Frederik Reinder Hak and Karin Sanders
The purpose of this paper is to argue that the adaptation of the principled negotiation approach within organizations demonstrates similarities with the adaptation of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that the adaptation of the principled negotiation approach within organizations demonstrates similarities with the adaptation of evidence-based management and is the result of cognitive biases and cultural values instead of specific and conscious choices within the adopted negotiation style.
Design/methodology/approach
The adaptation of principled negotiation and evidence-based management are considered as a lack of willingness to be innovative at the organizational level, and when these ideas are introduced will meet resistance.
Findings
The analysis of the principled negotiation approach as an approach which – similar to evidence-based management – is vulnerable to cognitive biases and cultural values offers a solution on how to effectively adapt this approach within organizations.
Research limitations/implications
Implications for research include a research design to test the assumptions of this paper to consider principled negotiations and evidence-based management approaches as innovative approaches.
Practical implications
Organizations and decision makers within organizations can benefit from the analysis in this paper.
Social implications
Companies and parties in a negotiation phase can benefit from the analysis by paying attention to the cognitive biases and cultural values of the other parties rather than paying attention to the first offer and the choices made in the negotiation.
Originality/value
This is the first paper to analyze principled negotiations from an evidence-based management perspective.