Group Decis Negot (2010) 19:193–209 DOI 10.1007/s10726-008-9128-8
Communication Quality in Business Negotiations
Mareike Schoop · Frank Köhne · Katja Ostertag
Published online: 12 August 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract The quality of a business negotiation process is usually assessed by its economic outcome, e.g. in terms of Pareto efﬁciency or distance to Nash equilibrium. We argue that this assessment method is insufﬁcient in that it fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of business negotiations. Negotiators engage in highly complex communication tasks, and these communication processes should be analysed along with the outcome in the overall evaluation of a business negotiation. To this end, we will introduce Communication Quality as a new construct for analyzing the negotiation process. Furthermore, it will be argued that Communication Quality itself can affect economic negotiation outcomes both short- and long-term. We will present relevant aspects of Communication Quality, outline a scheme for its operationalisation and measurement, and discuss its probable impacts on business negotiations. Keywords Negotiation · Negotiation evaluation · Negotiation process · Communication process · Communication Quality · Pragmatics · Coherence 1 Introduction A business negotiation is conducted between agents aiming to reach an agreement based on demand and supply. The agents interact by means of communication, e.g. face-to-face, via telephone, or in written form. All participants possess different implicit or explicit preferences and have an idea of their preferred outcome that is based on their economic requirements and goals. These preferences and ideas guide the participants’ behaviour, which consists of their exchange of offers (offer-communication, strategic action) and their communication style (non-offer-communication,
M. Schoop (B · F. Köhne · K. Ostertag ) Information Systems I, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany e-mail: email@example.com
M. Schoop et al.
communicative action). But such behaviour is not planned and executed in isolation, and, therefore, depends on and must be adapted to the behaviour of the negotiation partner. In other words, negotiation is a social interactive process. If this aspect is not adequately taken into account, empirical data is often puzzling. Game theoretical analyses, which take a symmetrical and interactive perspective, usually fail to explain actual behaviour in negotiations satisfactorily because they assume rational negotiators and disregard the communicative nature of negotiations (Müller 2007). Every process can be associated with a certain level of quality. When looking at business negotiations as processes, two main factors of negotiation quality can be identiﬁed, namely their effectiveness and their efﬁciency (Raiffa 1982). While much research effort has been directed towards measures of individual gain or effectiveness, current studies emphasise the importance of long-lasting business relationships and tend to analyse symmetric measures such as joint utility and Pareto efﬁciency. We argue that the communicative and strategic actions and interactions of the negotiators determine the efﬁciency of the process as well as the effectiveness of the joint outcome. Furthermore, good communication during the negotiation has the potential to build long-lasting business relationships. On the other hand, poor communication can have far-reaching negative effects, e.g. protracted processes, costly renegotiations, or the breakdown of relationships. Studying the quality of negotiation communication comprehensively can thus yield deep insights into the whole negotiation process and explain outcomes on the basis of the negotiators’ actual behaviour. In order to use the explanatory potential of our Communication Quality construct, we will present a definition and an illustrated framework of Communication Quality in...
References: Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev 27(1):17–40 Carnevale PJ, De Dreu CKW (2004) Methods of negotiation research: introduction. Int Negotiat 9:341–344 Carter C, Kaufmann L (2007) The impact of electronic reverse auctions on supplier performance: the mediating role of relationship variables. J Supply Chain Manage 43(1):16–26 Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Q 11(3):355–366 De Moor A, Weigand H (2002) Towards a semiotic communications quality model. Organisational semiotics: evolving a science of information systems. Kluwer, Boston, pp 275–285 Emmers-Sommer TM (2004) The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J Soc Personal Relationships 21(3):399–411 Eriksson O (2002) Communication quality in the context of information systems and business processes. In: Liu K, Clarke RJ, Andersen PB, Stamper RK (eds) Coordination and communication using signs: studies in organisational semiotics 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 115–128 Firth A (1995) Introduction and overview. In: Firth A (ed) The discourse of negotiation. Studies of language in the workplace. Pergamon Press, London, pp 3–40 Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (2004) Das Harvard-Konzept—Der Klassiker der Verhandlungstechnik, vol 22. Campus, Frankfurt a. M. Fortgang RS, Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2003) Negotiating the spirit of the deal. Harv Bus Rev 81:66–75 Frommeyer A (2005) Kommunikationsqualität in persönlichen Kundenbeziehungen. Konzeptualisierung und empirische Prüfung. Gabler, Wiesbaden Garcia SM (2002) Power and the illusion of transparency in negotiations. J Bus Psychol 17(1):133–144 Gelfand M, Smith Major V, Raver J, Nishi L, O’Brien K (2006) Negotiating relationally—the dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Acad Manage Rev 31:427–451 Gibb J (1961) Defensive communication. J Commun 11:141–148 Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handels, 2 vols. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 3:63–73 Holzinger K (2001) Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42: 414–446 Huber GP, Lewis K (2004) Cross understanding in decision groups: analysis and support. In: Paper presented at the 3rd international conference entitled Decision support in an uncertain and complex world: the IFIP TC8/WG8, 2004, pp 381–391 Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Org Sci Special issue: Commun Proc Virtual Org (Nov–Dec 1999) 10(6):791–815 Johlke MC, Duhan DF (2001) Testing competing models of sales force communication. J Personal Sell Sales Manage 21(4):265–277 Köhne F, Schoop M, Staskiewicz D (2005) Use patterns in different negotiation media. In: Proceedings of group decision and negotiation, Vienna Lloyd SA (1987) Conﬂict in premarital relationships: differential perceptions of males and females. Family Relations 36(3):290–294
M. Schoop et al.
Mohr JJ, Sohi RS (1995) Communication ﬂows in distribution channels: impact on assessments of communication quality and satisfaction. J Retailing 71(4):393–416 Montgomery BM (1981) The form and function of quality communication in marriage. Family Relations 30(1):21–30 Montgomery BM (1988) Quality communication in personal relationships. In: Druck SW, Hay DF, Hobfoll SE, Ickes W, Montgomery B (eds) Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 343–359 Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Neurath O (ed) International encyclopedia of uniﬁed science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Mulder I (1999) Understanding technology mediated interaction processes—a theoretical context. GigaCSCW. Telematica Instituut, Netherlands Müller H (2004) Arguing, bargaining and all that: communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness. Eur J Int Relations 10(3):395–435 Müller H (2007) Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. In: Niesen P, Herborth B (eds) Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit—Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., pp 199–223 Orpen C (1997) The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. J Psychol 131(5):519–522 Pavitt C, Johnson KK (1999) An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Commun Res 26(3):303–321 Pesendorfer E-M, Köszegi S (2005) The effects of communication mode in e-negotiations. In: Workshop on formal and informal information exchange during negotiations Pesendorfer EM, Köszegi S (2006) Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: the impact of communication mode. Group Decis Negotiat 15(2):141–155 Peters R (2000) Elektronische Märkte und automatisierte Verhandlungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5):413–421 Putnam LL, Roloff ME (1992) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Robert LP, Dennis AR (2005) Paradox of richness: a cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(1):10–21 Robinson M (1991) Double-level languages and co-operative working. AI Soc 5:34–60 Schoop M (2001) An introduction to the language-action perspective. SIGGROUP Bull 22(2):3–8 Schoop M (2002) Business communication in electronic commerce. Habilitation thesis, Aachen University Schoop M (2004) The worlds of negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modeling, http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aakhus/ lap/Schoop.pdf, 18 May 2006 Schoop M (2005) A language-action approach to electronic negotiations. J Syst Signs Action 1(1):62–79 Schoop M, Köhne F, Staskiewicz D (2004) An integrated decision and communication perspective on electronic negotiation support systems: challenges and solutions. Decis Syst 13(4): 375–398 Shakun M (2003) Right problem solving: doing the right thing right. J Group Decis Negotiat 12(6):463–476 Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana Shelby AN (1998) Communication quality revisited. Exploring the link with persuasive effects. J Bus Commun 35(3):387–404 Smith JB, Barclay DW (1997) The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. J Marketing 61:3–21 Spörndli M (2003) Discourse quality and political decisions: an empirical analysis of debates in the German conference committee. Discussion paper, Social Science Research Center, Berlin Swaab R, Postmes T, van Best I, Spears R (2007) Shared cognition as a product of and a precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality Soc Psychol Bull 33(2):187–199 Valley K L, Keros AT (2001) It takes two: social distance and improvisations in negotiations. In: Proceedings of E.M. Mindich conference on experimental methods 2002, http://www.iq.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/ Conferences/ESS/Apr02/, 18 May 2006 Van Boven L, Thompson L (2003) A look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models in negotiation. Group Process Intergroup Relations 6(4):387–404
Communication Quality in Business Negotiations
Watzlawick P (2000) Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Verlag Hans Huber, Bern Weigand H, Schoop M, de Moor A, Dignum F (2003) B2B negotiation support: the need for a communication perspective. Group Decis Negotiat 12(1): 3–29
Please join StudyMode to read the full document