Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005)
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
...................................................................................................................................................................
...
Agreement) principle
countless negotiators:
. People: Separate the people from the problem
emotions tie people to the problem, positive emotions partition people from the problem. Happy
negotiators behave more cooperatively and iden-
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
114
Academy
of
Management
Executive
August
to concede.6
Finally, in their own words, Fisher and Ury asserted that what matters most in understanding
other party.'0
tion.
other positions available (open a window in another room). Numerous research programs have
tiator A often assumes that Negotiator B is responsible for meeting and satisfying Negotiator A's interests. Such an approach to negotiation prevents
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2004
Thompson
and
Leonardelli
115
distinct lines of research: whether such styles influence negotiator behavior, and how perceptions
piecemeal work).20
ator styles. For example, Barry and Friedman recently measured personality styles and found that
more friendly, gregarious, or "softer" styles resulted in worse outcomes for the negotiator.23 That
is, the more people were Extraverted (i.e., talkative,
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
116
Academy
of
Management
Executive
August
tage.
Endnotes
1 Fisher, R., & Ury, W. 1981. Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton
Miff lin.
2 Ibid., 19.
competitive opponent and how they actually behave.25 In one study, MBA students reported that
0 Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., & Ross, L. 2004. Dynamic valuation: Preference change in the context of face-to-face negotiations. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
ation: Limitations to effective dispute resolution. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage: 51-67.
12Fisher & Ury, op. cit., 57.
taining relationships: Multiple equivalent offers in negotiations. Working paper, Northwestern University.
Ilbid.
16Froman, L. A., & Cohen, M. D. 1970. Compromise and logroll: Comparing the efficiency of two bargaining processes.
Behavioral Science, 30: 180-183.
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2004
8
Thompson
Babcock,
L.,
and
et
Leonardelli
117
23 Barry,
B., & Friedman,Biased
R. 1998. Bargainer characteristics
in
al.
1995.
judgme
distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.145 on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms