Goal setting in distributive and integrative negotiations: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Goal setting has been shown to be a strong predictor of attaining a negotiation outcome. However, neither the type of negotiation nor the outcome level, dyadic versus individual outcomes, has been systematically analyzed. Using multilevel meta-analysis, we investigate the effects of a) goal difficulty, b) goal specificity and c) scenario integrativeness on negotiation outcomes. We find that for individual outcomes, regardless of the negotiation setting, there is support for the effect of goal difficulty, but we do not find an effect of goal specificity in any setting. For integrative negotiations, we find an effect for the integrativeness of the scenario on joint outcomes: If the negotiation is rather integrative, more of the integrative potential is realized. Additional moderators such as goal symmetry are examined, and recommendations for more research on integrativeness and its impact in negotiations are made.

Negotiation Processes: Tactics of Preparing a Successful Negotiation

“…The reason for using this strategy is that some disputes cannot be resolved any other way, and only one of the parties must receive the full or more of the existing benefit. The greater and more important the source of the negotiation, the more difficult the dialogue and the end of the talks will be in this style of negotiation (Hossiep et al, 2019) In competitive style talks, information is crucial. Each party strives to secure its own information while also gaining access to information about the red lines and solutions of the other.…”