Soldiers' negotiations in combat areas

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this exploratory study is to assess the impact of role clarity and concern for the other party's goals on soldiers' negotiations with members of the local population within a combat zone.Design/methodology/approachFollowing the Dual Concerns Model it was hypothesized that soldiers experiencing high concern for the needs of their Iraqi counterparts would engage in: higher levels of problem solving behavior; report greater trust in their counterparts; and reach more mutually satisfying agreements under conditions of role clarity relative to role ambiguity. A total of 42 officers and non‐commissioned officers serving in Iraq participated in the study.FindingsThe results supported the prediction that role clarity moderates the relationship between concern for the other party's needs and various outcomes of the negotiation process.Research limitations/implicationsThe study involved a small convenience sample, cross‐sectional design, and a single source of data for all measures. Nonetheless, the results are consistent with other studies examining the theoretical assumptions of the Dual Concern Model and suggest that role clarity may serve as a useful operationalization of high self‐concern and high resistance to yielding.Originality/valueThe study advances knowledge about soldiers' ability to negotiate mutually satisfying agreements with members of the local population. It points to the need to combine a policy of collaboration with local civilians with the communication of a clear set of overall mission and specific negotiation goals and objectives.