators, since under certain conditions, they are more likely than men to use acceptable, NBB.

Based on the social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory, this paper aims to investigate the mediating role of “relationship conflict” in the association between traditional gender role (TGR) endorsement and objective and subjective negotiation outcomes.

Two experimental negotiation studies (n1 = 138, n2 = 128) were conducted at a US university.

This paper presents three original and noteworthy findings: One, in mixed-gender negotiations, as a dyad’s TGR endorsement increases, final agreements become significantly more likely to favor men than women. Two, in mixed-gender negotiations, TGR endorsement is significantly associated with a decreased ability to establish a pleasant, mutually satisfactory and successful business relationship, resulting in a possible future economic cost due to lost opportunity. Three, the heightened relationship conflict during the negotiation mediates the negative association between TGR endorsement and women’s economic outcomes.

Empirical findings support social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory. The use of a distributive negotiation case and laboratory research methodology may limit the generalizability of findings.

Findings about the detrimental effects of TGR in mixed-gender negotiations magnify the importance of becoming aware of our TGR orientations and their potential negative consequences on our long-term collaborations. Also, it is necessary to provide negotiation trainings to both genders with regard to gender-driven conflicts and offer tools to prevent or tackle such conflicts.

Negotiations are among the most consequential of social interactions as their results have a substantial impact on individuals’ careers and financial outcomes. Understanding the effect of TGRs is paramount to improve female representation, participation and effectiveness in management and leadership. Mixed-gender negotiations such as collective equality bargaining, workplace social interactions, work-life balance discourse are critical to establishing gender equality and fairness in organizations and societies.

Understanding how gender influences negotiation processes and outcomes and using the findings to improve both genders’ negotiation success are crucial to establishing fairness and equity in society and business. This research attempts to close a gap in the literature by focusing on the potential function of gender role orientation in explaining gender differences in negotiation.

Purpose – This study addresses the great apes' fatal situation in the wild by integrating perspectives from conservation biology, conflict research, and bioethics.

Design/methodology/approach – We introduce the great apes' red list status and describe habitat destruction and bushmeat commerce as main threats to their survival. We analyze the complex context in which great ape extinction takes place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and thereby focus on a threatening factor that is interlinked with habitat destruction and bushmeat commerce: armed conflict.

Findings – The study shows that some characteristics of so-called “New Wars” are apparent in the DRC and that they directly or indirectly impact the great apes' situation. Because the human role in the animals' extinction is so severe and so obvious, ethical consequences become apparent. Animal ethics (the welfare as well as the rights approach) has to acknowledge the severity of the situation of the great apes in the wild. Implications for the human–animal relationship and the human identity come into play. After all, we have to ask ourselves what it means for us and for coming generations if our nearest relatives are going to be extinct one day.

Practical implications – It is argued that conservation policy has to include insights from conflict research. Likewise, peacemaking has to address ecological consequences of warfare.

Originality/value – Our findings promote an interdisciplinary approach. Armed conflict as a threatening factor to great ape survival has so far largely been neglected within the literature on conservation biology as well as in conflict research.