Does negotiation training improve negotiators’ performance? Eman ElShenawy Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt Abstract Purpose – This paper’s objective is to test the main effect of negotiation training-level on acquiring negotiation skills. Training level refers to the time a trainee spends in a negotiation training course receiving the standard style and methods of training. Negotiation skills are manifested through trainees’ performance after receiving training. Design/methodology/approach – Six meta-analyses were conducted over 57 lab experiments from 36 studies. The six meta-analyses were divided into two groups each with a sub-study. The objective of study one is finding effect of training level on negotiators’ individual and joint performance. The objective of study two is contrasting the effects of three training levels on negotiators’ performance. Findings – Study one results show that training level has an effect on individual performance that is more evident for the long training (r ¼ 0.76) than for the short training (r ¼ 0.22). Training level has a medium effect on joint performance (r ¼ 0.37). Results of study two show an increase in negotiators’ performance the higher the training level. That performance rate ranged from point estimate ¼ 2.03 after spending a day in training to point estimate ¼ 5.2 after spending three weeks or more in training. Research limitation/implications – The results indicate significant association between the time trainees spend in negotiation training programs and their negotiation performance. Level of training should be controlled for when conducting experiments during negotiation courses. Future research should focus on effects of personality traits of both trainees and trainers on negotiation training effectiveness. Practical implications – The findings highlight the importance of investing in increasing the level of negotiation training and spending more in making it a routine practice for top executives. After all, skilful negotiators are important assets that should be maintained. They make important deals that add to the firm’s financial performance of the firm. Higher levels of negotiation training deliver more values to firms. Originality/value – Training methods and styles followed in courses and programs of negotiation training are effective and are of value providing they last for enough time. The study highlights the importance of negotiation training, an area worthy of more research. Findings are valuable for training practitioners to pay attention to what is considered enough time of training against what is being practiced. Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial fields if designed in the appropriate way. Keywords Negotiating, Skills training, Performance management Paper type Research paper Negotiation is an essential managerial skill for success in today’s global environment. Almost all business interactions require a level of negotiation; therefore, skillful negotiators are considered valuable assets who are able to improve financial performance, customer relations and employee’s satisfaction (Ertel, 1999; Susskind and Corburn, 2000). A skillful negotiator adds to the financial performance of the firm by closing an important deal and decreases that value in the case of losing one. Business news is full of such examples of skillful versus unskillful negotiators. Skillful negotiators became essential for success in all professions such as medical, legal, and consultation (Anastakis, 2003). The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm JEIT 34,3 192 Received 12 November 2008 Revised 1 May 2009 Accepted 30 June 2009 Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 34 No. 3, 2010 pp. 192-210 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090591011031719
Transcript
Does negotiation training improvenegotiators’ performance?
Eman ElShenawySuez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
AbstractPurpose – This paper’s objective is to test the main effect of negotiation training-level on acquiringnegotiation skills. Training level refers to the time a trainee spends in a negotiation training coursereceiving the standard style and methods of training. Negotiation skills are manifested throughtrainees’ performance after receiving training.
Design/methodology/approach – Six meta-analyses were conducted over 57 lab experiments from36 studies. The six meta-analyses were divided into two groups each with a sub-study. The objectiveof study one is finding effect of training level on negotiators’ individual and joint performance. Theobjective of study two is contrasting the effects of three training levels on negotiators’ performance.
Findings – Study one results show that training level has an effect on individual performance that ismore evident for the long training (r ¼ 0.76) than for the short training (r ¼ 0.22). Training level has amedium effect on joint performance (r ¼ 0.37). Results of study two show an increase in negotiators’performance the higher the training level. That performance rate ranged from point estimate ¼ 2.03after spending a day in training to point estimate ¼ 5.2 after spending three weeks or more in training.
Research limitation/implications – The results indicate significant association between the timetrainees spend in negotiation training programs and their negotiation performance. Level of trainingshould be controlled for when conducting experiments during negotiation courses. Future researchshould focus on effects of personality traits of both trainees and trainers on negotiation trainingeffectiveness.
Practical implications – The findings highlight the importance of investing in increasing the levelof negotiation training and spending more in making it a routine practice for top executives. After all,skilful negotiators are important assets that should be maintained. They make important deals thatadd to the firm’s financial performance of the firm. Higher levels of negotiation training deliver morevalues to firms.
Originality/value – Training methods and styles followed in courses and programs of negotiationtraining are effective and are of value providing they last for enough time. The study highlights theimportance of negotiation training, an area worthy of more research. Findings are valuable for trainingpractitioners to pay attention to what is considered enough time of training against what is beingpracticed. Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial fields ifdesigned in the appropriate way.
Negotiation is an essential managerial skill for success in today’s global environment.Almost all business interactions require a level of negotiation; therefore, skillfulnegotiators are considered valuable assets who are able to improve financialperformance, customer relations and employee’s satisfaction (Ertel, 1999; Susskind andCorburn, 2000). A skillful negotiator adds to the financial performance of the firm byclosing an important deal and decreases that value in the case of losing one. Businessnews is full of such examples of skillful versus unskillful negotiators. Skillfulnegotiators became essential for success in all professions such as medical, legal, andconsultation (Anastakis, 2003).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
JEIT34,3
192
Received 12 November 2008Revised 1 May 2009Accepted 30 June 2009
Journal of European IndustrialTrainingVol. 34 No. 3, 2010pp. 192-210q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0590DOI 10.1108/03090591011031719
Realizing the increasing importance of negotiation skills, firms invest trainingmanagers to become effective negotiators has been a major program for corporatefirms. American firms invest approximately $40 to $60 billion yearly in training(Russ-Eft and Zenger, 1995). Out of that investment, firms dedicate large portion tonegotiation training (Coleman and Lim, 2001; Friedman, 1992; Thompson et al., 2000),which effectiveness is debatable.
Investment in negotiation training should deliver a significant financial value forthe firm through increasing the negotiation skills of its executives. According to thehuman capital theory, skillful, experienced and knowledgeable managers help theirfirms to be more productive and adaptive to business environments (Becker, 1975).This is not always the case. A Fortune 500 firm invested $350,000 on a negotiationtraining program for 150 senior managers, but these managers failed to renew acontract with a major client causing high financial losses (Susskind, 2004).
The literature is controversial regarding effectiveness of negotiation training, oneside of negotiation researchers believe in the absolute effectiveness of negotiationtraining and the other side doubts that belief. That debate is anchored by thedisagreement regarding transferability of negotiation skills (Mastenbroek, 1991;Nierenberg, 1984; Raiffa, 1982). Previous studies produced mixed results regarding theability of trained negotiators to utilize and transfer negotiation skills to real lifesituations (Rollof et al., 2003). Negotiation training may not deliver the expected resultsin terms of improving negotiators(performance (Movius, 2008; Susskind, 2004). On theother side, once negotiation skills are considered transferable and learnable, a belief inthe absolute effectiveness of negotiation training exists, whereas the argumentregarding personality and situational effect alters that belief (Movius, 2008).
The time trainees spend in negotiation training is a major factor that may add newaspects to the debate. What would be the transferability of negotiation skills relevantto the time spent in training? Friedman (1992) argues that the short periods and the fewapproaches of negotiation training are not enough to enhance their performance in reallife negotiations. Nevertheless, some evidence shows that any level of “mutual gains”training increased skills and gains of union representatives when bargaining withmanagement (Hunter and McKerise, 1992). Level of training is not counted for as avariable of importance in negation research.
This paper investigates the effect of training level on post-training transfer ofnegotiation skills. Negotiation training level refers to the time spent receiving training.This means more exposure to elevated methods of negotiation training. This meansnegotiators’ performance improves after spending time in the negotiation courses.Therefore, the major assumption of this paper is that the longer the time trainees spendin negotiation training, the better the negotiation training transfer.
This leads to the following research question: Is there a direct association betweenlength of negotiation training and performance of trainees? The following sectionsprovide a brief literature review, methods and results of two meta-analytic studies, andend with some insights for future research and practice of negotiations.
Negotiation trainingNegotiation training courses and programs are designed to teach trainees how to avoidirrationalities and behavioral biases and behave in a manner that maximizes outcomeof all negotiation situations (Lewicki, 1997). The major objective of negotiation training
Negotiationtraining
193
is to transfer negotiation skills to trainees. The literature refers to transfer as learningand acquiring negotiation skills (Nadler et al., 2003). More specifically, after trainingnegotiators should gain “the ability to apply a concept, schema or skill learned in onesituation to a relevant but different problem” (Rollof et al., 2003, p. 825). When thishappens, negotiation training is considered effective.
Training literature supports that training transfer depend on three main factors:quality of training methods, motivation, and characteristics of trainees, andorganizational environment (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Training methodsshould be capable of teaching trainees the new skills they need, trainees must bemotivated and able to learn and acquire the skills, and organizations should provideclimate that encourages applying new skills and concepts in work (Yamnill andMcLean, 2001). Quality of methods largely affects negotiation-training transfer(Pattton, 2000). Negotiation researchers agree on what methods work better in training,however the other two factors did not gain enough attention. The other two factors arebeyond the scope of this paper.
Training methodsMethods used in training differentiate negotiation training into three main types:didactic-analogical, experiential, and reflective[1] (Rollof et al., 2003). Negotiationcourses taught in universities and programs offered other agencies utilize the threetypes (Susskind and Corburn, 2000). All provide a mix of the three types with moreshare for experiential, to provide students with a set of comprehensive techniques toperform well in different types of real life negotiations after the training (Lewicki, 1997;Polzer and Neale, 1995).
Negotiation training methods are structured the same across programs and coursesin the USA; they utilize a scientifically developed group of role-play exercisessimulated from real deals that are followed by a short debrief and a lecture (Susskindand Corburn, 2000). The difficulty of these simulations ranges from simple one issuedeal to more complex multi issues deals at the end of the program. The quality of thesemethods are known to researchers and practitioners of negotiations. However, thereeffectiveness is questionable.
Training effectivenessThere is no clear confirmation in research regarding negotiation training effectiveness.Weissbein (2000) argues that training cannot create psychological traits, rather it canenhance the positive effects of these traits by providing negotiators with enoughtechniques to cleverly deal with surprising or stressful negotiation situations.Friedman (1992) argues that the short periods trainees spend in training programs andthe few approaches of training are not enough to enhance effectiveness in real lifenegotiations that are widely heterogeneous. Other researchers are in the favorable side.Negotiators can be effectively trained to gather information regarding opponents, planan agenda of actions (Peterson and Lucas, 2001), and decrease biases ofdecision-making (e.g. Bazerman and Neale, 1982). There is not enough evidence toend this debate. This is due to lack of investigation of the appropriate length of timethat reflects level of exposure to training. Results of a survey of negotiation trainersshow that all disagreed on the ideal length of negotiation training programs (Friedman,1992). Effectiveness of negotiation training in transferring negotiation skills is still not
JEIT34,3
194
clear. The nature of negotiation skills may be an underlined factor in the debate. Anexploration of the nature of negotiation skills follows.
Negotiation skillsThe behavioral decision theory has a specific view of negotiation skills. The theorydefines negotiation as a joint decision-making process between two or more parties(Brett et al., 1999; Carroll et al., 1988; Weingart et al., 1999). Skillful negotiators are thehighly performing ones. Negotiators’ performance is measured by their outcome that ispertinent to their behavior[2] during the negotiating process (Galinsky et al., 2002;Neale and Bazerman, 1992; Thompson, 1990). The theory assumes bounded rationalityof negotiators; they will make impulsive decisions and fall for many biases if they arenot skillful (e.g. Neale and Bazerman, 1985).
Skilful negotiators are able to minimize irrationality, avoid decision biases andjudgmental mistakes (Bazerman, 1994; Bazerman et al., 1985) and achieve the desiredgoal of any negotiated task (Brett et al., 1999; Clyman and Tripp, 2000) keeping theirperformance at high levels. Sales empirical literature consistently shows associationamong the ability to adapt to the situation, learn and change strategy duringnegotiation, understand customers and high performance of salespeople (Park andHolloway, 2003). A question remains regarding whether transferring negotiation skillsis contingent to the received level of training.
The debate regarding negotiation effectiveness continues to include the effect oflength of training programs on trainees’ performance. It is not clear whether shortprograms are of less or equal post-training transfer compared to long programs. Someempirical studies show that enhanced negotiators’ performance is due to long periodsof training (Northcraft et al., 1994; Polzer and Neale, 1995). Others support that shortnegotiation training helps to transfer negotiation skills across situations. Results of amail survey to more than 1,000 physicians and health care professionals show that ashort negotiation-training program, one to eight hours, provided trainees with thenecessary skills to negotiate successfully with behavioral patients (Runkle et al., 2000).
Researchers might agree on which training types are more effective, but theydisagree on the training level that is enough to transfer negotiation skills. Results of asurvey of negotiation trainers show that all supported simulations as the most effectivetraining method but disagreed on the ideal length of programs (Friedman, 1992).
The relationship between length of training programs and negotiation performanceis not investigated in research. The following meta-analyses are conducted toinvestigate levels of training that are adequate to improve post-training performance ofnegotiators.
MethodsTo investigate the study assumption in a manner that maximizes generalizability, allpossible negotiation studies until 2005 were included, after that date there were almostno more studies of negotiation that could be included in the meta-analyses. There were33 eligible empirical studies. They were divided into different groups based on lengthof time-spent receiving negotiation training. For a list of the studies included in thesample, please refer to Table I.
The studies followed one design. All are experiments that used simulations ofdyadic negotiations. All have been conducted in negotiation courses offered for college
Negotiationtraining
195
Stu
dy
IDP
ub
lica
tion
typ
eR
NIm
pas
seM
eth
odG
oal
ofn
egot
iati
onT
rain
ing
met
hod
Originaltrainingstudies
Ber
ger
etal.
(200
3)(c
ond
.1)
Con
fere
nce
pap
er0.
0116
0P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Bu
yin
ga
new
car
1h
rin
teg
rati
ve
did
acti
ctr
ain
ing
and
cou
rse
Gis
tet
al.
(199
0)P
PS
YC
0.37
680
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chta
rget
edsa
lary
of$5
0,00
07
hrs
lect
ure
/sim
ula
tion
sG
istet
al.
(199
1)(c
ond
.1)
PP
SY
C0.
0635
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$50,
004
hrs
lect
ure
/sim
ula
tion
sG
istet
al.
(199
1)(c
ond
2)P
PS
YC
20.
0344
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$50,
004
hrs
lect
ure
/sim
ula
tion
sS
tev
enset
al.
(199
3)(W
omen
)JA
P0.
0124
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$50,
000
4h
rsle
ctu
re/s
imu
lati
ons
Ste
ven
set
al.
(199
3)(M
en)
JAP
0.23
360
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chta
rget
edsa
lary
of$5
0,00
04
hrs
lect
ure
/sim
ula
tion
sN
orth
craf
tet
al.
(199
4)(c
ond
.1)
HP
0.65
250
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TM
ark
etco
ntr
acts
1h
rle
ctu
re
Nor
thcr
aftet
al.
(199
4)(c
ond
.2)
HP
0.53
230
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TM
ark
etco
ntr
acts
1h
rle
ctu
re
Nor
thcr
aftet
al.
(199
4)(c
ond
.3)
HP
0.34
260
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TM
ark
etco
ntr
acts
1h
rle
ctu
re
Ste
ven
san
dG
ist
(199
7)P
PS
YC
0.42
530
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chta
rget
edsa
lary
of$5
0,00
04
hrs
lect
ure
sG
ist
and
Ste
ven
s(1
998)
OB
&H
DP
0.02
121
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$50,
000
4h
rsle
ctu
res
and
sim
ula
tion
Wei
ssb
ein
(200
0)D
isse
rtat
ion
20.
0811
90
Pos
t/T
RT
Sal
ary
incr
ease
6-8
hrs
lect
ure
,vid
eos
and
role
pla
yin
gG
entn
eret
al.
(200
4)(e
xp
.1)
Con
fere
nce
pap
er0.
2664
0.03
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TR
each
con
tin
gen
t45
-60
min
ute
san
alog
ical
Gen
tner
etal.
(200
4)(e
xp
.2)
Con
fere
nce
pap
er0.
2654
0.68
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TR
each
con
tin
gen
t45
-60
min
ute
san
alog
ical
Followuptraining
Gis
tet
al.
(199
0)(c
ond
.1)
PP
SY
C0.
9141
0P
ost/
TR
TP
rofi
tin
crea
se2
hrs
lect
ure
sG
istet
al.
(199
0)(c
ond
.2)
PP
SY
C0.
927
0P
ost/
TR
TP
rofi
tin
crea
se2
hrs
lect
ure
sG
istet
al.
(199
1)(c
ond
.1)
PP
SY
C0.
7244
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$58,
000
2h
rsle
ctu
res
Gis
tet
al.
(199
1)(c
ond
.2)
PP
SY
C0.
6935
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$58,
000
2h
rsle
ctu
res
Ste
ven
set
al.
(199
3)(W
omen
)JA
P0.
1124
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$58,
000
2h
rsle
ctu
res
Ste
ven
set
al.
(199
3)(M
en)
JAP
0.61
360
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chta
rget
edsa
lary
of$5
8,00
02
hrs
lect
ure
s
(continued
)
Table I.Coding and a list ofstudies included in themeta-analyses
JEIT34,3
196
Stu
dy
IDP
ub
lica
tion
typ
eR
NIm
pas
seM
eth
odG
oal
ofn
egot
iati
onT
rain
ing
met
hod
Ste
ven
san
dG
ist
(199
7)P
PY
SC
0.34
530
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chta
rget
edsa
lary
of$5
8,00
02
hrs
lect
ure
sG
ist
and
Ste
ven
s(1
998)
OB
&H
DP
0.2
121
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
targ
eted
sala
ryof
$50,
000
4h
rsle
ctu
res
and
sim
ula
tion
sJointoutcom
eG
entn
eret
al.
(200
4)(e
xp
.1)
Con
fere
nce
pap
erN
A12
40.
54P
ost/
TR
TR
each
con
tin
gen
tco
ntr
act
45-6
0m
inu
tes
did
acti
c
Gen
tner
etal.
(200
4)(e
xp
.2)
Con
fere
nce
pap
erN
A10
60.
68P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Rea
chco
nti
ng
ent
con
trac
t45
-60
min
ute
sd
idac
tic
Gen
tner
etal.
(200
4)(e
xp
.3)
JEP
0.35
80P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
1-is
sue
beg
inn
ing
sala
ryn
egot
iati
onA
nal
ogic
alen
cod
ing
Wei
ng
artet
al.
(199
6)JP
&S
P0.
3790
0P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Mu
lti-
issu
eb
usi
nes
sag
reem
ent
Sh
ort
did
act/
lec
Th
omp
son
and
Loe
wen
stei
n(2
004)
Con
fere
nce
pap
er0.
314
10.
49P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Mu
lti-
issu
eb
usi
nes
sag
reem
ent
An
alog
ical
enco
din
g,
two
typ
esL
oew
enst
einet
al.
(200
3)A
ML
er&
Ed
u0.
1711
80.
66P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Con
tin
gen
cyco
ntr
act
An
alog
ical
enco
din
g
Nad
leret
al.
(200
3)M
S0.
6312
20.
05P
re/P
ost
TR
TM
ult
i-is
sue
bu
sin
ess
agre
emen
tA
llty
pes
oftr
ain
ing
tofo
ur
gro
up
sB
azer
man
and
Nea
le(1
982)
JAP
0.21
400
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
T5-
issu
ere
cru
itco
ntr
act
wit
hu
nio
n20
min
did
acti
c
Ber
ger
etal.
(200
3)(c
ond
.2)
Con
fere
nce
pap
er0.
117
0P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Bu
yin
ga
new
car
1h
rin
teg
rati
ve
did
acti
ctr
ain
ing
Secondhalfor
endof
class
Pol
zer
and
Nea
le(1
995)
(stu
dy
2)H
P0.
230
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TR
each
anag
reem
ent
and
avoi
dim
pas
seM
idst
ofn
egot
iati
onco
urs
e
Gre
enh
alget
al.
(198
5)A
MJ
NA
0P
ost/
TR
TR
each
anag
reem
ent
and
avoi
dim
pas
seL
ast
wee
kof
neg
otia
tion
cou
rse
Mu
rin
gh
anetal.
(199
9)(e
xp
.1)
IJC
MN
A0
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chan
agre
emen
tan
dav
oid
imp
asse
Sec
ond
hal
fof
clas
s
Th
omp
sonet
al.
(200
0)O
B&
HD
P0.
260
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TR
each
aco
nti
ng
ent
con
trac
tan
dav
oid
imp
asse
10w
ks
neg
otia
tion
/cou
rse
(continued
)
Table I.
Negotiationtraining
197
Stu
dy
IDP
ub
lica
tion
typ
eR
NIm
pas
seM
eth
odG
oal
ofn
egot
iati
onT
rain
ing
met
hod
Th
omp
sonetal.
(199
5)(e
xp
.2)
JES
PN
A0
Pos
t/T
RT
Rea
chan
agre
emen
tan
dav
oid
imp
asse
Sec
ond
hal
fof
clas
s
Gre
enh
alg
han
dC
hap
man
(199
8)G
D&
N0.
250
Pos
t/T
RT
Bu
ild
ing
lon
g-t
erm
rela
tion
sS
econ
dh
alf
2weekin
class
Mor
riset
al.
(199
9)(e
xp
.1)
JP&
SP
0.37
0.16
Pos
t/T
RT
-CN
TR
each
anag
reem
ent
inth
eb
arg
ain
ing
zon
ean
dav
oid
imp
asse
2w
eek
neg
otia
tion
cou
rse
Gal
insk
yet
al.
(200
2)(e
xp
.1)
JP&
SP
0.28
0.35
Pos
t/T
RT
1-is
sue
new
recr
uit
con
trac
t2
wee
ks/
lec
An
der
son
and
Th
omp
son
(200
4)(e
xp
.2)
OB
&H
DP
NA
0P
ost/
TR
T8-
issu
en
ewre
cru
itco
ntr
act
2w
eek
neg
otia
tion
cou
rse
Bro
dt
(199
4)O
B&
HD
P0.
290.
04P
ost/
TR
T-C
NT
Rea
chan
agre
emen
tin
the
bar
gai
nin
gzo
ne
and
avoi
dim
pas
se1-
day
sess
ion
ofco
nfl
ict
trai
nin
gFirstdayof
class
Nov
emsk
yan
dS
chw
eitz
er(2
004)
(ex
p.
1)O
B&
HD
P0.
11P
re/T
RT
Sel
lin
gof
au
sed
tru
ck1-
day
Nov
emsk
yan
dS
chw
eitz
er(2
004)
(ex
p.
2)O
B&
HD
P0.
17P
re/T
RT
Sel
lin
gof
au
sed
tru
ck1-
day
Wh
ite
and
Nea
le(1
994)
OB
&H
DP
0.53
0.14
Pre
/TR
TS
elli
ng
aH
OU
SE
1-d
ayin
neg
otia
tion
and
OB
clas
ses
Gal
nis
key
and
Mu
ssw
eile
r(2
001)
(ex
p.
1)JP
&S
PN
A0%
Pre
/TR
TP
urc
has
ing
ap
har
mac
euti
cal
pla
nt
1-d
ay
Gal
nis
key
and
Mu
ssw
eile
r(2
001)
(ex
p.
3)JP
&S
PN
A0%
Pre
/TR
TP
urc
has
ing
ap
har
mac
euti
cal
pla
nt
1-d
ay
Note
s:
Jou
rnal
abb
rev
iati
on–
AN
NA
LS
:Annals
oftheAmericanAcadem
yof
PoliticalandSocialScience
,IJ
CM
:InternationalJournalof
Conflict
Management,
MS
:ManagementScience
,HP
:HumanPerform
ance
,GD
&N
:GroupDecisionandNegotiation
,P&
C:P
eace
andConflict:Journalof
Peace
Psychology,
HR
M:HumanResources
Management,
GB
&IR
:GroupBehavior
andIntergroupRelations,
JEP
:Journalof
EducationalPsychology,
JES
P:
Journalof
Experim
entalSocialPsychology,
JMR
:Journalof
MarketingResearch
,A
MJ:
Academ
yof
ManagementJournal,
AM
L&
E:Academ
yof
ManagementLearningandEducation
,JO
BJournalof
OrganizationalBehavior
Table I.
JEIT34,3
198
students. More details regarding the method of meta-analysis and its universal stepsfollows.
Meta-analysis proceduresMeta-analysis is the only method for integrating findings across studies that “cancontrol chance and other artifacts and provide a foundation for conclusions”, for thesake of theory development (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). Hunter and Schmidt’s methodof meta-analysis is the most commonly used one in behavioral research (Lipsey andWilson, 2000). It controls for statistical artifacts, able to aggregate empirical resultsacross studies, and to estimate the true relationships between variables (Hunter andSchmidt, 2004). The detailed procedures for this method are described in Hunter andSchmidt (1990, 2004) and Lipsey and Wilson (2000). A summary of these steps areintroduced in the following section.
It starts with searching for eligible studies from all possible resources to aggregatethe effect size as accurately as possible (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). The researchersearched all databases such as ProQuest, PsychInfo . . . etc. using the term “Negotiat *”,browsed periodical’s indices and contents of specialized journals, or searched thesejournals using the term “Negotiation” or “bargaining.” The researcher traced earlyarticles of some specialized authors through using reference lists of the most recentarticles. Cooper (1989) calls the last method locating the “ancestry”.
To find unpublished studies, the researcher e-mailed many authors in the field ofnegotiation training, the Conflict Management Division of Academy of Management,and possible authors from different universities online paper banks: Kellogg’s Facultyworking papers, SSRN Electronic Library and Wharton Faculty papers. Theresearcher searched Digital Dissertation Abstracts and ordered the originaldissertations through the library-loan service.
The second step of meta-analysis is to determine criteria of inclusion. These arethree:
(1) design of the study;
(2) characteristics of participants; and
(3) constructs validity.
The sample includes experimental studies that investigated the effect of training onnegotiators’ effectiveness, in dyadic negotiations. All studies followed typical steps:first participants received a level of negotiation training. Second, they engaged inface-to-face negotiation simulation where they are required to achieve fiscal outcome.Design of experiments was pre/post-training measurement or post-trainingmeasurement. Only the post-training measurement was included in the analysis.Some studies had control and treatment groups. The meta-analyses includedparticipants from the treatment groups, those who received training.
Participants in the selected studies varied in their educational level, but were mostlygraduate students. This was not a critical factor to moderate the results of the studies.Evidence shows no differences between undergraduate and graduate studentsperformance in many negotiation simulations (Kim et al., 2003). Studies includedparticipants of mixed gender, which is not a source of heterogeneity. A meta-analysisof 62 studies shows no major differences in negotiation strategies and performance
Negotiationtraining
199
based on gender (Walters et al., 1998). Some variation in participants’ demographicswas allowed to count the total sample as a random sample of participants.
For studies that contained more than one experiment and it was not clear whetherthey used the same participants in all experiments, results of only one experiment wereincluded in the meta-analysis.
The meta-analyses excluded some studies because they did not meet some of thecriteria of inclusion. For instance, studies that included participants from elementary orhigh school students such as (Johnson et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1995) were notincluded. This was for two reasons, age of participants reflects that they do not havebusiness background and studies did not use simulations that were designed to dealwith interpersonal conflict. Studies of case analysis such as King and Puls (1996), andstudies that did not provide enough descriptive statistics such as (Koszegi and Kersten,2003; Lee, 1988; Pecorino and Boening, 2001; Van Boven and Thompson, 2003) wereexcluded. Finally, the meta-analyses excluded studies that did not report anyinformation regarding agreement rate or the time students spent at the negotiationcourse before including them in research, of those studies (Brett et al., 1996; Morris et al.,1999; Northcraft et al., 1998).
For construct validity and limiting variables variation, included studies should allhave variables with limited variation in concepts. Hunter and Schmidt (1990) illustratethat variation in variable names does not necessarily reflect variation in their concepts.The researcher examined how each study defined its variables and chose only thosethat matched the conceptual definitions of variables under investigation. For accuracy,the studies were limited to those that investigated dual face-to-face negotiations in theUSA, in order to eliminate effects of culture on negotiation style or outcome.
Measurements of independent and dependent variables: the dependent variable isperformance of trainees and it is measured by percentage of achieved outcome (goal) ofeach negotiation, which is measured in financial units, or equivalent rating based onfinancial outcome (Brett et al., 1999; Gist et al., 1990). Separated individual outcomewere taken in different from dyad’s outcome. The independent variable is the length ofnegotiation training that was given to participants before practicing negotiationsthrough simulations. Length of training ranged from short sessions, three to eighthours, to long sessions, more than ten hours. Training processes were all concentratedon providing trainees with knowledge and skills of negotiation that increase theirability to achieve the goal, which is always to reach an effective agreement and avoidimpasse. There were no major variations in training processes and methods amongstudies.
Coding procedures were to give each study one serial number, except for studiesthat used two different samples. Coding recorded the studies: author/s, date,publication type, independent and dependent variables, measurement type and samplesize. A portion of the coding process and the studies list are illustrated in Table I.
CalculationThe researcher used two measures of effect size first correlation “r” when the rawproduct-moment correlation was provided in the original studies, second, theproportion Logit-method when studies reported agreement rates among trainees. Theresearcher used three statistical packages to conduct calculations. The major one is theBeta of Comprehensive Meta Analysis II (CMA). This is meta-analyses software
JEIT34,3
200
provided by Biostat. The software can be found at www.metaanalysis.com. Thecalculation procedures and equations that CMA uses to aggregate effect size, areprovided in Lipsey and Wilson (2000), Hunter and Schmidt (2004) and the CMAsoftware guide.
When the studies did not report the raw correlation among investigated variables,the researcher used one of two effect size calculators to calculate the appropriate effectsize to use in the meta-analysis. The first called META that calculates correlationsusing means, sample sizes and standard deviations. META is provided atusers.rcn.com/dakenny/meta.html The second software is called the Effect SizeDetermination Program by Wilson, which can be found at http://mason.gmu.edu/,dwilsonb/ma.html
The researcher used the “random effect meta-analysis” method, since it is a methodthat allows and counts for missing or unreachable studies such as unknown conferencepapers (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). For this method, studiesare considered units of a random sample that represent wider population of studies(Hunter and Schmidt, 1990; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). Additionally, test ofheterogeneity among studies were significant across different studies, and so usingthe fixed method was not possible according to the meta-analyses experts (Hunter andSchmidt, 1990; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000).
Study one: the first meta-analyses groupThree meta-analyses were conducted. All were done on studies designed to investigatenegotiation training variables. The major objective of study one is to measure the maineffect of time length spent in negotiation training on trainees’ performance. Thisperformance was measured by percentage of achieved outcome out of one’s BATNA,the best alternative to a negotiated agreement which some consider the equivalent ofresistance point. Studies included are designed to measure effect of training onnegotiators’ individual performance.
The first meta-analysis included 14 effect-sizes from nine studies that measured thedirect main effect of training on negotiators’ performance. Each experiment in everystudy counted for one effect-size. Studies included 820 graduate and undergraduatetrainees of mixed genders. All studies provided short training before offering thenegotiation simulation, and did not have control group. Trainees received shorttraining sessions ranged in length from one to eight hours. Negotiation simulationswere of the same difficulty level; all were multi-issue business agreements and weretimed. Trainees had to stop negotiating after a point of time was around 30 minutes ofnegotiating. Trainees did not have prior experience in negotiations, and so the resultedeffect size reflects direct effect of training on performance.
Results show main immediate effect of training on trainees performance isrepresented in the average correlation coefficient that results show was r ¼ 0.22 andsignificant, p , 0.05. The effect size is in the range of the confidence interval at 95 percent is (0.09 , r , 0.35) with a small variance of 0.004, and a small standard errorSE ¼ 0.06. The Q-test is insignificant (Q ¼ 12.691, p ¼ 0.472), which means studies arehomogeneous and effect sizes are normally distributed, and the variability amongeffect sizes is lower than rates related to sampling errors (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). Asnegotiation training and research experiments follow the same procedures, there is lowor no variability expected. This means the results of the meta-analysis are close and
Negotiationtraining
201
can be considered drawn from one sample. The fail-safe N value tells us how manystudies are necessary to bring p-value of effect size to insignificant value (Hunter andSchmidt, 2004). We need 122 studies, which results prove that effect size of thismeta-analysis is insignificant.
According to Lipsey and Wilson (2000) any meta-analysis effect-size less than 0.25is small; a large effect size is equal to or larger than 0.40. This small effect and the otherindicators support that there were no variability or errors. The results are interpretedin the favorable direction. Short training programs have effect on negotiator’sperformance that is small but significant.
The second meta-analysis included eight effect sizes from five studies that representthe second experiments of the studies included in the first meta-analysis. The objectiveof the second meta-analysis is to measure effects of a follow up training on individualperformance of trainees, which represents post-training transfer. The participants were381, mostly MBA students. After five to seven weeks of the first training session,participants received a follow up short reflective training session, two hours, thenparticipated in the simulations.
The results show that the effect size r is 0.76 and significant ( p , 0.05). Accordingto Lipsey and Wilson (2000) rule, the effect size is a large. The effect size is in the rangeof confidence interval at 95 per cent, (0.39 , r ,1), which is a large range to one side,with a small variance of 0.036, a small standard error SE ¼ 0.19, and insignificantQ-value (Q ¼ 6.494, p ¼ 0.434) indicating no present variability among studies. Thefail-safe N is 486, which results prove that effect size of this meta-analysis isinsignificant.
A second session of follow up training is important for increasing negotiatorsperformance and post-training transfer. The second session concentrated on repeatinglessons from first session, and gave a chance to reinforce good strategies and avoid badones.
The third meta-analysis included seven effect sizes from seven studies thatmeasured effect of training on dyads’ joint outcome. The joint outcome indicatesnegotiators’ ability to cooperate during negotiation and focus on concern for others andrelation-building (Rollof et al., 2003). This is necessary for building networks in thebusiness world to keep long-term relations and for reaching integrative agreementswhen it is possible to do so. Therefore, it was necessary to measure effect of training onjoint outcome.
The studies included 598 undergraduates from seven experiments. All studies usedsimulations for multi-issue business agreements. Performance measured in terms ofpercentage of negotiators who reached the maximum possible joint outcome. Trainingtime was short, ranged from 20 minutes to one hour of training. The training methodused in most studies was analogical encoding.
The effect size was r ¼ 0.37 and p , 0.05. It is a medium effect size according toLipsey and Wilson’s (2000) rule. The effect size is in a small range of confidenceinterval at 95 per cent (0.20 , r , 0.54). There was a small variance of 0.008, smallstandard error SE ¼ 0.09, insignificant Q-value (Q ¼ 4.785, p ¼ 0.572), and thefail-safe N is 171.
Negotiation training has main effect on joint outcome. Training transfer is higher,compared to results of the first meta-analysis, short training have less effect onindividual outcome.
JEIT34,3
202
Study two: the second group of meta-analysesStudy two includes three meta-analyses. All were done using studies done duringnegotiation courses[3] in American universities. Though these studies did notinvestigate negotiation training per se, we can estimate training transfer post hoc byexamining when during the class term the data were collected: the later in the term themore training the students have had. Given that, almost all negotiation courses followthe same structured style of training. Agreement rate was the measure of performance,given that all simulations required students to avoid impasse. Effect size is estimatedusing proportion Logit-method in all of the following studies.
Proportion Logit-method is used to measure the effect size in meta-analysis whenstudies report proportions only (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). It is used to convertproportions to logits when it is preferred to discover differences between studies, andits values are positive and bigger than zero if the original proportion is more than 0.5(Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). In other words the effect size is big the bigger the Logit thanzero. The following section provides results of the remaining meta-analyses.
The fourth meta-analysis includes six effect sizes from six studies that included 630MBA students. All studies were done at the second half or last week of a negotiationcourse. Simulations used were multi-issue business agreements of salaries of a newrecruit or of purchasing of new machinery. Measuring transfer at the far end ofnegotiation courses provides an accurate estimate transferred negotiation skills(Susskind and Corburn, 2000). Results show that across studies trainees did not haveany impasses. The Logit Point-estimate, 5.2, is large with a small error, SE ¼ 0.58,variance of 0.34, insignificant Q-value (Q ¼ 0.94, p ¼ 0.967), and the fail-safe N is 173.
The fifth meta-analysis included 15 effect sizes of four studies conducted in thesecond week of class with total sample of 442 MBA students and professionalmanagers. Spending two weeks in class means students received three to eight hours oftraining depending on the school academic system, semester or quarter. This is amedium length of training time.
The results show that Point-estimate is 2.4 which is medium, with a small error,SE ¼ 0.6, variance of 0.35, insignificant Q-value (Q ¼ 5.7, p ¼ 0.127), and the fail-safeN is 158.
This point estimate reflect significantly lower effect size (2.14) for agreement ratecompared to effect size after longer period in class.
The sixth meta-analysis includes five effect sizes from five studies conducted at firstday of the negotiation course with total sample of 896 MBA and undergraduatestudents.
The results show that the Logit point estimate is 2.028; this is a small effect size.The error is small, SE ¼ 0.27, variance is 0.07 and insignificant Q-value (Q ¼ 9.542,p ¼ 0.05), and the fail-safe N is 487.
Results of the previous three meta-analyses support that trainees’ performanceincreases the longer the time they spend in training. The slightly smaller Logit oftrainees who spent one day to those who spent three days maybe due to the smalldifference in length of time spent in the course.
DiscussionNegotiation training has direct effect on performance of trainees. Results of study oneand two indicate that even the shortest training program improved performance of
Negotiationtraining
203
trainees. Negotiators should spend more time in training programs to enhance theirperformance and gain more skills. More time in training courses means more practiceof business negotiation that builds valuable experience for the trainees.
The results of the six meta-analysis conducted in study one and study two showincrease in the effect size with the increase of length of time spent in training programs.Results of study one is more meaningful because participants were the same for thefirst and second meta-analyses. The elevating effect size for the same participants fromthe first to the second meta-analysis reflects how follow up training helps to increaseand maintain skills acquired through negotiation training. Training builds experiencein negotiation. The relatively small effect size of the first meta-analysis reflects thattraining provides the base for building negotiation skills and experience. This fact wasconfirmed in the second meta-analysis. Besides, we can infer conclusions for methodsof training a mix of experiential and reflective training might be more valuable thanoffering experiential training alone as the case in the first meta-analysis.
The results support practices of negotiation training and its effectiveness intransferring negotiation skills to trainees. This finding can be generalized to the otherfactors of negotiation training, because they are measured through the level of receivedtraining. Level of training combines all the interactions happening in the process ofnegotiation training. Effects of methods styles and structure of the courses are theunderlined factors of level of training. Level of training is a measure of the overalleffectiveness of these factors. Characteristics of both trainer and trainees are not majorplayers in the process of training, maybe because the methods of training offset theireffect. However, more in-depth research is required to know how these characteristicsaffect training transfer.
Implications for practiceThe value of negotiation training is somehow neglected due to the doubtssurrounding its effectiveness and value for maintaining and developing human forcesof the firm. This study supports the value of negotiation training for increasing firms’performance through increasing the negotiation skills of its executives. Enough timeshould be allowed for negotiation training, ten hours or more, to guarantee hightraining transfer.
Practice of negotiation training should focus on reinforcing gained knowledgethrough follow up regular training with enough time. This is the way to maintaingained negotiation skills. Other fields of training could benefit from the findings.Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerialfields if long enough, repeated and designed in the appropriate.
Trained negotiators win deals that add financial value to the firm. This isespecially important for survival in tough times. Executives who are good negotiatorsare satisfied with their performance and spread productivity in the firm. Whenexecutives win deals for their firms they feel confident, satisfied and self-esteemed.They are able to improve customer relations, employee’s satisfaction (Ertel, 1999;Susskind and Corburn, 2000) and build business networks for the firm. The oppositeis true when they lose deals causing their firms’ financial loses and a bad reputation.Firms should build and maintain negotiation skills in its human forces throughnegotiation training.
JEIT34,3
204
Implications for theoryThe results of this study bring attention to the effect of time spent in training onparticipants’ reactions during negotiation experiments. Most negotiation studies, if notall, are done during undergraduate and graduate negotiation courses in businessschools. The length of time spent in the negotiation course has a direct effect onnegotiators’ performance and accumulated experience. This effect should be countedfor when conducting research studies during course.
Length of time spent in the course may moderate or mediate the relationships beingtested between other dependent and independent variables of negotiation studies. Thismay skew results of the negotiation experiments conducted at the end of thenegotiation courses. It is better to conduct experiments at the first day of course ifexperience is a moderating factor in the experiment. If experience is a variable ofinterest, experiments should be kept to the last week of the course. This is especiallytrue for freshmen.
Limitations and directions for future researchThe study was under the general limitations of meta-analysis. Studies included were offairly a small number for regular meta-analyses conducted in other fields. Thislimitation is due to the publishing restrictions that limit repeating the same study withdifferent samples in the management journals. A practice allowed with some limitationin other fields such as psychology and medicine, where meta-analysis is a regularresearch practice.
Meta-analysis is essential for validity and generalizability. Drugs are not allowedfor human usage without meta-analysis of a large number of studies tested the drugson enough volunteers. To benefit from the power of meta-analysis in theory buildingand validation in management fields, some redundancy should be allowed to provideenough studies to conduct meta-analyses. Management researchers turn around thissituation by conducting meta-analyses on studies that used the same questionnaire oruse the available number of studies as small as it gets. For this paper, studies includedin the meta-analysis represent the population of negotiation training studies.
Some meaningful directions for future research are encouraged. Many aspect ofnegotiation training and education are worthy of investigation in order to improvenegotiation training transfer even more. This study focused on few aspects related tonature of training programs and tools, because it was not feasible to find enoughempirical studies that measure the association between trainer’s and trainee’scharacteristics and training transfer. The normal extension of this paper is to develop apsychometric instrument to estimate the trainees’ negotiation skills pre- andpost-training. It is necessary to know parts of negotiation skills ingenerated inpersonality traits and parts built by learning, to design training programs around theindividual needs of each trainee. This is more valuable for one-on-one training of topexecutives that lack time and patience to stay in training for long periods.
The regular practice of providing a mix of the three methods of training in courses(e.g. Fortgang, 2000), is effective as is with some small additions. Instead of the regulardebriefing after each simulation, it is better to provide a list of effective strategies thathelp each role player to reach Pareto-efficient goals. Also, students can be asked todisclose their strategies. This method would help students more to identify theirweaknesses and strengths to reinforce the learned lessons from the simulations.
Negotiationtraining
205
There are some valuable directions for future research, none was validatedempirically, are worthy of testing. For instance, negotiation experts suggest thatrepeating similar or same simulations toward the end of the course helps to increaseand test trainees acquired skills (Pattton, 2000). Engaging trainees in real negotiationswith real businessmen after finishing training is an ideal manner to test trainees’performance in a realistic to avoid self-fulfilling biases of trainees (Pattton, 2000). Othereffective methods are to provide some kind of immediate punishment or rewards inorder to enhance trainees’ motivation to learn (Kniveton, 1975). There is a need formore studies in the rich, yet not so cared for, field of negotiation training.
Notes
1. Didactic-analogical training, also referred to as conceptual training, provides trainees withnegotiation principles directly through readings, and lectures (Rollof et al., 2003).Experiential training is based on Kolb’s (1974) model of learning from experience (Lewicki,1997). Experiential training begins by engaging students in experience, role-playsimulations, and then generalizes knowledge from it, or begins by abstracted lessons andmoves to experience (Lewicki, 1997). Reflective training is a complementary follow uptraining to analyze and generalize acquired lessons from experiential training (Rollof et al.,2003). Reflective training lets participants learn by analyzing their results compared toothers’ during the debriefing process after simulations (Susskind and Corburn, 2000).
2. According to the behavioral theory, behavior of negotiators refers to the strategies theyapply during negotiation process. Therefore, strategy and behavior are usedinterchangeably in this paper.
3. There is a group of 11 studies that been conducted in first week of negotiation course. It wasnot clear whether these studies offered training for students at all. So, I e-mailed authors toask them first about the exact training time that students received, before deciding to includethese studies in the meta-analysis. It turned out to be one day of training.
References
Anastakis, D. (2003), “Negotiation skills for physicians”, The American Journal of Surgery,Vol. 185, pp. 74-8.
Anderson, C. and Thompson, L.L. (2004), “Affect from the top down: how powerful individuals’positive affect shapes negotiations”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 95, pp. 125-39.
Bazerman, M. and Neale, M.A. (1982), “Improving negotiation effectiveness under final offerarbitration: the role of selection and training”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67,pp. 543-53.
Bazerman, M.H. (1994), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,New York, NY.
Bazerman, M.H., Magliozzi, T. and Neale, M.A. (1985), “Integrative bargaining in a competitivemarket”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, pp. 294-313.
Becker, G. (1975), Human Capital, 2nd ed., National Bureau of Economic Research, New York,NY.
Berger, G., Kern, M. and Thompson, L. (2003), “The enlightened negotiator: what is the best typeof interaction?”, Proceedings of the 16th Annual IACM Conference.
Brett, F., Northcraft, G. and Pinkley, R. (1999), “Stairways to heaven: an interlockingself-regulation model of negotiation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 435-51.
JEIT34,3
206
Brett, J.F., Pinkley, R.L. and Jackofsky, E.F. (1996), “Alternatives to having BATNA in dyadicnegotiation: the influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes”,International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7, pp. 121-37.
Brodt, S.E. (1994), “Inside information and negotiator decision behavior”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58, pp. 172-202.
Carroll, J.S., Bazerman, M.H. and Maury, R. (1988), “Negotiator cognitions: a descriptive approachto negotiators’ understanding of their opponents”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 41, pp. 352-65.
Clyman, D.R. and Tripp, T.M. (2000), “Discrepant values and measures of negotiatorperformance”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp. 251-74.
Coleman, P.T. and Lim, Y.Y.J. (2001), “A systematic approach to evaluating the effects ofcollaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 17,pp. 363-92.
Cooper, H.M. (1989), Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, Sage Publications,Newbury Park, CA.
Ertel, D. (1999), “Turning negotiation into a corporate capability”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 77, pp. 55-70.
Fortgang, R.S. (2000), “Taking stock: an analysis of negotiation pedagogy across fourprofessional fields”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 325-38.
Friedman, R. (1992), “From theory to practice: critical choice for mutual gains training”,Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 91-8.
Galinsky, A.D. and Mussweiler, T. (2001), “First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-takingand negotiator focus”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 657-69.
Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T. and Medvec, V.H. (2002), “Disconnecting outcomes andevaluations: the role of negotiator focus”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 83, pp. 1131-40.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, G.F. and Thompson, L. (2004), “Analogical encoding: facilitatingknowledge transfer and integration”, paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of theCognitive Science Society.
Gist, M., Bavetta, A.G. and Stevens, C.K. (1990), “Transfer training method: Its influence on skillgeneralization, skill repetition, and performance level”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43,pp. 501-23.
Gist, M., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), “Effects of self-efficacy and post-trainingintervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 837-61.
Gist, M.E. and Stevens, C.K. (1998), “Effects of practice conditions and supplemental trainingmethod on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 142-69.
Greenhalgh, L. and Chapman, D.I. (1998), “Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, anddemonstration of their impact on the process and outcome of negotiation”, Group Decisionand Negotiation, Vol. 7, pp. 465-89.
Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W. (1985), “The effects of negotiator preferences,situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 9-33.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias inResearch Findings, Sage Publications, London.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (2004), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias inResearch Findings, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Negotiationtraining
207
Hunter, L. and McKerise, R. (1992), “Can ‘mutual gains’ training change labor-managementrelationships?”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 319-30.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley, B. and Magnuson, D. (1995), “Training elementary schoolstudents to manage conflict”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 673-86.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J. and Fredrickson, J. (1997), “The impact ofconflict resolution training on middle school students”, The Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 137, pp. 11-21.
Kim, P.H., Diekmann, K.A. and Tenbrunsel, A.E. (2003), “Flattery may get you somewhere: thestrategic implications of providing positive vs negative feedback about ability vsethicality in negotiation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90,pp. 225-43.
King, C. and Puls, M. (1996), “Global theatre: a training programme for international negotiations– a case study using videoconferencing”, Training & Management Development Methods,Vol. 10, pp. 829-40.
Kniveton, B.H. (1975), “Negotiation training and social psychology”, Industrial Relations Journal,Vol. 6, pp. 59-72.
Koszegi, S. and Kersten, G. (2003), “On-line/off-line: joint negotiation teaching in Montreal andVienna”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, pp. 337-45.
Lee, D.-H. (1988), A Reformation of the Interorganizational Bargaining Process, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN.
Lewicki, R.J. (1997), “Teaching negotiation and dispute resolution in colleges of business: the stateof the practice”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 253-69.
Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L. and Gentner, D. (2003), “Analogical learning in negotiationteams”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2, pp. 119-27.
Mastenbroek, W. (1991), “Development of negotiating skills”, in Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.),International Negotiation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 379-99.
Morris, M.W., Larrick, R.P. and Su, S.K. (1999), “Misperceiving negotiation counterparts:‘when situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits’”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 52-67.
Movius, H. (2008), “The effectiveness of negotiation training”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24,pp. 509-31.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. (2003), “Learning negotiation skills: four models ofknowledge creation and transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 529-40.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985), “The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidenceon bargaining behaviors and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28,pp. 34-49.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1992), “Negotiator cognition and rationality: a behavioraldecision theory perspective”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 51, pp. 157-75.
Nierenberg, G.I. (1984), The Art of Negotiating, Pocket Books, New York, NY.
Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A. and Earley, P.C. (1994), “Joint effects of assigned goals and trainingon negotiator performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 7, pp. 257-72.
Northcraft, G.B., Preston, J.N., Neale, M.A., Kim, P.H. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (1998), “Non-linearpreference functions and negotiated outcomes”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 73, pp. 54-75.
JEIT34,3
208
Novemsky, N. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2004), “What makes negotiators happy? The differentialeffects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 186-97.
Park, J.-E. and Holloway, B.B. (2003), “Adaptive selling behavior revisited”, The Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-51.
Pattton, B.M. (2000), “On teaching negotiation”, in Wheeler, M. (Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideasand Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 7-62.
Pecorino, P. and Boening, M. (2001), “Bargaining and information: an empirical analysis ofmultistage arbitration game”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 922-48.
Peterson, R.M. and Lucas, G.H. (2001), “Expanding the antecedent component of the traditionalbusiness negotiation model: pre-negotiation literature review and planning-preparationpropositions”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 37-49.
Polzer, J.T. and Neale, M.A. (1995), “Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting withinthe context of negotiation”, Human Performance, Vol. 8, pp. 3-26.
Raiffa, H. (1982), The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Rollof, M., Putnam, L. and Anatasious, L. (2003), “Negotiation skills”, in Greene, J. andBurleson, B. (Eds), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, London, pp. 801-34.
Runkle, C., Osterholm, A., Hoban, R., McAdam, E. and Tull, R. (2000), “Brief negotiation programfor promoting behavior change”, Education for Health, Vol. 13, pp. 377-86.
Russ-Eft, D. and Zenger, J. (1995), “Behavior modeling training in North America: a researchsummary”, in Mulder, M., Nijhof, W. and Brinkerhoff, R. (Eds), Corporate Training forEffective Performance, Academic Publishers, London.
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), “The science of training: a decade of progress”, AnnualReview of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 471-99.
Stevens, C.K. and Gist, M.E. (1997), “Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training onnegotiation skill maintenance: what are the mechanisms?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,pp. 955-78.
Stevens, C.K., Bavetta, A.G. and Gist, M.E. (1993), “Gender differences in the acquisition of salarynegotiation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 723-35.
Susskind, L. (2004), “Negotiation training: are you getting your money’s worth?”, Negotiation,pp. 3-5.
Susskind, L. and Corburn, J. (2000), “Using simulations to teach negotiation”, in Wheeler, B.C.(Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideas and Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA,pp. 285-310.
Thompson, L. (1990), “Negotiation behavior and outcomes”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,pp. 515-32.
Thompson, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), “Surface-similarity inhibits learning: making the casefor learning in different domains”, paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of theAcademy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Thompson, L., Gentner, D. and Lowenstein, J. (2000), “Avoiding missed opportunities inmanagerial life: analogical training more powerful than individual case training”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, pp. 60-75.
Thompson, L., Valley, K.L. and Kramer, R.M. (1995), “The bittersweet feeling of success:an examination of social perception in negotiation”, Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, Vol. 31, pp. 467-92.
Van Boven, L. and Thompson, L. (2003), “A Look into the mind of the negotiator: mental modelsin negotiation”, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 6, pp. 387-404.
Negotiationtraining
209
Walters, A.E., Stuhlmacher, A.F. and Meyer, L.L. (1998), “Gender and negotiatorcompetitiveness: a meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 76, pp. 1-29.
Weingart, L.R., Hyder, E.B. and Prietula, M.J. (1996), “Knowledge matters: the effect of tacticaldescriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 70, pp. 1205-17.
Weingart, L.R., Prietula, M.J., Hyder, E.B. and Genovese, C.R. (1999), “Knowledge and thesequential processes of negotiation: a Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind”, Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 366-77.
Weissbein, D. (2000), Improving Training Effectiveness Through Motivation: Creating aPsychological States Intervention, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
White, S.B. and Neale, M.A. (1994), “The role of negotiators aspirations and settlementexpectations on bargaining outcomes”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 57, pp. 303-17.
Further reading
Blount, S., Thomas-Hunt, M.C. and Neale, M.A. (1996), “The price is right–or is it? A referencepoint model of two-party price negotiations”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 68, pp. 1-12.
Bottom, W.P. and Paese, P.W. (1999), “Judgment accuracy and the asymmetric cost of errors indistributive bargaining”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 8, p. 349.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J. and Thompson, L. (2003), “Learning and transfer: a general role foranalogical encoding”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 393-405.
Schweitzer, M.E. and Croson, R. (1999), “Curtailing deception: the impact of direct questions onlies and omissions”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10, pp. 225-48.
Shell, G.R. (1999), Bargaining for Advantage, Viking Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Thompson, L. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2004), “Why negotiation is the most popular business schoolcourse”, Ivey Business Journal Online, Vol. 68, pp. 1-7.
White, S., Valley, K.L., Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.A. and Peck, S.R. (1994), “Alternative models ofprice behavior in dyadic negotiations”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 57, pp. 430-47.
About the authorEman ElShenawy is Assistant Professor at The Faculty of Commerce at the Suez CanalUniversity, Ismailia. She joined the Suez Canal University in 1996 not counting her years in theUSA as a PhD student. Her PhD degree was received from Washington State University. Herresearch interests are in negotiations, personality traits effects on strategic decision making andnegotiations, cross-cultural teams and entrepreneurship. Eman ElShenawy can be contacted at:[email protected]
JEIT34,3
210
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
