This study investigated the concept ‘expanding the pie’ in unequal power dyads by the option to involve optional topics to the negotiation in order to reach an integrative and optimal agreement....Show moreThis study investigated the concept ‘expanding the pie’ in unequal power dyads by the option to involve optional topics to the negotiation in order to reach an integrative and optimal agreement. Predicted was that low-power negotiators initiated more optional topics compared to high-power negotiators and that this would lead to a higher negotiation quality and a higher joint outcome. Furthermore, predicted was that high-power negotiators would only initiate the optional topics that were beneficial for them, and that low-power negotiators would initiate all the optional topics. The participants (N=88 dyads) were introduced to a newly developed dyad face-to-face negotiation task, where participants had the option to initiate optional topics beside the mandatory topics, with the goal to expand the pie and reach an optimal outcome. Results show that, against expectations, high-power and low-power negotiators do not differ in the frequency they initiate the optional topics, and power does not have an effect on negotiation quality and joint outcome. Furthermore, not only high-power negotiators initiate optional topics that are beneficial for them, but low-power negotiators do this as well. Suggested is that negotiators are influenced by the way the task is framed and develop an individualistic motivation which stands in the way of creating an integrative and optimal agreement. The effects of unequal power, implications and limitations of the study and future research are further discussed.Show less
Negotiating is an intricate process and crucial to finding success in all facets of life. Constructs such as stereotype endorsement and threat, social motives and power distributions play an...Show moreNegotiating is an intricate process and crucial to finding success in all facets of life. Constructs such as stereotype endorsement and threat, social motives and power distributions play an important role in negotiations. Negotiations are not limited to dyads; often they take place in a group setting. Whilst both men and women negotiate, there appear to be differences in performance between the two. The question that this paper looks to address is what the influence of stereotype endorsement and stereotype threat is on the outcome of both pro-self and pro-socially motivated, mixed gender groups, where power is dispersed unequally. The two main hypotheses that follow are that men in the leadership position will outperform women in the leadership position in the pro-self motivated condition. Furthermore, groups with a female leader will outperform groups with a male leader in the pro-socially motivated condition. To investigate this, 204 participants were recruited into 68 three person groups, comprising 105 men and 99 women. They played a negotiation game, emulating the owners of a beach club. Their scores and answers on a questionnaire following the game were brought into analysis. Results show that men and women perform better or worse depending on the social motive and the power distribution of the negotiation. Also, the leader is especially impacted by stereotypes surrounding their gender. The differences between men and women might be explained by the effects of gender stereotypes. Being aware of the influence of gender stereotypes on negotiation performance might serve individuals well in order to increase their performance in negotiations.Show less
Past research has suggested that work-life balance plays an important role in maintaining a healthy work environment and enhanced productivity, as well as improved mental and physical health (Zheng...Show morePast research has suggested that work-life balance plays an important role in maintaining a healthy work environment and enhanced productivity, as well as improved mental and physical health (Zheng et al., 2015). Work-life balance crafting intentions among entrepreneurs were investigated, given that a critical aspect behind maintaining a healthy work-life balance is one’s motivation to actually craft it. Two variables that may predict entrepreneurs’ intentions to craft and preserve a healthy work-life balance, growth intentions and workaholism, were thus examined in a cross-sectional study employing actual entrepreneurs (N = 172). The results of this study demonstrated that growth intentions were positively and significantly predictive of work-life balance, whereas workaholism was negatively and significantly predictive of work-life balance. The findings of this research provided supporting evidence that workaholism could lead to lower intentions of entrepreneurs to maintain a work-life balance, whereas growth intentions seem to predict a higher engagement in proactive behaviors aimed to maintain a work-life balance.Show less
This study examined how social motives and power-differences influence the outcome of a dyadic negotiation task. It was predicted that both social motives and power-differences influence the extent...Show moreThis study examined how social motives and power-differences influence the outcome of a dyadic negotiation task. It was predicted that both social motives and power-differences influence the extent to which extra value is added to the negotiation (i.e. ‘expanding the pie’). In the “Sandwich Heaven” negotiation task (N = 192), participants negotiated according to the “Mandatory-Optional Issue Paradigm”. Participants had to agree on the five mandatory issues and had the option to include three additional issues. Dyads were randomly assigned to one of four conditions of the two (power: equal versus difference) x 2 (social motive: prosocial versus proself) design. The manipulations of power and social motive were operationalized through the instructions. Results showed that both social motive, and the combination of social motive and power, did not have a significant effect on the negotiated outcome. Prosocial oriented people were found to add more additional issues to the deal than proself oriented people.Show less
Nowadays, the focus of negotiation is increasingly on cooperative bargaining and achieving a win-win situation. This study uses a new research paradigm that examines adding subjects to the...Show moreNowadays, the focus of negotiation is increasingly on cooperative bargaining and achieving a win-win situation. This study uses a new research paradigm that examines adding subjects to the negotiation, also known as increasing the size of the pie. This research was conducted in a social setting where alcohol consumption was a factor. The purpose of this study is to find out whether adding topics to the negotiation and alcohol consumption leads to a better negotiation process and better outcomes for both parties. To this end, 190 participants participated in face-to-face conventional role-play negotiations in pairs and completed a questionnaire afterwards. It was found that the participant who could originally gain more points from the negotiation had less resistance to yielding when the topics were added at the beginning of the negotiation. The participant who was originally able to get fewer points out of the negotiation acted more simultaneously when the topics were added at the beginning of the negotiation. In addition, a cautious trend was found of more concern for other when an average amount of alcohol was consumed by the participant who could achieve fewer points and more concern for other by the participant who could achieve more points when the items were added at the beginning of the negotiation.Show less
How are effects of social motive affected by asymmetric power dispersion in a three-person negotiation, and does this effect differ between groups of friends and strangers? It was hypothesized that...Show moreHow are effects of social motive affected by asymmetric power dispersion in a three-person negotiation, and does this effect differ between groups of friends and strangers? It was hypothesized that pro-social groups would reach the highest joint outcomes with a leader operating under an unanimity decision rule, followed by groups with a dictator, followed groups without a boss. A pro-self group with a dictator was thought to reach the lowest joint outcomes, followed by one with a leader, followed one without a boss. It was furthermore hypothesized that the effects of a pro-self motive would be stronger in a group of strangers, and the effects of a pro-social motive were thought to be stronger in a group of friends. Results of the three-person Aloha Beach Club negotiation game supported only the hypotheses about the amplifying effect of power differences on social motive.Show less
