Document View

Copyright Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Fall 2001

[Headnote]

Traditionally, most business negotiation-related studies have focused primarily on the actual face-to-face negotiation, and not on what occurs prior to the negotiation encounter. Thus, a void exists concerning how business negotiators plan and how opponent behavior influences pre-negotiation planning and preparation. This paper has two objectives: 1) introduce and define a pre-negotiation planning and preparation component to the traditional negotiation model, and 2) develop a series of propositions relating to the future testing of the pre-negotiation phase.

INTRODUCTION

Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered,

Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid,

Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.

-Zhuge Liang (third-century Chinese military strategist)

All researchers on the topic openly describe negotiation as a process. Nevertheless, one critical, but largely ignored, aspect of the negotiation process is the means people utilize to plan and prepare for such an encounter. A review of the negotiation literature in this area indicates that studies have exclusively focused on what transpires at the table, face-to-face, with superficial (at best) consideration given to what occurs prior to the negotiation encounter. Much of the research appears to follow the same face-to-face preoccupation (e.g., Francis 1991; Perdue and Summers 1991; Adler, Brahm, and Graham 1992; Graham, Evenko, and Rajan 1992; Kale and Barnes 1992; Ganesan 1993; Alexander, Schul, and McCorkle 1994; Graham, Mintu, and Rodgers 1994) with focus remaining on the room where the negotiation "table" is set. Yet, Rognes stated, "pre-negotiation planning is critical for the establishment of a successful partnership" (1995 p. 12). Since planning is the process that links cognition with action (Sacerodoti 1977; Wilensky 1983), it is imperative to better understand what drives the behaviors executed at the negotiation table. The negotiation model, as currently configured, does not include the process of planning and preparing for a negotiation encounter.

While some work in the planning area has been undertaken in the communication literature (Berger 1988; Berger and Bell 1988; Waldron et al. 1990), studies of the planning process from a commerce perspective remain absent. Leading U.S. and international negotiation trainers declare that planning skills are the most important traits one can possess (Karrass 1970; Graham and Sano 1989). Yet, a serious void exists pertaining to how business negotiators plan, the activities undertaken, and how expected contesting behavior influences pre-negotiation planning and preparation from an academic perspective. To fill this apparent vacuum, this work has two central objectives: (1) to introduce and define an antecedent labeled "pre-negotiation planning and preparation", and (2) to develop a series of propositions relating to the future testing of this critical premeeting phase of the negotiation process.

NEGOTIATIONS AS A PROCESS

The negotiation process has roots in exchange theory (Rubin and Brown 1975) and is divided into three phases: the antecedent phase (in which the new pre-negotiation planning and preparation component resides), the concurrent phase, and the consequent phase. This approach was posited by Graham (1987) and has been the sum and substance for researching business-to-business negotiation in the marketing domain. In the negotiation process, certain concurrent and consequent variables are a function of other antecedent variables. Graham's (1987) conceptual framework is comprised of three concepts: (1) negotiator characteristics and situational constraints; (2) factors directly related to the process of negotiation; and (3) negotiation outcomes (see Figure 1).

The focus of this paper lies within the antecedent negotiation phase. Before the pre-negotiation planning and preparation component is delineated, a brief look at this preliminary phase of the process is offered. Next, a negotiator's inclination to plan, and the phases of activities they pursue are outlined and represent an important addition to the negotiation model. Then the concurrent and consequent portion of the model is touched on, which leads to discussion on how this pre-negotiation planning and preparation element may relate to traditional antecedent variables: negotiator characteristics and situational constraints.

PLANNING AND PREPARATION

Planning and preparation are ubiquitous human activities for which various approaches exist. Mckee, Varadarajan, and Vassar (1990) noted three prominent 'planning styles in marketing management. They included: 1) limited planning-- minimized planning activities, using mainly internal data and competitor analysis, is rare, 2) constituency planning - survey stakeholders .about needs and use some environmental information to add to internal data, and 3) comprehensive planning - utilize financial analyses at many levels and use task forces to coordinate strategic planning. In essence, marketers are seen to belong to low, medium or high -Whichever model one embraces, when one plans, one makes assertions regarding affairs that should occur in the future, and then base a course of action on these assumptions (Miller 1981). In a business environment, planning is largely undertaken in an effort to 1) reduce future uncertainty, and 2) diminish the risk of failure (Foster 1993). For our purposes here, planning is defined as information collection and option development, and preparation is confined to activities related to the development and rehearsal of the presentation of the planned components to the other sides) of the negotiation table.

Planning in the business arena is generally akin to written objectives, strategies, policies and is often strategic in nature (Cyert & Marsh 1963; Ansoff 1991). Although none of the researchers have found planning to be a panacea, Mintzberg suggested "setting oneself on a predetermined course into unknown waters is the. perfect way to sail straight into an iceberg" (1987 p.26). As might be expected, those who plan better tend to do better within a negotiation setting (Gulbro and Herbig 1996). Kotter (1982) states that planning often occurs in informal or implicit ways, and that managers develop loosely connected goals and plans. What is included in planning, for the.purposes of this article, are the processes of data collecting,.formulating, strategizing, and preparing. Other phenomena, such as the actual execution of the tactics at the negotiation table or verbal interaction, would fall outside the domain of the planning-preparation component.

Planning and preparing for a negotiation can frequently be a difficult and arduous task; hence, sometimes negotiators retreat from this important activity. When asked, most people who regularly engage in negotiation activities readily admit that pre-meeting planning and preparation are central to success. They also openly admit that they frequently go into negotiations poorly planned and prepared due to the organizational reality today of having to "do more with less," and the lack of consequences in the organization (good and bad) for addressing or failing to address this phase of the negotiation process. They are certainly time poor, and they fail to put a process in play that allows them to get on the planning and preparation learning curve. Some negotiators exhibit an inclination to plan; yet others may not. In the next section, who invests in planning, and what activities are undertaken during the planning phase are addressed.

Planning Inclination

Due to finite resources, negotiators must frequently decide on the extent of time and resources to spend in planning and preparing in a given situation. Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994) argued that situational acumen develops through mental preparation, self-confidence, and the ability to make adjustments in behavior as the situation unfolds. The authors suggest that pre-planning is the concept that best pulls these capabilities together. They found that those who made investments in planning were found to be more apt to learn and outperform those who did not. Thus, planning inclination is a measure of the degree to which individuals are prone or motivated to invest in planning actions. More precisely, in this setting, it is the behaviors directed toward developing knowledge about negotiation situations.

Planning and Preparation Activities

A clear understanding of the activities undertaken during prenegotiation preparation is essential. Are some aspects of planning and preparing more important than others? Does each activity require different skills to perform? Lewicki, Minton, and Saunders (1997) offer a general outline, while Simons and Tripp (1997) offer a specific checklist for negotiation preparation in the hospitality industry. Additional prescriptive suggestions can be derived from Shell (1999), Fisher and Ertel (1995) and Salacuse (1991). All the authors who have addressed the pre-negotiation phase have enumerated many behaviors and activities that have four common themes. These behaviors can be segmented into four sets: 1) Intelligence gathering, 2) Formulation, 3) Strategy, and 4) Preparation. The substance associated with each step is developed in more detail in the sections that follow and are outlined in Table 1.

Intelligence Gathering

Intelligence gathering is the act of collecting, processing, analyzing and evaluating available data concerning the other party and relevant environmental factors (U.S. Army Field Manual, 1993). Identifying and confirming the other side's strengths, weaknesses, and battle plans allow both military and business combatants to better predict their opponent's actions and needs. The collection, processing, and evaluation of military intelligence has been refined to an art form, which can also be the case for some skilled business negotiators. Sun Tzu, a third century B.C. military strategist, stated that military operations involve deception (Cleary 1988), which is often true for business negotiations. One of the best methods to counter deception, or to know when it is occurring, is to obtain enough strategic intelligence regarding the other side's activities so one will know what communicated information is true, and what is not. However, negotiators typically do not perform a full, rational analysis of the negotiation situation, either because the relevant information is not available, or because they ignore, fail to look for, or distort this information.

The value of gathering accurate intelligence cannot be overemphasized. Understanding market conditions, future trends, and how such issues will affect each party is only the first step. Information on the other participants involved in the negotiation should be a priority as well. A number of avenues exist for information collection, including (1) internal reports, (2) trade publications, (3) employees in your (or other) firm(s), or (4) annual or lOK reports. This phase is often considered most important by negotiators since it provides a foundation for all future decisions and recommendations. One particular negotiation team found the key to its success when it learned from the l OK that the other side's CEO received a $100,000 bonus for each 1% increase in return on share holders' equity (ROSE). From that point on all proposed options were presented in terms of their impact on ROSE. Amazingly, most of the CEO's own team members were not aware that ROSE was the primary target for their boss.

Formulation

Setting goals and determining objectives are an inherent part of any planning phase (Wilson and Putnam 1990; Futrell 1996). Lewicki, Minton, and Saunders (1997) noted that negotiators are expected to define the issues to be deliberated. In the formulation phase, one would see efforts targeted at deciding what issues are relevant to the encounter. Among the most important activities are setting limit levels (realistic, pessimistic, and optimistic) on each issue to be discussed. Negotiators often attempt to anticipate and counter the opposition's plans (Lewicki and Litterer 1985). Roloff and Jordan (1991) found that roughly one half of negotiators claimed they explicitly incorporate some aspect of the other side's plans in their own planning. A fully-prepared negotiator should have a reasonable understanding of the other parties' needs (e.g. ROSE enhancement per above), resources, reputation, and negotiating style, their authority to make an agreement, the likely strategy and tactics that will be deployed, and the level at which the other parties will walk away from the table (Lewicki and Litterer 1985; Roloff and Jordan 1991). This is the other side's BATNA, or "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991). It is also key to know the other side's history and culture. One of this article's authors found the key to negotiating a six-figure training contract when he learned from the prospect's web site that the firm's founder started the business with less than two dollars cash in his pocket. It is key to know, understand, and ultimately respect the other side in all key negotiation encounters. One should not negotiate with Wal-Mart without knowing and respecting the tradition of Sam Walton.

Lewicki, Minton, and Saunders (1997) recognized that many negotiators often prepare by consulting with others in their companies before making any decisions or moves. During these conversations, as well as at other points in time, agenda items to be discussed during the negotiation should be formulated. Most seasoned negotiators understand the power, and the responsibility, of crafting the document that will guide the issues to be deliberated, and quite possibly how much time will be spent on each issue. Hence, the formulation step in the pre-negotiation process is focused heavily on setting the financial parameters, general objectives, and goals of the negotiation. This process does not occur within a vacuum. Deciding what will be discussed, and what will not, can significantly influence the objectives of the negotiation. Additionally, the internal desires of the firm can be as powerful in setting goals for the negotiation encounter as the external market forces. Internal desires may include personal or top management aspirations, resource availability, timeline concerns and team considerations, amongst others. External considerations affecting this phase may include competitive threats or positioning and a firm's BATNA (both yours and theirs).

Strategy

Strategy is a plan that integrates a person's goals and action sequences into a cohesive whole (Quinn 1980). Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting" (Giles, 1964 p. 17). This is the power of strategy. When Roloff and Jordan (1992) asked negotiators what information they would like to possess while creating their plans, they replied that they needed additional strategic information, but failed to articulate exactly what information they sought.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

FIGURE 1

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

TABLE 1

Negotiators should devise general strategies that drive the specific tactics they will deploy (Wall 1985). Hence, strategic attacking and defending strategies must be considered.

Offensive strategic tactics will help to directly pressure the other party and may include the good-guy-bad-guy approach, threats and ultimatums, time pressure, and the nibbling procedure. Devising strategies for countering offensive moves is also important. Defensive tactics used to deflect these attacks, may include using a higher authority ploy, formally disciplining their tactic, or ignoring their offensive tactic and proceeding (Dawson 1995; Lewicki et al. 1997).

A well-prepared negotiator will also come with a predesignated trade-off strategy (Lewicki et al. 1997). A preformulated scheme regarding what can be sacrificed in order to obtain more favorable consideration on other issues is another area that is often planned before one reaches the confines of the negotiating table. This is similar to concession strategy development. At what time will certain concessions be offered, who will offer them, and what might be the expected reciprocation? These issues should be driven by predetermined strategies. Thus, before an adept strategist sits down at the negotiation table, he or she had developed procedures for strategically and tactically handling most conceivable situations with ease and grace.

Preparation

Stutman and Newell (1990) studied interpersonal negotiation and found that the majority of the interviewees reported that they had rehearsed prior to initiating the encounter. The benefits they noted for rehearsing included: 1) enhanced overall performance in the session; 2) better control of emotions and improved ability to remain rational, thereby reducing anxiety and improving confidence; and 3) more articulated speech through word choice and organization. Such preparation has also been found to make the negotiation meeting much more efficient. Greater accomplishments can often be achieved in a well planned and prepared thirty minute session, than a poorly prepared two hour marathon. It also is key to building one's perceived credibility, and can make the other side more likely to take a win-win, as opposed to a competitive, approach. Active role-playing has also been put forth as a means to improve one's negotiation performance (Younger 1992; Byham and Robinson 1996; Georges 1996). For instance, people might defend their positions or practice their delivery. In addition, scripting the opening ceremony of the negotiation and rehearsing how to introduce concessions and demands may be other important activities during this planning component of the pre-negotiation phase.

GENERAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS MODEL

This section of the paper outlines the traditional framework that has been used to model the negotiation process. The model is briefly explained including the antecedent (negotiator characteristics and situational variables), concurrent (process variables) and consequent (outcome) phases.

Negotiator Characteristics

Graham (1987) identified negotiator characteristics and situational constraints as antecedents; since they are both determined before the actual negotiation occurs. As such, it has been hypothesized that these antecedent constructs serve as determinants for what takes place during the negotiation process. Negotiator characteristics have generally included common demographic variables, such as experience, age, gender, education, and national culture. While psychology research has incorporated other variables like a person's relationship orientation (Machiavellianism), or cognitive ability (cognitive complexity; perspective-talking ability), the business literature has retained a typical approach to negotiator characteristics.

While intuitive, situational constraints can influence the preparation, planning, and negotiation processes substantially, researchers have by and large not incorporated this area into their variable set. Graham's early work often investigated the Japanese negotiation style where the role of the individual (buyer or seller) was found to be relevant. Few, if any studies actually addressed how situational variables would affect prenegotiation activities.

Process Variables

Process-related variables address what actually takes place when parties come together for discussions. A major thrust of the negotiation literature has centered on the various types of competitive and cooperative communication tactics used while the negotiator or negotiating teams are interacting (Adler, Graham and Gehrke 1987; Graham, Evenko and Rajan 1992; Graham, Mintu, and Rodgers 1994). As noted previously, these process behaviors are generally viewed as the central determinant of the negotiated outcomes. These behaviors comprise the face-to-face interactions between the parties that lead to the eventual resolution, or perhaps, impasse.

Negotiation Outcomes

The product of the antecedent and concurrent constructs is a negotiated outcome, which is usually measured in profits and negotiator satisfaction (Graham et al. 1988). Many interorganizational negotiation simulations in the past have used a zero-sum outcome, meaning that each negotiator would vie for a "portion of pie" and be rated according to his/her individual share. Since the 1980s, studies have often included joint profits as an outcome variable. Additionally, Dwyer (1984) and Weitz (1981) introduced the notion of a client's satisfaction level as an outcome measure worthy of collection. Weitz argued a buyer's satisfaction with negotiated outcomes would have an effect on the relationship over the duration of the buyer-seller exchange process. Thus, the outcomes in the original Graham model (1987) tend to include both profit and satisfaction.

The aim of the pre-negotiation planning and preparation component in Figure 1 is to focus on this critical first step and incorporate it explicitly into the negotiation process. In order to understand the refined model, propositions for future testing of the model are offered as they relate to the original negotiator characteristics and situational constraints of the model.

RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

Several propositions based on the pre-negotiation planning and preparation phase are now detailed. Future testing of these and similar hypotheses is the ultimate intention. The relationship to the consequent phase (i.e., outcomes) is not the focus here, as the objective of this work is to better comprehend the behaviors that occur prior to the actual face-to-face negotiation (see Graham 1986 and Thompson 1990b for a partial review of this area). Thus, propositions involving the new construct (pre-negotiation planning and preparation) are linked to negotiator characteristics (culture and demographics) and situation constraints (collaborative and competitive).

Individual Characteristics of Negotiators

The development of a refined interorganizational negotiation process begins with the acknowledgment that the individual has a major influence on the process and eventual negotiated outcomes. There are numerous studies reflecting the importance of negotiator characteristics as an antecedent determinant of negotiation behavior (Rubin and Brown 1975; Neu et al. 1988; Thompson 1990a; Levy and Sharma 1994; Rose 1995). Graham (1987) purports five general demographic characteristics that link the process and outcomes of interorganizational negotiations: 1) age, 2) education, 3) experience, 4) gender, and 5) national culture. Attempts to isolate the effects of these variables have met with varying success. The following is a synoptic view of research relevant to the demographic variables. See Table 2 for an overview.

Age & Experience

While age and experience are independent influences, they often have a level of association between them in business-tobusiness negotiations. Experience is built over time, generally as the negotiator ages and becomes savvier, but this is not a prerequisite nor always evidenced. Savvy leaders in firms will not continue to send negotiators into bargaining encounters if they do not return with the goals and objectives prescribed, which often comes with experience and age.

The effects of age on negotiator behavior have been as varied as the ages tested. For the most part, younger negotiators have been studied, with the preponderance being students, mainly due to the difficulty in sampling more experienced negotiators. Rubin and Brown (1975) reported that younger negotiators tend to be less flexible with the other side. What is of interest is whether these observations hold true during the prenegotiation planning and preparation phase.

The experience that a negotiator brings to the table influences the outcomes one can garner (Winkler and Murphy 1973). As negotiator experience increased, so did the tendency to use integrative settlements (Neale and Bazerman 1983; Bazerman, Magliozzi, and Neale 1985; Alexander, Schul, and McCorkle 1994; Mintu-Wimsatt and Gassenheimer 2000). Thompson (1990c) found experience improved negotiation performance, but not uniformly. More experience with collaborative skills enabled parties to learn from tasks and use skills in different negotiation situations; this was not the case, however, for those using competitive behaviors. Thus, we find that negotiators' behavior is influenced by the amount of experience they have to draw upon. Less experienced negotiators tend to consider fewer options and move in a sequential manner through the negotiation issues (Rackham and Carlisle 1978). Skilled negotiators appear to realize that thorough knowledge of the facts is just the tip of the iceberg. Rackham and Carlisle (1978) found effective negotiators must spend time planning and strategizing the tactics and behaviors that will allow the other party to understand they also will receive a payoff, a potential win-win outcome. Thus, it appears that experience may lead to more consideration of not only one's own position, but the other party's position as well. This of course will require additional time be devoted to the pre-negotiation planning and preparation phase in order to be ready with multiple (at least two or three) well-developed win-win options. Hence the propositions for the effect of age and experience read:

Proposition la: Older negotiators may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Proposition lb: More experienced negotiators may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Education

Formal university education level continues to be one variable that does not offer consistent results, either. Within the sales literature there is evidence of positive relationships between education and performance (Levy and Sharma 1994; Lucas 1985; Lamont and Lundstrom 1997). Yet, when studying cross-cultural negotiators, Wimsatt and Gassenheimer (2000) did not find this relationship to exist, at least as it regarded using a collaborative negotiation approach. Many researchers have used an aptitude measure to ascertain educational level, but this variable often has no significant relationship with negotiation behavior (Rubin and Brown 1975). Intuitively, one could make a case for less educated individuals needing to prepare more since they may lack certain knowledge, but at the same time one may assert that highly educated individuals will plan more since they understand the general process and what is potentially at stake.

Overall, a curvilinear relationship may exist with regard to negotiator education and the pre-negotiation phase. Those with lower levels of education may feel a sense of bewilderment when approaching a negotiation scenario where they are not competent. A feeling of not knowing where to start or what intelligent questions to ask may lead them to spend less time in the pre-negotiation phase. Those with high levels of education may be less inclined to participate in the prenegotiation phase, but for different reasons. This group may elect not to plan because they are very comfortable and confident with their abilities and believe they can just "wing it". It is perhaps the moderate education group who do not think they already know it all, but recognize that with some time dedicated to the planning phase they can ask the right questions, create the environment in which they will thrive. Alexander, Schul, and McCorkle (1994) found education to be a significant variable when deciding to choose between a collaborative versus a competitive approach. The more education one had the more inclined they were to take a collaborative approach, but education was not directly linked to negotiated outcomes. Lamont and Lundstrom (1997) noted that education could improve the skills necessary to execute a collaborative approach

Proposition 2: Negotiators with moderate levels of education may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Gender

To understand if gender plays a role in negotiation process or outcomes, it has been repeatedly scrutinized. There has been some support for the supposition that women tend to be more collaborative through the means of listening skills and desire to formulate win-win outcomes (Fitzpatrick and Winke 1979; Roloff and Greenberg 1979), while others have not found support (Wimsatt and Gassenheimer 2000). The stereotypes of females as more cooperative, accommodating, and more equitable, and males as more competitive, forceful, and deceptive have been supported by some studies (Fitzpatrick and Winke 1979; Roloff and Greenberg 1979). However, again, the findings for gender differences accounting for behavior variance are mixed (Rubin and Brown 1975; Pruitt 1981; Min, LaTour and Jones 1995). Embarking on a collaborative approach may involve more preparation since one must not only understand his or her desires, but also spend time and resources contemplating what the other party requires. These findings may be perceived as stereotypes that do not uncover the true influences of gender socialization, but there has been a history of differences between the sexes (see Rubin and Brown 1975) that remains intriguing and relevant. Rose (1995) suggested that while the gender findings are varied, females appear to be more personally oriented and appeasing than their male counterparts. This supports the notion that females may be inclined to work cooperatively and thus be more predisposed to devote the necessary attention to preparation activities in order to collaborate with the other party.

Proposition 3: Female negotiators may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

National Culture

Numerous studies have been conducted demonstrating that negotiation differences exist between people of different cultures (Sheth 1983; Graham, Mintu and Rodgers 1994). Clark (1990) discussed the concept of national character-the idea that people of each nation have a distinctive, enduring pattern of behavior and/or personality characteristics. In a purchasing study, 97% of respondents stated they would need to modify their negotiation strategy to deal with overseas suppliers (Min and Galle 1993). The "software of the mind" approach to culture (Hofstede 1991) seems to strongly suggest that negotiation planning might be influenced by one's culture. Based on Hofstede's value dimensions of 1) individualismcollectivism, 2) uncertainty-avoidance, 3) power distance, and 4) masculinity-femininity, questions must be raised whether different cultures plan and prepare for negotiations in the same manner. Each of the four cultural dimensions are now briefly described.

Individualism/Collectivism: Individualism versus collectivism involves the fundamental orientation between human beings. Individualism refers to societies in which the ties among individuals are loose, while collectivism refers to societies that form strong, cohesive groups and, in turn, demand unquestioned loyalty. This topic has been discussed within several negotiation-oriented studies (Kale and Barnes 1992; Putnam 1994; Brett and Okumura 1998; Salacuse 1998). Members of individualistic countries tend to have the freedom to "do as they wish", which may be evident in their negotiation style. Workers in individualistic countries often are rewarded in business by the code of the "economic man", in the Adam Smith or Ricardo persona. These negotiator goals are independent ofthe group (Triandis 1989) and often believe that their individual talents can be trusted to accomplish the goal; it is just a matter of "working the deal." Getting the job done is achieved by eloquently arguing the case and relying on superior oratory skills, thus planning may not be as valuable. Collectivists tend to conduct themselves with social obligations to the group in mind (Triandis 1989). Hence, the need and resources devoted to pre-negotiation efforts will likely be discrepant. However, but individual exceptions certainly exist, one might see Americans as willing to rely on their individual ability to carry the negotiation once he/she arrives at the negotiation table, where more collectivist minded groups of people may feel compelled to prepare more.

Proposition 4: Negotiators from individualistic cultures may tend to 1) be less inclined to plan, and 2) devote fewer resources to planning activities.

Uncertainty Avoidance: Hofstede defines uncertainty avoidance as "the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations" (1991 p. 113), and also notes that feelings of uncertainty are acquired and learned. To be faced with an unfamiliar situation for which a behavior script is not available leads to a tenuous predicament for those who have a high uncertainty-avoidance propensity. Cultures that are high in uncertainty-avoidance tend to be emotional, security seeking, and intolerant (Vitell et al. 1993). Their members' desire for predictability necessitates written and unwritten rules for guidance. For a negotiation context, this might equate to an increased need for planning and preparation in order to feel secure.

One of the most distressing environments a negotiator who has high uncertainty avoidance can face is a negotiation where he or she is not prepared. Hofstede (1991) notes that "what is different is dangerous" according to uncertainty avoiders. Negotiators from high uncertainty avoidance cultures prefer highly structured and routinized action during bargaining encounters (Hofstede and Usunier 1996). Thus, in order to reduce ambiguity, gain control, and promote stability, these negotiators will plan and prepare in order to bring about familiarity and security.

Proposition 5: Negotiators from high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Power Distance: Power Distance (PD) is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede 1991). Organizations with low power distance tend to be fairly decentralized, flat hierarchical structures and consider the boss a resource. One manifestation of Power Distance is the willingness to trust other people. Large PD cultures often view others as a threat and, as a result, show less inclination to trust others, which will obviously have an impact on the negotiation process. Conversely, people in small power distance societies feel less threatened by others and tend to trust them more.

Schmidt (1979) and Graham et al. (1988) have observed that in a large PD society such as Japan, the seller is often considered little more than a beggar. Thus, in terms of style, sellers will have to be respectful, subservient, and prepared to do as they are asked by buyers in large PD societies. Trust is a central feeling in the PD concept (Kale and Barnes 1992). People in large power distance cultures (e.g., the Arab countries) will discuss business only after developing trust with the other party. The no-nonsense task-oriented style of interaction may work well in the predominantly small PD countries of Western Europe, but might backfire in the Middle East for instance. Thus, in order to be trusted, and therefore effective, a well-contrived plan and proper preparation may tend to be more pervasive in high power distance societies. If one first must personally trust another to perform business transactions or create a partnership, then one may make some inquiries (phone calls to mutual friends/suppliers, a request for a personal data sheet) or other investments into reducing the perceived risk.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

TABLE 2

Proposition 6: Negotiators from high Power Distance countries may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Masculinity-Femininity: Masculine societies are sometimes considered task or performance oriented, assertive and many occupations are typically gender-specific. In a masculine society, challenge, advancement and the accumulation of money are important. "Masculine" values include assertiveness, respect for the super-achiever, and the acquisition of money and material possessions. Feminine societies are often characterized by an emphasis on social interactions, relationships and economic gain is not a main motivator. "Feminine" values include nurturing, concern for the environment, and championing the underdog. In feminine cultures, there is a tendency to collaborate when seeking to create a relationship or resolve a situation. In one of the few studies to access this dimension in a negotiation setting (Graham, Mintu and Rodgers 1994), the researchers found a significant relationship between masculinity and satisfaction levels with their agreement process and final agreement, contrary to what they postulated, but their sample of 700 participants may have been composed disproportionately of males.

A negotiator approaching a high masculine country for possible bargaining agreements may find the high masculine negotiators more rigid and inflexible. Organizations from masculine environments tend to "fight" for the agreement that best suits their needs (Hofstede and Usunier 1996). In feminine cultures, there is more of a tendency to compromise and collaborate when seeking to create a relationship or resolve a situation. Again, this is a situation where one must know oneself and the other party's needs. Hence, more resources and time may be devoted to pre-negotiation planning and preparation in order to offer a more nurturing, win-win environment, including contingencies or "what if' scenarios. Proposition 7: Negotiators from Feminine cultures may tend to 1) be more inclined to plan, and 2) devote more resources to planning activities.

Situational Constraints

The key to understanding the behavior individuals exhibit at the negotiation table may well be to understand the planning and strategy preparation undertaken prior to the face-to-face meeting. A variety of situational constraints may influence pre-negotiation planning and preparation in business negotiations. There are numerous ways in which the situation can affect and constrain the negotiation process. Based on the literature, some of these factors include organizational goals, prior behavior of the parties, trust, degree of power symmetry, buyer-seller role, location, team make-up, time constraints and the competitive or collaborative nature of the encounter. Arguably, one of the most important situational variables to consider is the approach (competitive or collaborative) that either party might use during the negotiation process. The approach that people follow during a negotiation encounter has a significant impact on the other party and has been noted in the literature for years (see Rubin and Brown 1975; Pruitt 1981; Lewicki, Minton, and Saunders 1997). Thomas (1976) offered a typology of negotiation styles with the following categories: 1) collaborative, 2) competitive, 3) compromise, 4) accommodative, and 5) avoidant. Not surprisingly, when asked, 75% of all industrial buyers stated they employed the collaborative model when conducting business with their suppliers (Perdue, Day, and Michaels, 1986). Research in negotiation has generally centered on the competitivecollaborative domains (Schelling 1960; Rubin and Brown 1975; Graham 1980; Pruitt 1981; Alexander 1988), perhaps because these are two dominant behavioral patterns. Those who avoid, or always capitulate to, another negotiator's demands would not be individuals that organizations would retain in positions where negotiation is a requirement. Thus, while there are numerous variables covered under the situational variables umbrella as noted earlier, the focus here is on the competitive and collaborative approaches individuals use as they relate to the negotiation process. See Table 3 for a comparison between competitive and collaborative negotiation approaches.

The anticipation of another's behavior, as well as one's own objectives, will help to shape preparation. Deutsch (1960) found a negotiator's competitive or collaborative orientation produced sharp differences in the person's behavior, regardless of the other variables manipulated. One of the major conclusions from this line of inquiry is that the collaborative orientation includes the transmission of information, whereas competitive negotiators rely on persuasion and influence attempts (Graham 1985). The posture taken at the negotiation table must be developed during the pre-negotiation planning and preparation phase and is a variable of considerable importance. While there have been numerous studies regarding the bargaining style used by negotiators, searches yield little information on studies that address how negotiators prepare for encounters.

Competitive and Collaborative Negotiating

Competitive negotiating behavior is based on the assumption of a zero-sum or a win-lose philosophy. Thompson and Hastie (1990) called this the "fixed-sum assumption." The best possible outcome for a competitive encounter is for me to win, and this would entail you not winning, i.e., losing (Pruitt 1981). Thompson and Hastie (1990) provided strong evidence that most negotiators, especially inexperienced negotiators, approach bargaining situations with a fixed-sum assumption in mind. While some aggressive negotiators can garner price concessions, they are not always the most effective overall (Dion and Bunting 1990).

Thus, it appears that competitive negotiation is used to close a deal, not open a relationship. Negotiators accustomed to dealing in competitive environments may find it particularly difficult to analyze and understand another party's interests because they are focused only on meeting their needs. They are familiar with distributive negotiation in which obvious conflict issues are singled out for negotiation. Irrespective of the approach selected, the particular strategy adopted should affect the pre-negotiation planning and preparation phase.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

TABLE 3

A collaborative disposition is characterized by an overall plan to find a mutually beneficial solution to the situation through joint problem solving, or simply stated, a win-win philosophy (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991). To be collaborative, both negotiators, whether buyers or sellers (Rubin and Carter 1990), must engage in disclosure of information regarding their problems and possible conflicts of interest (Walton and McKersie 1965). Open communication is the cornerstone for collaborative negotiations. Here, each party engages in open discovery of the other's needs, wants, and values through questions, answers, and information exchange/concession. Husted (1994) found that communication problems had a more important impact on successful negotiations than did the technical or financial aspects in bargaining between U.S. and Mexican negotiators.

Numerous authors have gone to great lengths to detail the differences between the competitive and collaborative approaches to negotiation (Walton and McKersie 1965; Rubin and Brown 1975; Pruitt 1981). One obvious reason might be that these types of negotiation styles will require different types of information and preparation in order to be effective. In two experiments, Deutsch (1958, 1960) found a person's competitive or collaborative orientation produced sharp differences in his or her behavior, irrespective of the other variables manipulated in the research setting. As noted earlier, Mckee, Varadarajan, and Vassar (1990) found that those in highly competitive markets use comprehensive planning to reduce uncertainty and this finding may hold true for negotiators as well.

To develop a problem-solving environment, akin to collaboration, requires an understanding of not only one's own needs, but the true interests of the other party. As compared to a competitive approach, this style generally necessitates gathering more information, preparing multiple options to pursue, and being willing to compromise, or possibly delay/share some financial gratification (Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991). However, the fear of loss often outweighs the potential for gain and this frequently manifests itself in humans going to great lengths to prevent others from getting the advantage over them. Hence, there are two competing explanations for possible negotiators' behavior that appear plausible.

Proposition 8: Negotiators anticipating a Competitive versus a Collaborative encounter may differ regarding 1) their inclination to plan, and 2) devotion of resources to planning activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning is undertaken to reduce uncertainty, guide behavior, and lower the possibility of failure. The construct of prenegotiation planning and preparation activities has yet to be developed in a negotiation context. A negotiator's inclination to plan and the activities undertaken in this phase are key dimensions that should be part of the pre-negotiation planning construct. The goal of this work is to better understand the prenegotiation elements of planning and preparation and how they potentially relate to the negotiation process. The continued narrow focus on "table exchanges", without a clear understanding of why negotiation behaviors have occurred, will hinder the ability to more accurately understand the negotiation process, including outcomes.

From a managerial perspective, without a more thorough understanding of the factors and behaviors of the prenegotiation phase, the ability to select and direct negotiators/negotiating teams will continue to be negatively impacted. One manager in the automotive products manufacturing industry who recognized the value of negotiation planning and preparation went so far as to create a formal policy whereby negotiators who failed to complete and submit a company-developed planning checklist before a negotiation meeting were no longer reimbursed for their travel expenses associated with that meeting. This move dramatically addressed the compliance issue from that point on, and resulted in an estimated improvement in negotiation outcomes for the firm in excess of $2 million, within just the next six months.

The focus this article provides should also assist managers in identifying and evaluating present and potential negotiators who are more or less prone to undertake the requisite planning and preparation mandates can be of strategic value. Additionally, understanding the effect of situational factors (competitive or collaborative approaches) on the prenegotiation phase may be of substantial concern to organizations and negotiators who wish to improve their effectiveness. The consequence of the present lack of direction most likely includes failed negotiations, significant missed opportunities, extended negotiation sessions, and more costly negotiations than required.

One other implication is also worthy of note. In this age of business concentration, where a higher percentage of profitable exchanges is being done with a smaller percentage of suppliers or customers, planning has become more critical than ever before. Firms do not want to do business with, and certainly be dependent upon, companies with negotiation teams that come in poorly planned and prepared. The natural tendency of decision makers is to play win-lose (if at all) with people who come in from a position of weakness, and win-win with people and teams who "have their act together." With the stakes higher and the players' skill levels generally better than in years past, the negotiators motto must become "go big or go home." Going big means showing up with your planning and preparation homework done.

[Reference]

REFERENCES

[Reference]

Adler, Nancy J., Richard Brahm, and John L. Graham (1992), "Strategy Implementation: A Comparison of Face-to-Face Negotiations in the People's Republic of China and the United States," Strategic Management Journal, v 13: 449-466.

John L. Graham and Theodore Schwarz Gehrke (1987), "Business Negotiation in Canada, Mexico and the United States," Journal of Business Research, v 15: 411-429.

Alexander, Joe F. (1988), "Interorganizational Negotiation in Marketing: An Assessment of a General Buyer-Seller Model Utilizing Competitive and Cooperative Orientation," Doctoral Dissertation, Memphis State University.

P. Schul, and D. McCorkle (1994), "An Assessment of Selected Relationships in a Model of the Industrial Marketing Negotiation Process", Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vl4(3): 25-41.

Anderson, H. H. (1969), "Somination and Integration in the Social Behavior of Kindergarten Children in an Experimental Play Situation", Genetic Psychological Monographs, v2l: 357-385.

Ansoff, H. 1. (1991), "Critique of Henry Mintzberg's 'The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management," Strategic Management Journal, v11 449-461.

Bazerman, M. H., T. Magliozzi and M. A. Neale (1985), "Integrative Bargaining in a Competitive Market," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v3 5: 294-313.

Berger, C. R. (1988), "Planning, Affect, and Social Action Generation", L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, and E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Communication, Social Cognition, andAffect, (p. 93-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

and R. A. Bell (1988), Plans and the Initiation of Social Relationships", Human Communication Research, v 15: 217-235.

[Reference]

Brett, Jeanne M., and Tetsushi Okumura (1998), "Inter- and Intracultural Negotiation: U.S. and Japanese Negotiators," Academy of Management Journal, v4l(5): 495-510.

Byham, William and James Robinson (1996), "Interaction Modeling: A Supervisory Training Concept," Training & Development, v50 (July): 30-33.

Clark, Terry (1990), "International Marketing and National Character: A Review and Proposal for an Integrative Theory," Journal of Marketing, October: 66-79.

Cleary, Thomas (1988), The Art of War by Sun Tzu, Boston: Shambhala. Cyert R. M. and J. G. Marsh (1963),.4 Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Dawson, Roger (1995), Secrets of Power Negotiating, Franklin Vlanes, NJ: Career Press.

Deutsch, M. (1959), "Trust and Suspicion, " Journal of Conflict Resolution, v2: 265-279.

(1960), "The Effect of Motivation Orientation upon Trust and Suspicion," Human Relations, v 13: 123-139.

Dion, Paul A. and Peter M. Banting (1987), "Effective Buyers: Are they Cunning or Cooperative," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, v23(4): 26-33.

[Reference]

Dwyer, F. Robert (1984), "Are Two Better than One? Bargaining Behavior and Outcomes in an Asymmetrical Power Relationship," Journal of Consumer Research, v 11 (September): 680-693.

Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton (1991), Getting to Yes, New York, NY: Penguin Books.

and Danny Ertel (1995), Getting Ready to Negotiate, New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Fitzpatrick, M. W., and F. Winke (1979), "You Always Hurt the One You Love: Strategies and Tactics in Interpersonal Conflict.," Communication Quarterly, v27 (Winter): 3-11.

Foster, M. John (1993), "Scenario Planning for Small Businesses", Long Range Planning, v26 (1): 123-129.

Francis, June (1991), "When in Rome? The Effects of Cultural Adaptation on Intercultural Business Negotiations," Journal of International Business Studies, v22 (3): 403-428.

Fry, C. L. (1967), "A Developmental Examination of Performance in a Tacit Coordination Game Situation", Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, v5: 277-281.

Futrell, Charles (1996), Fundamentals of Selling, Irwin: Chicago.

Ganesan, Shankar (1993), "Negotiation Strategies and the Nature of Channel Relationships", Journal of Marketing Research, v30 (May): 183203.

Georges, James C. (1996), "The Myth of Soft-Skills Training," Training, v33 (January): 48-54.

[Reference]

Giles, Lionel (1964), Sun Tzu on The Art of War, Taipei: Literature House, Ltd.

Graham, John L. (1980), "Cross-Cultural Sales Negotiations: A Multilevel Analysis," Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,

_(1983), "Brazilian, Japanese and American Business Negotiations", Journal of International Business Studies, v14 (Spring/Summer): 47-61.

_(1985), "The Influence of Culture on the Process of Business Negotiations: An Exploratory Study", Journal of International Business Studies, v 16 (Spring): 81-96.

_(1986), "The Problem-Solving Approach to Negotiations in Industrial Journal of Business Research, v 14: 549-566.

_(1987), "A Theory of Interorganizational Negotiations," Research in Marketing, v9: 163-183.

Kim Dong-Li, Lin Chi-Yuan, and Michael Robinson (1988), "BuyerSeller Negotiations Around the Pacific Rim: Difference in Fundamental Exchange Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, v 15, (June): 48-54.

Leonid I. Evenko, and Mahesh N. Rajan (1992), "An Empirical Comparison of Soviet and American Business Negotiations," Journal of International Business Studies, v23 (September): 387418.

Alma T. Mintu, and Waymond Rodgers (1994), "Explorations of Negotiation Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures using a Model Developed in the United States," Management Science, v40 (January): 72-95.

[Reference]

and Y. Sano (1989), Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese, New York, NY: Harper Business.

Gulbro, Robert and Paul Herbig (1996), "Negotiating Successfully in CrossCultural Situations," Industrial Marketing Management, v25 (3): 235-241.

Harkleroad, David H. (1992), "Competitive Intelligence: A New Benchmarking Tool," Management Review, v81 (October): 26-29. Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures and Organizations, London: McGraw-Hill.

and Jean-Claude Usunier (1996), "Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture and their Influence on International Business Negotiations" in Pervez N. Ghauri and Jean-Claude Usunier (eds.), International Business Negotiations, Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Husted, Bryan W. (1994), "Bargaining with the Gringos: An Exploratory Study of Negotiations between Mexican and U.S. Firms," The International Executive, v35 (5): 635-644.

Kale, Sudhir H. and John W. Barnes (1992), "Understanding the Domain of Cross-National Buyer-Seller Interactions," Journal of International Business Studies, v23 (1): 101-132.

Karrass, C. L. (1970), The Negotiating Game, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers.

Kotter, J. P. (1982), The General Managers, New York: Free Press.

Lamont Lawrence and William Lunstrom (1977), "Identifying the Successful Industrial Salesman by Personality and Personal Characteristics," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November): 517-529.

Levy, Michael and Arun Sharma (1994), "Adaptive Selling: The Role of Gender, Age, Sales Experience, and Education," Journal of Business Research, v31 (1): 39-47.

Lewicki, R. J., and J. A. Litterer (1985), Negotiation, Homewood, IL: Irwin. David M. Saunders, and John W. Minton (1997), Essentials of Negotiation, Chicago: Irwin.

[Reference]

Lucas, George (1985), "The Relationship Between Job Attitude, Personal Characteristics and Job Outcomes: A Study of Retail Store Managers, Journal of Retailing, v61 (Spring): 35-61.

Mckee, Daryl, P. Ragan Varadarajan and John Vassar (1990), "A Taxonomy of Marketing Planning Styles," Journal ofAcademy of Marketing Science, v 18 (2): 131-141 .

Miller, George (1981), "Management Guidelines: The Art of Planning," Supervisory Management, (May): 24-31.

Min, Hokey, Michael S. LaTour, and Michael A. Jones (1995), "Negotiation Outcomes: The Impact of the Initial Offer, Time, Gender, and Team Size," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (Fall): 19-24.

and William Galle (1993), "International Negotiation Strategies of U.S. Purchasing Professionals," International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, v29 (3): 41-50,

Mintu-Wimsatt Alma and Jule B. Gassenheimer (2000), "The Moderating Effects of Cultural Context in Buyer-Seller Negotiation", Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, v20 (1): 1-9.

Mintzberg, H. (1987), "The Strategy Concept 11: Another Look at Why Organizations Need Strategies," California Management Review, 30 (1): 25-32,

[Reference]

Neale M. A. and M. H. Bazerman (1983), "The Impact of Perspective Taking Ability on the Negotiation Process Under Alternative Forms of Arbitration," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, v36: 378388.

Neu, Joyce, John L. Graham, and Mary C. Gilly (1988), "The Influence of Gender on Behaviors and Outcomes in a Retail Buyer-Seller Negotiation Simulation," Journal of Retailing, v64 (4): 427-451.

Perdue, Barbara C. and John 0. Summers (1991), "Purchasing Agents' Use of Negotiation Strategies", Journal of Marketing Research, v28 (May): 175-189.

George Day and Ron Michaels (1986), "Negotiation Styles of Industrial Buyers," Industrial Marketing Management, v 15: 171176.

Phelps, R. H., and J. Shanteau (1978), "Livestock Judges: How Much Information can an Expert Use?," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, v21: 209-219.

Pruitt, Dean (1981), Negotiation Behavior, New York: Academic Press. Putnam, Linda (1994), "Challenging the Assumptions of Traditional Approaches to Negotiation", Negotiation Journal, vIO (4): 337346.

Quinn, James Brian (1980), Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Boston: Irwin Inc.

Rackham, Neil and John Carlisle (1978), "The Effective Negotiator-Part 2: Planning for Negotiations," Journal of European Industrial Training, v2: 2-5.

Rognes, Jorn (1995), "Negotiating Cooperative Supplier Relationships: A Planning Framework," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (October): 12-18.

[Reference]

Roloff, M. E., and Greenberg, B. S. (1979), "Sex Differences in Choice of Modes of Conflict Resolution in Real Life and Television," Communication Quarterly, v27 (Summer): 3-12.

and Jerry M. Jordan (1991), "The Influence of Effort, Experience, and Persistence on the Elements of Bargaining Plans," Communication Research, Y18 (June): 306- 332.

and J. M. Jordan (1992), "Achieving negotiation goals: The 'Fruits and Foibles' of Planning Ahead", In L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and Negotiation, (p. 2145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rose, Carol (1995), "Bargaining and Gender", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, v 18 (Spring): 547-563.

Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and Bert R. Brown (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, New York: Academic Press.

Rubin, Paul A. and Joseph R. Carter (1990), "Joint Optimality In Buyer Supplier Negotiations," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, v26 (n2): 20-26.

Sacerodoti, E. D. (1977), A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.

Salacuse, Jeswald W. (1998), "Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results," Negotiation Journal, (July): 221240.

(1991), Making Global Deals, New York, NY: Random House.

[Reference]

Schelling T. (1960), The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schmidt Klaus D. (1979), Doing Business in Taiwan and Doing Business in Japan, pamphlet, Business Intelligence Program, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

Shell, G. Richard (1999), Bargaining for Advantage, New York: Penguin Books.

Sheth, Jagdish (1983), "Cross Cultural Influences on Buyer-Seller Interaction/Negotiation", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, I(September): 46-55.

Simons, Tony and Thomas M. Tripp (1997), "The Negotiation Checklist", Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, v38 (1): 14-23. Stutman, Randall K. and Sara E. Newell (1990), "Rehearsing for

Confrontation," Argumentation, v4: 185-198.

Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar (1994), "Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling," Journal of Marketing, v59 (July): 39-52.

Tannen, Deborah (1986), That's Not What I Meant!, Ballantine Books: New York.

Tannen, Deborah (1990), You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, Ballantine Books: New York.

Thomas, Kenneth (1976), "Conflict and Conflict Management," in Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunnette (ed.) Rand-McNally: Chicago. p. 889-935.

Thompson, Leigh (1990a), "An Examination of Nave and Experienced Negotiators," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v59 (1): 92-90.

Thompson, Leigh (1990b), "Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues," Psychological Bulletin, v108 (3): 515-532.

Thompson, Leigh (1990c), "The Influence of Experience on Negotiation Performance," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v26: 528-544.

[Reference]

Thompson, L. and R. Hastie (1990), "Judgment Tasks and Biases in Negotiation," in B. H. Sheppard, M. H. Bazerman, and R. J. Lewicki (eds.). Research in Negotiation in Organizations, v2: 31 54, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1989), "Cross Cultural Studies of Individual and Collectivism," in H. Berman (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 41-133, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Vitell, Scott J., Saviour L. Nwachukwu, and James H. Barnes (1993), "The Effects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making: An Application of Hofstede's Typology", Journal of Business Ethics, v 12: 753-760.

Waldron, V. R., D. J. Cegala, W. F. Sharkey, and B. Teboul (1990), "Cognitive and Tactical Dimensions of Conversational Goal Management", Journal of Language and Social Psychology, v9: 101-118.

Wall, Jr., J. A. (1985), Negotiation: Theory andPractice, Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Walton, Richard E. and Robert B. McKersie (1965), A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System, ILR Press: New York.

Weitz, Barton A. (1981), "Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework," Journal of Marketing, v45 (1): 85-103.

Wilensky, R. (1983), Planning and Understanding, Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

Wilson, Steven and Linda Putnam (1990), "Interaction Goals in Negotiation," Communication Yearbook, v 13: 3 74406.

Winkler R. and A. Murphy (1973), "Experiments in the Laboratory and the Real World," Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, vIO: 252-270.

Younger, Sandra (1992), "Sales Savvy for the Nineties", Training & Development, v46 (December): 13-17.

[Author Affiliation]

Robert M. Peterson University of Portland

[Author Affiliation]

George H. Lucas US Learning Inc.

[Author Affiliation]

Robert M. Peterson (Ph.D. University of Memphis) has research interests that include negotiation, personal selling and entrepreneurship. Robert has published previous articles in Industrial Marketing Management, Business Horizons, and the Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, amongst others.

[Author Affiliation]

George H. Lucas (Ph.D. University of Missouri - Columbia) has research interests that include negotiation skills, personal selling and marketing strategy. George is C.O.O. of U. S. Learning, a consulting and training company headquartered in Memphis, TN.