Organizational Behavior and Negotiations - Literature review Example

Organizational Behavior and Negotiations Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Relating organizational Behavior and negotiation 3 Biases on Negotiations 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 8 Reference List 9 Introduction Globally, organizations and their employees are increasingly operating in multicultural settings due to the rapid rate of globalization. Indeed, while more organizations are expanding their frontiers across the globe, the secondary effects of rapid globalization are far from being escapable (Tsui and Nifadkar 2007). For instance, since organizations are becoming more culturally diverse, geographically diverse, and extremely competitive, the likelihood of conflicts abounds in such environments. Consequently, the organization’s managers must possess adequate negotiation and conflict management competencies to handle such situations. Similarly, the managers need to understand the fundamentals of the concept of negotiation. In response, the increased rate of global business development has been an adjunct to the surge of research in organizational behavior and negotiation (Tsay and Bazerman 2009). This report presents a critical analysis of organizational behavior and negotiation based on discussions from published literature. Additionally, it provides recommendations for improvement. An underlying assumption is that negotiators tend to be susceptible to bias. Despite the fact that training may create better negotiators, those trained may still experience a certain level of bias. Relating organizational Behavior and negotiation Organizational behavior describes the systematic study and knowledge application on how people and groups within the organization conduct themselves and perform tasks. Negotiations consist of two-way concessions between two parties leading to a compromise that is acceptable to both parties involved in the negotiations (Agarwal 2006). Negotiation is a critical aspect in organisational management. Raiffia et al. (2002) suggested a negotiation theory they dubbed Negotiation Analysis. The theory is anchored in the concept of decision analysis and game theoretic negotiation theory. Negotiation Theory provides a narrow approach to negotiation. Additionally, it assists in understanding the negotiator's behaviors, actions and preferences compared to those of the components (Agarwal 2006). This implies that Negotiation Analysis Theory applies in the context of organizational behaviors, specifically in understanding the behaviors of members of an organization as they negotiate. Additionally, it assists in understanding how the decision-makers practice rationality. An underlying assumption is that the negotiators are bound by rationality, and hence are expected to make rational decision. While this is so, the negotiators may still make inefficient and unreliable decisions using irrelevant information. This is especially so when the negotiators are led by cognitive heuristics they use in simplifying their core arguments. In his review of literature, Tsay and Bazerman (2009) discussed that people’s tendency to believe they are born with a fixed level of skills to negotiate may be damaging to the negotiation outcomes. The implications of such theories on capacity may, however, surpass the level of disposition. Tsui and Nifadkar (2007) showed that such theories may further influence similar effects on the negotiation outcomes. A study by Curhan and Overbeck (2008) concurs that much effort is needed to create a solid body of knowledge on organizational behavior and negotiation in cross-cultural settings, as well as to offer direction on how to accomplish these tasks. Walton (2000) and Tsui and Nifadkar (2007) reflect similar opinion. They pointed to the idea that cross-cultural research is currently faced with confusion regarding the role of national culture and context. For instance, Walton (2000) shows that while changes within the European organizations are often guided by ideological rationalization and government intervention, changes in American organizations tend to be voluntary, random and pragmatic. Such concerns serve to reflect the diverse conceptions of organizational behavior, in addition to the confusion that would result. Correspondingly, such confusions may lead to conflicts, in return calling for negotiation and conflict management (Tsui and Nifadkar 2007). Essentially, studies on negotiation have been based on three main research streams, namely social, behavioral and cognitive psychology. According to Agarwal (2006) three contextual dimensions that impact the negotiator's behavior exists. These include the conflict's context, the concurrent factors and background factors. Negotiators are often seeking equality division heuristics, particularly when a social or common identity is relevant to them, as well as whenever they feel accountable to other individuals during the negotiation. Hence, the concept of social identity theory is essentially in explaining organizational levels at this stage. According to Agarwal (2006), the social identity theory tells of the interpersonal behavior in the people's social group membership context. Biases on Negotiations From a survey of literature, it is critical to argue that negotiators tend to be susceptible to naturalness bias. Indeed, among the most significant and commonly held believes concerning theories of negotiation process is concerned with delicate balance between advocating for individual interests and that of others. Curhan and Overbeck (2008) branded this form of negotiation ‘mixed motive’ form of negotiation. Drawing from a research by Tsay and Bazerman (2009), it is critical to argue that training negotiators does not guarantee successful outcome, due to the likely biases that may cloud their decisions. According to Curhan and Overbeck (2008), negotiators need to balance the tension between assertiveness and empathy. In his view, this triggers negotiators to become biased. Despite the fact that training may create better negotiators, those trained may still experience a certain level of bias. In turn, this may lead to overvaluation of what the opponent negotiators need to offer using inflated estimates of negotiation performance by other parties. Such bias may contribute to increased focuses on the features of the negotiator and the process of negotiation hence leading to distraction from reflection of the issues that promote mutually beneficial trade-offs (Tsui and Nifadkar 2007). Tsui and Nifadkar (2007) argue that the mediators’ professed capacity indicates that those viewed as having high ability maintain the ability to move the negotiators towards the suggested solution and to agree jointly on an outcome. Hence, an opponent negotiator’s perception as natural may create unfavorable outcomes for an individual despite the rates of standoff decreasing. A study by Tsay and Bazerman (2009), addresses the fundamental questions concerning individual biases that plague negotiations. Tsay and Bazerman (2009) used the concept of rationality to identify systematic ways through which members of an organization depart from rationality while negotiation. The researchers further identified the challenges a focal negotiator would face as well as what should be expected from other parties. Therefore, the concept of rationality does not make assumption on what the negotiator values. However, it suggests that negotiators optimally pursue personal objectives. Basing on their discussion of behavioural decision-making theory, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) pointed out that several deviations from rationality continue to be identified that could be apply in negotiations. Tversky and Kahneman (1974) established that the negative or positive frame, through which negotiators often perceive risks inappropriately, affects their decisions. Hence, in order for the negotiators to base their numeric estimates on the negotiations, they depend substantially on the readily accessible information at the detriment of essential yet less relevant information, so as to gain confidence on the possibility of attaining outcomes that favor their interests. Behavioral decision research has revealed additional biases that may emanate from the competitive nature of negations in organizations (Tsay and Bazerman, 2009). It is critical to presuppose that negotiators have the tendency to assume that negotiation tasks present mutually-beneficial opportunities for making trade-offs, or to increase commitment to the initially selected choices once they are no longer perceivable as reasonable alternatives, or to devalue concessions made by opponents. Such a new perspective that emanates through the lens of behavioral decision research triggers a large body of research that integrates analytic structures with descriptively accurate models of human cognition. Since negotiators have a propensity to perceive that they are playing a game of negotiation, attributional processes are essential in understanding the decisions negotiators make. In a past study by Tsay and Bazerman (2009), findings suggested that negotiators have a tendency to overstate the polarization between two conflicting groups. In a related study, Agarwal (2006) established that when the basis of the other party’s behavior is uncertain, individuals will tend to give credit to the sinister motives. Additionally, when opponents explain their behaviors, negotiators disregard them to the point that more sinister explanations become conceivable. These kinds of attributions are prone to prompt hostility and blame, which makes agreement difficult. Conclusion and Recommendations The negotiators are bound by rationality, and hence are expected to make rational decision. While this is so, the negotiators may still make inefficient and unreliable decisions using irrelevant information. This is especially so when the negotiators are led by cognitive heuristics they use in simplifying their core arguments. Therefore, the concept of rationality does not make assumption on what the negotiator values. Rather, it suggests that negotiators optimally pursue personal objectives. Hence, the negotiators tend to be susceptible to bias. Despite the fact that training may create better negotiators, those trained may still experience a certain level of bias that may cloud their decisions and rational thinking. It is recommended that the organization’s managers must possess adequate negotiation and conflict management competencies to handle such situations by understanding the fundamentals of the concept of negotiation. Negotiators should base their decisions on rational and relevant data. This would enable them avoid basing their decisions on cognitive heuristics they use in simplifying their core arguments. In order to make good impressions, it is recommended that negotiators need to configure the impression that is valuable to them based on their current goals in the ongoing negotiation. Reference List Agarwal, N 2006, "Negotiation Decision support Systems: Analysising Negotiations under the Conditions of Risk," Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics vol. 4 no 3, pp.11-25 Curhan, J. & Overbeck, J 2008, "Making a Positive Impression in a Negotiation: Gender Differences in Response to Impression Motivation," Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, vol 1 no 2, pp179–193 Raiffia, H, Richardson, J & Metcalfe, D 2002, Negotiation analysis, the science and art of collaboaive decision making, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts Tsay, C & Bazerman, M 2009, "A Decision-making Perspective to Negotiation: A Review of the Past and a Look into the Future," Harvard Business Review, pp.1-28 Tsui. A & Nifadkar, S 2007, "Cross-National Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations," Journal of Management, pp.1-84 Walton, R 2000, "Work Innovations in the United States," Harvard Business Review pp.88-98 Read More