Search results

Negotiators with a BATNA (best alternative to the negotiated agreement) obtain higher individual outcomes and a larger percentage of the dyadic outcomes than individuals without a BATNA. This study examined if three mechanisms related to a BATNA, an alternative, a specific goal, and self‐efficacy, independently or in combination, influence outcomes. Six of the eight combinations resulted in higher individual outcomes. An alternative coupled with a goal or self‐efficacy resulted in a higher percent of dyadic outcomes and higher impasse rates.

This study explores the impact of person information about an alternative negotiator in dyadic negotiation in which one of two individuals is able to exit the negotiation to further negotiate with the alternative party. Individualistic negotiators were expected to be influenced more by information about the alternative party's strength than prosocial negotiators. Forty‐nine dyads were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions in a 2 (Potency of the Alternative Negotiator: Low vs. High) by 2 (One's Own Motivational Orientation: Individualistic vs. Prosocial) factorial design. Face‐to‐face interactions were audiotaped and transcribed In line with our expectation, individualistically orientated negotiators engaged in problem solving to a lesser extent and communicated more threats and putdowns when the alternative party was perceived as weak and submissive rather than strong and dominant. Within negotiation dyads power asymmetry evoked power struggle. Eventually, however, negotiators with an alternative party outperformed parties lacking an alternative. As expected, prosocially orientated negotiators were less influenced by both the mere presence of an alternative negotiation partner and potency information about the alternative party. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

This paper explores the issue of transferring western human resource management (HRM) practices to Algeria. Drawing on a case study of a large industrial company, the research identifies the motives for the transfer and examines the selection and implementation process of western HRM practices in Algeria. Evidence generated from the case study reveals that while management justifications for the transfer of western HRM practices capture the economic and technical rationale for western HRM practices, they fail to identify local conditions under which these HRM practices might be transferred. The applicability of western HRM is hindered by the unplanned and haphazard importation of western HRM practices.

This study was an initial exploratory test of the relationship between disputants' interpretation of an ongoing conflict (i.e., dimensions of conflict frame), their conflict management objectives, expectations regarding settlement, and features of the dispute context. Fifty undergraduate students and the individuals with whom they were having a conflict were asked to describe the conflict they shared Each subject's conflict description was given a score for each of the dimensions of conflict frame (i.e., relationship vs. task; emotional vs. intellectual; compromise vs. win). Results suggest that conflict frame scores relate to features of the dispute context. Specifically, disputants with a relationship, intellectual frame were also likely to believe that the conflict had developed over a long period of time and involved a number of issues. Disputants with emotional, compromise frames felt that the conflict had surfaced suddenly and involved a number of issues. An emotional, win perspective was most typical for disputants who viewed the conflict as serious or intense. A second set of results suggest that disputants with a relationship perspective are more concerned about procedural issues while those with a task frame focus on distributive goals. In addition, disputants typically share the same frame on the relationship vs. task dimension and the compromise vs. win dimension, but are less likely to do so on the emotional vs. intellectual dimension. Finally, when disputants share a win as opposed to a compromise perspective, their joint expectations regarding outcome increase suggesting an overconfidence bias.