Knowledge matters: The effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome.

Abstract

The impact of tactical knowledge on negotiator behaviors and joint outcomes was examined. It was hypothesized that the availability of written descriptions of negotiation tactics would provide negotiators with the knowledge necessary to apply in a mixed-motive negotiation and that, as a result, these negotiators would engage in different behaviors leading to higher joint outcomes than would negotiators without this knowledge. Ninety dyads engaged in a multi-issue joint venture negotiation: 45 dyads were provided tactical descriptions, and the other 45 were not. Dyads with tactical knowledge engaged in more integrative behaviors and achieved higher joint outcomes, with integrative behaviors serving as mediators of the knowledge-outcome effect. Distributive behaviors were found to be negatively related to joint outcome but were not influenced by tactical knowledge. Although negotiations occur every day, people often fail to reach agreements that maximize joint gain, even when negotiating simple conflicts (Neale & Northcraft, 1986; Pruitt, 1981; Raiffa, 1982). When agreements are reached, there are frequently other solutions that exist which could further benefit either or both parties. In more formal terms, negotiators often do not achieve Pareto optimal solutions on tasks with integrative potential. Although people often think they have done the best they could in a negotiation, they are frequently mistaken. The problem of suboptimal negotiated solutions has been examined from both cognitive (e.g., Carroll, Bazerman, & Maury, 1988; Neale & Bazerman, 1991 ) and social interaction perspectives (Lewis & Fry, 1977; Putnam & Jones, 1982; Putnam & Wilson, 1989; Schultz & Pruitt, 1978). Although separate examination of social and cognitive processes has provided insight into specific aspects of the negotiation process, the present research is unique in that it considers these processes concurrently and in the context of a general problem-solving framework. Viewing these processes as problem solving provides a unifying framework that explains negotiation processes principally in terms of knowledge being applied to tasks. In the current study, negotiator knowledge was influenced through the use of a simple intervention: We provided negotiators with written descriptions of negotiation tactics in an attempt to influence tactical behavior and quality of the agreement.