Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Message dimensions of negotiation

Message dimensions of negotiation Roy H. Andes Modem negotiation study focuses most of its analysis on the differences between traditional competitive bargaining and the usually preferred collaborative approach (see e.g., Nierenberg, 1973). Theoretical models of negotiation tend to view it as being either "principled" and being "hard" (Fisher and Ury, 1981) and our choices are between negotiating in a "distributive" mode or an "integra­ tive" one (Raiffa, 1982). Many of us - practitioners and teachers - rhapsodize about the merits of collaboration. Appropriately, we have not been without our critics (e.g., White, 1984); at the same time, others in the field choose to ignore the col­ laboration craze as presumably being unrealistic (e.g., Cohen, 1980). A few scholars have offered perspectives that recognize the inherently mixed nature of every negotiation as partly collaborative and partly competitive. The and Sebenius (1986) model describes negotiators' basic choices as "creat­ Lax ing value'' collaboratively or ''claiming value'' competitively. They suggest that even the most collaborative negotiators at some point must claim their individual portion of available resources, whether or not they have been successful at creat­ ing an expanded pie through cooperation. From such a perspective, a negotiator's choices need to be seen as some­ thing http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Negotiation Journal Springer Journals

Message dimensions of negotiation

Negotiation Journal , Volume 8 (2) – Apr 1, 1992

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/message-dimensions-of-negotiation-qlso3li23U
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992
ISSN
0748-7526
eISSN
1571-9979
DOI
10.1007/bf01000629
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Roy H. Andes Modem negotiation study focuses most of its analysis on the differences between traditional competitive bargaining and the usually preferred collaborative approach (see e.g., Nierenberg, 1973). Theoretical models of negotiation tend to view it as being either "principled" and being "hard" (Fisher and Ury, 1981) and our choices are between negotiating in a "distributive" mode or an "integra­ tive" one (Raiffa, 1982). Many of us - practitioners and teachers - rhapsodize about the merits of collaboration. Appropriately, we have not been without our critics (e.g., White, 1984); at the same time, others in the field choose to ignore the col­ laboration craze as presumably being unrealistic (e.g., Cohen, 1980). A few scholars have offered perspectives that recognize the inherently mixed nature of every negotiation as partly collaborative and partly competitive. The and Sebenius (1986) model describes negotiators' basic choices as "creat­ Lax ing value'' collaboratively or ''claiming value'' competitively. They suggest that even the most collaborative negotiators at some point must claim their individual portion of available resources, whether or not they have been successful at creat­ ing an expanded pie through cooperation. From such a perspective, a negotiator's choices need to be seen as some­ thing

Journal

Negotiation JournalSpringer Journals

Published: Apr 1, 1992

Keywords: Personal Attack; Content Dimension; Negotiation Journal; Process Message; Joint Gain

References