You are on page 1of 21

Journal of European Industrial Training

Does negotiation training improve negotiators' performance?


Eman ElShenawy

Article information:

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:


Eman ElShenawy, (2010),"Does negotiation training improve negotiators' performance?", Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 Iss 3 pp. 192 - 210
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591011031719
Downloaded on: 06 October 2015, At: 04:53 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2467 times since 2010*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:


Stephen Ashcroft, (2004),"Commercial negotiation skills", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 36 Iss 6
pp. 229-233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850410556658
Piyali Ghosh, Jagdamba Prasad Joshi, Rachita Satyawadi, Udita Mukherjee, Rashmi Ranjan,
(2011),"Evaluating effectiveness of a training programme with trainee reaction", Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 247-255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197851111137861
Steve Gates, (2006),"Time to take negotiation seriously", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 Iss 5
pp. 238-241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850610677689

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:434496 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com


Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT
34,3

Does negotiation training improve


negotiators performance?

192

Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Eman ElShenawy

Received 12 November 2008


Abstract
Revised 1 May 2009
Purpose This papers objective is to test the main effect of negotiation training-level on acquiring
Accepted 30 June 2009

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

negotiation skills. Training level refers to the time a trainee spends in a negotiation training course
receiving the standard style and methods of training. Negotiation skills are manifested through
trainees performance after receiving training.
Design/methodology/approach Six meta-analyses were conducted over 57 lab experiments from
36 studies. The six meta-analyses were divided into two groups each with a sub-study. The objective
of study one is finding effect of training level on negotiators individual and joint performance. The
objective of study two is contrasting the effects of three training levels on negotiators performance.
Findings Study one results show that training level has an effect on individual performance that is
more evident for the long training (r 0.76) than for the short training (r 0.22). Training level has a
medium effect on joint performance (r 0.37). Results of study two show an increase in negotiators
performance the higher the training level. That performance rate ranged from point estimate 2.03
after spending a day in training to point estimate 5.2 after spending three weeks or more in training.
Research limitation/implications The results indicate significant association between the time
trainees spend in negotiation training programs and their negotiation performance. Level of training
should be controlled for when conducting experiments during negotiation courses. Future research
should focus on effects of personality traits of both trainees and trainers on negotiation training
effectiveness.
Practical implications The findings highlight the importance of investing in increasing the level
of negotiation training and spending more in making it a routine practice for top executives. After all,
skilful negotiators are important assets that should be maintained. They make important deals that
add to the firms financial performance of the firm. Higher levels of negotiation training deliver more
values to firms.
Originality/value Training methods and styles followed in courses and programs of negotiation
training are effective and are of value providing they last for enough time. The study highlights the
importance of negotiation training, an area worthy of more research. Findings are valuable for training
practitioners to pay attention to what is considered enough time of training against what is being
practiced. Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial fields if
designed in the appropriate way.
Keywords Negotiating, Skills training, Performance management
Paper type Research paper

Journal of European Industrial


Training
Vol. 34 No. 3, 2010
pp. 192-210
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090591011031719

Negotiation is an essential managerial skill for success in todays global environment.


Almost all business interactions require a level of negotiation; therefore, skillful
negotiators are considered valuable assets who are able to improve financial
performance, customer relations and employees satisfaction (Ertel, 1999; Susskind and
Corburn, 2000). A skillful negotiator adds to the financial performance of the firm by
closing an important deal and decreases that value in the case of losing one. Business
news is full of such examples of skillful versus unskillful negotiators. Skillful
negotiators became essential for success in all professions such as medical, legal, and
consultation (Anastakis, 2003).

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Realizing the increasing importance of negotiation skills, firms invest training


managers to become effective negotiators has been a major program for corporate
firms. American firms invest approximately $40 to $60 billion yearly in training
(Russ-Eft and Zenger, 1995). Out of that investment, firms dedicate large portion to
negotiation training (Coleman and Lim, 2001; Friedman, 1992; Thompson et al., 2000),
which effectiveness is debatable.
Investment in negotiation training should deliver a significant financial value for
the firm through increasing the negotiation skills of its executives. According to the
human capital theory, skillful, experienced and knowledgeable managers help their
firms to be more productive and adaptive to business environments (Becker, 1975).
This is not always the case. A Fortune 500 firm invested $350,000 on a negotiation
training program for 150 senior managers, but these managers failed to renew a
contract with a major client causing high financial losses (Susskind, 2004).
The literature is controversial regarding effectiveness of negotiation training, one
side of negotiation researchers believe in the absolute effectiveness of negotiation
training and the other side doubts that belief. That debate is anchored by the
disagreement regarding transferability of negotiation skills (Mastenbroek, 1991;
Nierenberg, 1984; Raiffa, 1982). Previous studies produced mixed results regarding the
ability of trained negotiators to utilize and transfer negotiation skills to real life
situations (Rollof et al., 2003). Negotiation training may not deliver the expected results
in terms of improving negotiators(performance (Movius, 2008; Susskind, 2004). On the
other side, once negotiation skills are considered transferable and learnable, a belief in
the absolute effectiveness of negotiation training exists, whereas the argument
regarding personality and situational effect alters that belief (Movius, 2008).
The time trainees spend in negotiation training is a major factor that may add new
aspects to the debate. What would be the transferability of negotiation skills relevant
to the time spent in training? Friedman (1992) argues that the short periods and the few
approaches of negotiation training are not enough to enhance their performance in real
life negotiations. Nevertheless, some evidence shows that any level of mutual gains
training increased skills and gains of union representatives when bargaining with
management (Hunter and McKerise, 1992). Level of training is not counted for as a
variable of importance in negation research.
This paper investigates the effect of training level on post-training transfer of
negotiation skills. Negotiation training level refers to the time spent receiving training.
This means more exposure to elevated methods of negotiation training. This means
negotiators performance improves after spending time in the negotiation courses.
Therefore, the major assumption of this paper is that the longer the time trainees spend
in negotiation training, the better the negotiation training transfer.
This leads to the following research question: Is there a direct association between
length of negotiation training and performance of trainees? The following sections
provide a brief literature review, methods and results of two meta-analytic studies, and
end with some insights for future research and practice of negotiations.
Negotiation training
Negotiation training courses and programs are designed to teach trainees how to avoid
irrationalities and behavioral biases and behave in a manner that maximizes outcome
of all negotiation situations (Lewicki, 1997). The major objective of negotiation training

Negotiation
training

193

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

194

is to transfer negotiation skills to trainees. The literature refers to transfer as learning


and acquiring negotiation skills (Nadler et al., 2003). More specifically, after training
negotiators should gain the ability to apply a concept, schema or skill learned in one
situation to a relevant but different problem (Rollof et al., 2003, p. 825). When this
happens, negotiation training is considered effective.
Training literature supports that training transfer depend on three main factors:
quality of training methods, motivation, and characteristics of trainees, and
organizational environment (Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Training methods
should be capable of teaching trainees the new skills they need, trainees must be
motivated and able to learn and acquire the skills, and organizations should provide
climate that encourages applying new skills and concepts in work (Yamnill and
McLean, 2001). Quality of methods largely affects negotiation-training transfer
(Pattton, 2000). Negotiation researchers agree on what methods work better in training,
however the other two factors did not gain enough attention. The other two factors are
beyond the scope of this paper.
Training methods
Methods used in training differentiate negotiation training into three main types:
didactic-analogical, experiential, and reflective[1] (Rollof et al., 2003). Negotiation
courses taught in universities and programs offered other agencies utilize the three
types (Susskind and Corburn, 2000). All provide a mix of the three types with more
share for experiential, to provide students with a set of comprehensive techniques to
perform well in different types of real life negotiations after the training (Lewicki, 1997;
Polzer and Neale, 1995).
Negotiation training methods are structured the same across programs and courses
in the USA; they utilize a scientifically developed group of role-play exercises
simulated from real deals that are followed by a short debrief and a lecture (Susskind
and Corburn, 2000). The difficulty of these simulations ranges from simple one issue
deal to more complex multi issues deals at the end of the program. The quality of these
methods are known to researchers and practitioners of negotiations. However, there
effectiveness is questionable.
Training effectiveness
There is no clear confirmation in research regarding negotiation training effectiveness.
Weissbein (2000) argues that training cannot create psychological traits, rather it can
enhance the positive effects of these traits by providing negotiators with enough
techniques to cleverly deal with surprising or stressful negotiation situations.
Friedman (1992) argues that the short periods trainees spend in training programs and
the few approaches of training are not enough to enhance effectiveness in real life
negotiations that are widely heterogeneous. Other researchers are in the favorable side.
Negotiators can be effectively trained to gather information regarding opponents, plan
an agenda of actions (Peterson and Lucas, 2001), and decrease biases of
decision-making (e.g. Bazerman and Neale, 1982). There is not enough evidence to
end this debate. This is due to lack of investigation of the appropriate length of time
that reflects level of exposure to training. Results of a survey of negotiation trainers
show that all disagreed on the ideal length of negotiation training programs (Friedman,
1992). Effectiveness of negotiation training in transferring negotiation skills is still not

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

clear. The nature of negotiation skills may be an underlined factor in the debate. An
exploration of the nature of negotiation skills follows.
Negotiation skills
The behavioral decision theory has a specific view of negotiation skills. The theory
defines negotiation as a joint decision-making process between two or more parties
(Brett et al., 1999; Carroll et al., 1988; Weingart et al., 1999). Skillful negotiators are the
highly performing ones. Negotiators performance is measured by their outcome that is
pertinent to their behavior[2] during the negotiating process (Galinsky et al., 2002;
Neale and Bazerman, 1992; Thompson, 1990). The theory assumes bounded rationality
of negotiators; they will make impulsive decisions and fall for many biases if they are
not skillful (e.g. Neale and Bazerman, 1985).
Skilful negotiators are able to minimize irrationality, avoid decision biases and
judgmental mistakes (Bazerman, 1994; Bazerman et al., 1985) and achieve the desired
goal of any negotiated task (Brett et al., 1999; Clyman and Tripp, 2000) keeping their
performance at high levels. Sales empirical literature consistently shows association
among the ability to adapt to the situation, learn and change strategy during
negotiation, understand customers and high performance of salespeople (Park and
Holloway, 2003). A question remains regarding whether transferring negotiation skills
is contingent to the received level of training.
The debate regarding negotiation effectiveness continues to include the effect of
length of training programs on trainees performance. It is not clear whether short
programs are of less or equal post-training transfer compared to long programs. Some
empirical studies show that enhanced negotiators performance is due to long periods
of training (Northcraft et al., 1994; Polzer and Neale, 1995). Others support that short
negotiation training helps to transfer negotiation skills across situations. Results of a
mail survey to more than 1,000 physicians and health care professionals show that a
short negotiation-training program, one to eight hours, provided trainees with the
necessary skills to negotiate successfully with behavioral patients (Runkle et al., 2000).
Researchers might agree on which training types are more effective, but they
disagree on the training level that is enough to transfer negotiation skills. Results of a
survey of negotiation trainers show that all supported simulations as the most effective
training method but disagreed on the ideal length of programs (Friedman, 1992).
The relationship between length of training programs and negotiation performance
is not investigated in research. The following meta-analyses are conducted to
investigate levels of training that are adequate to improve post-training performance of
negotiators.
Methods
To investigate the study assumption in a manner that maximizes generalizability, all
possible negotiation studies until 2005 were included, after that date there were almost
no more studies of negotiation that could be included in the meta-analyses. There were
33 eligible empirical studies. They were divided into different groups based on length
of time-spent receiving negotiation training. For a list of the studies included in the
sample, please refer to Table I.
The studies followed one design. All are experiments that used simulations of
dyadic negotiations. All have been conducted in negotiation courses offered for college

Negotiation
training

195

Table I.
Coding and a list of
studies included in the
meta-analyses

Follow up training
Gist et al. (1990) (cond. 1)
Gist et al. (1990) (cond. 2)
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 1)
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 2)
Stevens et al. (1993) (Women)
Stevens et al. (1993) (Men)

Gentner et al. (2004) (exp. 2)

Gentner et al. (2004) (exp. 1)

PPSYC
PPSYC
PPSYC
PPSYC
JAP
JAP

Conference
paper
Conference
paper

Conference
paper
Gist et al. (1990)
PPSYC
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 1)
PPSYC
Gist et al. (1991) (cond 2)
PPSYC
Stevens et al. (1993) (Women) JAP
Stevens et al. (1993) (Men)
JAP
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
1)
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
2)
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
3)
Stevens and Gist (1997)
PPSYC
Gist and Stevens (1998)
OB&HDP
Weissbein (2000)
Dissertation

Original training studies


Berger et al. (2003) (cond. 1)

Publication
type

23
26
53
121
119

0.53
0.34
0.42
0.02
2 0.08

0.91
0.9
0.72
0.69
0.11
0.61

0.26
41
27
44
35
24
36

54

64

25

0.65

0.26

16
68
35
44
24
36

0.01
0.37
0.06
2 0.03
0.01
0.23

0
0
0
0
0
0

0.68

0.03

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT

of $50,000
of $50,00
of $50,00
of $50,000
of $50,000

Profit increase
Profit increase
Reach targeted
Reach targeted
Reach targeted
Reach targeted

salary
salary
salary
salary

of $58,000
of $58,000
of $58,000
of $58,000

Reach targeted salary of $50,000


Reach targeted salary of $50,000
Salary increase

Market contracts

Market contracts

Reach targeted salary


Reach targeted salary
Reach targeted salary
Reach targeted salary
Reach targeted salary
Market contracts

Buying a new car

Goal of negotiation

Post/
Reach contingent
TRT-CNT
Post/
Reach contingent
TRT-CNT

Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT

Impasse Method

2
2
2
2
2
2

hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
(continued)

45-60 minutes analogical

4 hrs lectures
4 hrs lectures and simulation
6-8 hrs lecture, videos and role
playing
45-60 minutes analogical

1 hr lecture

1 hr lecture

1 hr integrative didactic
training and course
7 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
1 hr lecture

Training method

196

Study ID

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

JEIT
34,3

JP&SP
Conference
paper
AM Ler &
Edu
MS
JAP
Conference
paper

Weingart et al. (1996)

Thompson and Loewenstein


(2004)
Loewenstein et al. (2003)

Bazerman and Neale (1982)

Berger et al. (2003) (cond. 2)

Thompson et al. (2000)

OB&HDP

Muringhan et al. (1999) (exp. 1) IJCM

Second half or end of class


Polzer and Neale (1995) (study HP
2)
Greenhalg et al. (1985)
AMJ

Nadler et al. (2003)

Gentner et al. (2004) (exp. 3)

Gentner et al. (2004) (exp. 2)

PPYSC
OB&HDP

Publication
type

Conference
paper
Conference
paper
JEP

Stevens and Gist (1997)


Gist and Stevens (1998)
Joint outcome
Gentner et al. (2004) (exp. 1)

Study ID

0.26

NA

NA

0.23

0.11

0.21
7

40

122

118

0.17
0.63

141

90

80

106

124

53
121

0.3

0.37

0.35

NA

NA

0.34
0.2

0.05

0.66

0.49

0.68

0.54

0
0

Goal of negotiation

45-60 minutes didactic

45-60 minutes didactic

2 hrs lectures
4 hrs lectures and simulations

Training method

Buying a new car

5-issue recruit contract with union

Multi-issue business agreement

Contingency contract

Multi-issue business agreement

Multi-issue business agreement

(continued)

10 wks negotiation/course

Last week of negotiation


course
Second half of class

Midst of negotiation course

1 hr integrative didactic
training

All types of training to four


groups
20 min didactic

Analogical encoding, two


types
Analogical encoding

Short didact/lec

1-issue beginning salary negotiation Analogical encoding

Reach contingent contract

Post/
Reach an agreement and avoid
TRT-CNT impasse
Post/TRT Reach an agreement and avoid
impasse
Post/TRT Reach an agreement and avoid
impasse
Post/
Reach a contingent contract and
TRT-CNT avoid impasse

Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Pre/Post
TRT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT

Post/TRT Reach contingent contract

Post/TRT Reach targeted salary of $58,000


Post/TRT Reach targeted salary of $50,000

Impasse Method

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Negotiation
training

197

Table I.

Table I.
JP&SP

JP&SP

OB&HDP

OB&HDP

OB&HDP

OB&HDP

JP&SP
OB&HDP

JP&SP

GD&N

NA

NA

0.53

0.29

NA

0.37
0.28

0.25

NA

0%

0%

0.14

0.17

0.11

0.04

0.16
0.35

Goal of negotiation

Reach an agreement in the


2 week negotiation course
bargaining zone and avoid impasse
1-issue new recruit contract
2 weeks/lec
8-issue new recruit contract
2 week negotiation course

Second half

Second half of class

Training method

Pre/TRT

Pre/TRT

Pre/TRT

Pre/TRT

Pre/TRT

1-day

1-day

Purchasing a pharmaceutical plant 1-day

1-day in negotiation and OB


classes
Purchasing a pharmaceutical plant 1-day

Selling a HOUSE

Selling of a used truck

Selling of a used truck

Post/
Reach an agreement in the
1-day session of conflict
TRT-CNT bargaining zone and avoid impasse training

Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT

Post/TRT Reach an agreement and avoid


impasse
Post/TRT Building long-term relations

Impasse Method

Notes: Journal abbreviation ANNALS: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, IJCM: International Journal of Conflict
Management, MS: Management Science, HP: Human Performance, GD & N: Group Decision and Negotiation, P&C: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, HRM: Human Resources Management, GB&IR: Group Behavior and Intergroup Relations, JEP: Journal of Educational Psychology, JESP:
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, JMR: Journal of Marketing Research, AMJ: Academy of Management Journal, AML&E: Academy of
Management Learning and Education, JOB Journal of Organizational Behavior

Galniskey and Mussweiler


(2001) (exp. 1)
Galniskey and Mussweiler
(2001) (exp. 3)

First day of class


Novemsky and Schweitzer
(2004) (exp. 1)
Novemsky and Schweitzer
(2004) (exp. 2)
White and Neale (1994)

Galinsky et al. (2002) (exp. 1)


Anderson and Thompson
(2004) (exp. 2)
Brodt (1994)

Greenhalgh and Chapman


(1998)
2 week in class
Morris et al. (1999) (exp. 1)

Thompson et al. (1995) (exp. 2) JESP

Publication
type

198

Study ID

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

students. More details regarding the method of meta-analysis and its universal steps
follows.
Meta-analysis procedures
Meta-analysis is the only method for integrating findings across studies that can
control chance and other artifacts and provide a foundation for conclusions, for the
sake of theory development (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). Hunter and Schmidts method
of meta-analysis is the most commonly used one in behavioral research (Lipsey and
Wilson, 2000). It controls for statistical artifacts, able to aggregate empirical results
across studies, and to estimate the true relationships between variables (Hunter and
Schmidt, 2004). The detailed procedures for this method are described in Hunter and
Schmidt (1990, 2004) and Lipsey and Wilson (2000). A summary of these steps are
introduced in the following section.
It starts with searching for eligible studies from all possible resources to aggregate
the effect size as accurately as possible (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). The researcher
searched all databases such as ProQuest, PsychInfo . . . etc. using the term Negotiat *,
browsed periodicals indices and contents of specialized journals, or searched these
journals using the term Negotiation or bargaining. The researcher traced early
articles of some specialized authors through using reference lists of the most recent
articles. Cooper (1989) calls the last method locating the ancestry.
To find unpublished studies, the researcher e-mailed many authors in the field of
negotiation training, the Conflict Management Division of Academy of Management,
and possible authors from different universities online paper banks: Kelloggs Faculty
working papers, SSRN Electronic Library and Wharton Faculty papers. The
researcher searched Digital Dissertation Abstracts and ordered the original
dissertations through the library-loan service.
The second step of meta-analysis is to determine criteria of inclusion. These are
three:
(1) design of the study;
(2) characteristics of participants; and
(3) constructs validity.
The sample includes experimental studies that investigated the effect of training on
negotiators effectiveness, in dyadic negotiations. All studies followed typical steps:
first participants received a level of negotiation training. Second, they engaged in
face-to-face negotiation simulation where they are required to achieve fiscal outcome.
Design of experiments was pre/post-training measurement or post-training
measurement. Only the post-training measurement was included in the analysis.
Some studies had control and treatment groups. The meta-analyses included
participants from the treatment groups, those who received training.
Participants in the selected studies varied in their educational level, but were mostly
graduate students. This was not a critical factor to moderate the results of the studies.
Evidence shows no differences between undergraduate and graduate students
performance in many negotiation simulations (Kim et al., 2003). Studies included
participants of mixed gender, which is not a source of heterogeneity. A meta-analysis
of 62 studies shows no major differences in negotiation strategies and performance

Negotiation
training

199

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

200

based on gender (Walters et al., 1998). Some variation in participants demographics


was allowed to count the total sample as a random sample of participants.
For studies that contained more than one experiment and it was not clear whether
they used the same participants in all experiments, results of only one experiment were
included in the meta-analysis.
The meta-analyses excluded some studies because they did not meet some of the
criteria of inclusion. For instance, studies that included participants from elementary or
high school students such as (Johnson et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1995) were not
included. This was for two reasons, age of participants reflects that they do not have
business background and studies did not use simulations that were designed to deal
with interpersonal conflict. Studies of case analysis such as King and Puls (1996), and
studies that did not provide enough descriptive statistics such as (Koszegi and Kersten,
2003; Lee, 1988; Pecorino and Boening, 2001; Van Boven and Thompson, 2003) were
excluded. Finally, the meta-analyses excluded studies that did not report any
information regarding agreement rate or the time students spent at the negotiation
course before including them in research, of those studies (Brett et al., 1996; Morris et al.,
1999; Northcraft et al., 1998).
For construct validity and limiting variables variation, included studies should all
have variables with limited variation in concepts. Hunter and Schmidt (1990) illustrate
that variation in variable names does not necessarily reflect variation in their concepts.
The researcher examined how each study defined its variables and chose only those
that matched the conceptual definitions of variables under investigation. For accuracy,
the studies were limited to those that investigated dual face-to-face negotiations in the
USA, in order to eliminate effects of culture on negotiation style or outcome.
Measurements of independent and dependent variables: the dependent variable is
performance of trainees and it is measured by percentage of achieved outcome (goal) of
each negotiation, which is measured in financial units, or equivalent rating based on
financial outcome (Brett et al., 1999; Gist et al., 1990). Separated individual outcome
were taken in different from dyads outcome. The independent variable is the length of
negotiation training that was given to participants before practicing negotiations
through simulations. Length of training ranged from short sessions, three to eight
hours, to long sessions, more than ten hours. Training processes were all concentrated
on providing trainees with knowledge and skills of negotiation that increase their
ability to achieve the goal, which is always to reach an effective agreement and avoid
impasse. There were no major variations in training processes and methods among
studies.
Coding procedures were to give each study one serial number, except for studies
that used two different samples. Coding recorded the studies: author/s, date,
publication type, independent and dependent variables, measurement type and sample
size. A portion of the coding process and the studies list are illustrated in Table I.
Calculation
The researcher used two measures of effect size first correlation r when the raw
product-moment correlation was provided in the original studies, second, the
proportion Logit-method when studies reported agreement rates among trainees. The
researcher used three statistical packages to conduct calculations. The major one is the
Beta of Comprehensive Meta Analysis II (CMA). This is meta-analyses software

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

provided by Biostat. The software can be found at www.metaanalysis.com. The


calculation procedures and equations that CMA uses to aggregate effect size, are
provided in Lipsey and Wilson (2000), Hunter and Schmidt (2004) and the CMA
software guide.
When the studies did not report the raw correlation among investigated variables,
the researcher used one of two effect size calculators to calculate the appropriate effect
size to use in the meta-analysis. The first called META that calculates correlations
using means, sample sizes and standard deviations. META is provided at
users.rcn.com/dakenny/meta.html The second software is called the Effect Size
Determination Program by Wilson, which can be found at http://mason.gmu.edu/
, dwilsonb/ma.html
The researcher used the random effect meta-analysis method, since it is a method
that allows and counts for missing or unreachable studies such as unknown conference
papers (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). For this method, studies
are considered units of a random sample that represent wider population of studies
(Hunter and Schmidt, 1990; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). Additionally, test of
heterogeneity among studies were significant across different studies, and so using
the fixed method was not possible according to the meta-analyses experts (Hunter and
Schmidt, 1990; Lipsey and Wilson, 2000).
Study one: the first meta-analyses group
Three meta-analyses were conducted. All were done on studies designed to investigate
negotiation training variables. The major objective of study one is to measure the main
effect of time length spent in negotiation training on trainees performance. This
performance was measured by percentage of achieved outcome out of ones BATNA,
the best alternative to a negotiated agreement which some consider the equivalent of
resistance point. Studies included are designed to measure effect of training on
negotiators individual performance.
The first meta-analysis included 14 effect-sizes from nine studies that measured the
direct main effect of training on negotiators performance. Each experiment in every
study counted for one effect-size. Studies included 820 graduate and undergraduate
trainees of mixed genders. All studies provided short training before offering the
negotiation simulation, and did not have control group. Trainees received short
training sessions ranged in length from one to eight hours. Negotiation simulations
were of the same difficulty level; all were multi-issue business agreements and were
timed. Trainees had to stop negotiating after a point of time was around 30 minutes of
negotiating. Trainees did not have prior experience in negotiations, and so the resulted
effect size reflects direct effect of training on performance.
Results show main immediate effect of training on trainees performance is
represented in the average correlation coefficient that results show was r 0.22 and
significant, p , 0.05. The effect size is in the range of the confidence interval at 95 per
cent is (0.09 , r , 0.35) with a small variance of 0.004, and a small standard error
SE 0.06. The Q-test is insignificant (Q 12.691, p 0.472), which means studies are
homogeneous and effect sizes are normally distributed, and the variability among
effect sizes is lower than rates related to sampling errors (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). As
negotiation training and research experiments follow the same procedures, there is low
or no variability expected. This means the results of the meta-analysis are close and

Negotiation
training

201

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

202

can be considered drawn from one sample. The fail-safe N value tells us how many
studies are necessary to bring p-value of effect size to insignificant value (Hunter and
Schmidt, 2004). We need 122 studies, which results prove that effect size of this
meta-analysis is insignificant.
According to Lipsey and Wilson (2000) any meta-analysis effect-size less than 0.25
is small; a large effect size is equal to or larger than 0.40. This small effect and the other
indicators support that there were no variability or errors. The results are interpreted
in the favorable direction. Short training programs have effect on negotiators
performance that is small but significant.
The second meta-analysis included eight effect sizes from five studies that represent
the second experiments of the studies included in the first meta-analysis. The objective
of the second meta-analysis is to measure effects of a follow up training on individual
performance of trainees, which represents post-training transfer. The participants were
381, mostly MBA students. After five to seven weeks of the first training session,
participants received a follow up short reflective training session, two hours, then
participated in the simulations.
The results show that the effect size r is 0.76 and significant ( p , 0.05). According
to Lipsey and Wilson (2000) rule, the effect size is a large. The effect size is in the range
of confidence interval at 95 per cent, (0.39 , r , 1), which is a large range to one side,
with a small variance of 0.036, a small standard error SE 0.19, and insignificant
Q-value (Q 6.494, p 0.434) indicating no present variability among studies. The
fail-safe N is 486, which results prove that effect size of this meta-analysis is
insignificant.
A second session of follow up training is important for increasing negotiators
performance and post-training transfer. The second session concentrated on repeating
lessons from first session, and gave a chance to reinforce good strategies and avoid bad
ones.
The third meta-analysis included seven effect sizes from seven studies that
measured effect of training on dyads joint outcome. The joint outcome indicates
negotiators ability to cooperate during negotiation and focus on concern for others and
relation-building (Rollof et al., 2003). This is necessary for building networks in the
business world to keep long-term relations and for reaching integrative agreements
when it is possible to do so. Therefore, it was necessary to measure effect of training on
joint outcome.
The studies included 598 undergraduates from seven experiments. All studies used
simulations for multi-issue business agreements. Performance measured in terms of
percentage of negotiators who reached the maximum possible joint outcome. Training
time was short, ranged from 20 minutes to one hour of training. The training method
used in most studies was analogical encoding.
The effect size was r 0.37 and p , 0.05. It is a medium effect size according to
Lipsey and Wilsons (2000) rule. The effect size is in a small range of confidence
interval at 95 per cent (0.20 , r , 0.54). There was a small variance of 0.008, small
standard error SE 0.09, insignificant Q-value (Q 4.785, p 0.572), and the
fail-safe N is 171.
Negotiation training has main effect on joint outcome. Training transfer is higher,
compared to results of the first meta-analysis, short training have less effect on
individual outcome.

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Study two: the second group of meta-analyses


Study two includes three meta-analyses. All were done using studies done during
negotiation courses[3] in American universities. Though these studies did not
investigate negotiation training per se, we can estimate training transfer post hoc by
examining when during the class term the data were collected: the later in the term the
more training the students have had. Given that, almost all negotiation courses follow
the same structured style of training. Agreement rate was the measure of performance,
given that all simulations required students to avoid impasse. Effect size is estimated
using proportion Logit-method in all of the following studies.
Proportion Logit-method is used to measure the effect size in meta-analysis when
studies report proportions only (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). It is used to convert
proportions to logits when it is preferred to discover differences between studies, and
its values are positive and bigger than zero if the original proportion is more than 0.5
(Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). In other words the effect size is big the bigger the Logit than
zero. The following section provides results of the remaining meta-analyses.
The fourth meta-analysis includes six effect sizes from six studies that included 630
MBA students. All studies were done at the second half or last week of a negotiation
course. Simulations used were multi-issue business agreements of salaries of a new
recruit or of purchasing of new machinery. Measuring transfer at the far end of
negotiation courses provides an accurate estimate transferred negotiation skills
(Susskind and Corburn, 2000). Results show that across studies trainees did not have
any impasses. The Logit Point-estimate, 5.2, is large with a small error, SE 0.58,
variance of 0.34, insignificant Q-value (Q 0.94, p 0.967), and the fail-safe N is 173.
The fifth meta-analysis included 15 effect sizes of four studies conducted in the
second week of class with total sample of 442 MBA students and professional
managers. Spending two weeks in class means students received three to eight hours of
training depending on the school academic system, semester or quarter. This is a
medium length of training time.
The results show that Point-estimate is 2.4 which is medium, with a small error,
SE 0.6, variance of 0.35, insignificant Q-value (Q 5.7, p 0.127), and the fail-safe
N is 158.
This point estimate reflect significantly lower effect size (2.14) for agreement rate
compared to effect size after longer period in class.
The sixth meta-analysis includes five effect sizes from five studies conducted at first
day of the negotiation course with total sample of 896 MBA and undergraduate
students.
The results show that the Logit point estimate is 2.028; this is a small effect size.
The error is small, SE 0.27, variance is 0.07 and insignificant Q-value (Q 9.542,
p 0.05), and the fail-safe N is 487.
Results of the previous three meta-analyses support that trainees performance
increases the longer the time they spend in training. The slightly smaller Logit of
trainees who spent one day to those who spent three days maybe due to the small
difference in length of time spent in the course.
Discussion
Negotiation training has direct effect on performance of trainees. Results of study one
and two indicate that even the shortest training program improved performance of

Negotiation
training

203

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

204

trainees. Negotiators should spend more time in training programs to enhance their
performance and gain more skills. More time in training courses means more practice
of business negotiation that builds valuable experience for the trainees.
The results of the six meta-analysis conducted in study one and study two show
increase in the effect size with the increase of length of time spent in training programs.
Results of study one is more meaningful because participants were the same for the
first and second meta-analyses. The elevating effect size for the same participants from
the first to the second meta-analysis reflects how follow up training helps to increase
and maintain skills acquired through negotiation training. Training builds experience
in negotiation. The relatively small effect size of the first meta-analysis reflects that
training provides the base for building negotiation skills and experience. This fact was
confirmed in the second meta-analysis. Besides, we can infer conclusions for methods
of training a mix of experiential and reflective training might be more valuable than
offering experiential training alone as the case in the first meta-analysis.
The results support practices of negotiation training and its effectiveness in
transferring negotiation skills to trainees. This finding can be generalized to the other
factors of negotiation training, because they are measured through the level of received
training. Level of training combines all the interactions happening in the process of
negotiation training. Effects of methods styles and structure of the courses are the
underlined factors of level of training. Level of training is a measure of the overall
effectiveness of these factors. Characteristics of both trainer and trainees are not major
players in the process of training, maybe because the methods of training offset their
effect. However, more in-depth research is required to know how these characteristics
affect training transfer.
Implications for practice
The value of negotiation training is somehow neglected due to the doubts
surrounding its effectiveness and value for maintaining and developing human forces
of the firm. This study supports the value of negotiation training for increasing firms
performance through increasing the negotiation skills of its executives. Enough time
should be allowed for negotiation training, ten hours or more, to guarantee high
training transfer.
Practice of negotiation training should focus on reinforcing gained knowledge
through follow up regular training with enough time. This is the way to maintain
gained negotiation skills. Other fields of training could benefit from the findings.
Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial
fields if long enough, repeated and designed in the appropriate.
Trained negotiators win deals that add financial value to the firm. This is
especially important for survival in tough times. Executives who are good negotiators
are satisfied with their performance and spread productivity in the firm. When
executives win deals for their firms they feel confident, satisfied and self-esteemed.
They are able to improve customer relations, employees satisfaction (Ertel, 1999;
Susskind and Corburn, 2000) and build business networks for the firm. The opposite
is true when they lose deals causing their firms financial loses and a bad reputation.
Firms should build and maintain negotiation skills in its human forces through
negotiation training.

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Implications for theory


The results of this study bring attention to the effect of time spent in training on
participants reactions during negotiation experiments. Most negotiation studies, if not
all, are done during undergraduate and graduate negotiation courses in business
schools. The length of time spent in the negotiation course has a direct effect on
negotiators performance and accumulated experience. This effect should be counted
for when conducting research studies during course.
Length of time spent in the course may moderate or mediate the relationships being
tested between other dependent and independent variables of negotiation studies. This
may skew results of the negotiation experiments conducted at the end of the
negotiation courses. It is better to conduct experiments at the first day of course if
experience is a moderating factor in the experiment. If experience is a variable of
interest, experiments should be kept to the last week of the course. This is especially
true for freshmen.
Limitations and directions for future research
The study was under the general limitations of meta-analysis. Studies included were of
fairly a small number for regular meta-analyses conducted in other fields. This
limitation is due to the publishing restrictions that limit repeating the same study with
different samples in the management journals. A practice allowed with some limitation
in other fields such as psychology and medicine, where meta-analysis is a regular
research practice.
Meta-analysis is essential for validity and generalizability. Drugs are not allowed
for human usage without meta-analysis of a large number of studies tested the drugs
on enough volunteers. To benefit from the power of meta-analysis in theory building
and validation in management fields, some redundancy should be allowed to provide
enough studies to conduct meta-analyses. Management researchers turn around this
situation by conducting meta-analyses on studies that used the same questionnaire or
use the available number of studies as small as it gets. For this paper, studies included
in the meta-analysis represent the population of negotiation training studies.
Some meaningful directions for future research are encouraged. Many aspect of
negotiation training and education are worthy of investigation in order to improve
negotiation training transfer even more. This study focused on few aspects related to
nature of training programs and tools, because it was not feasible to find enough
empirical studies that measure the association between trainers and trainees
characteristics and training transfer. The normal extension of this paper is to develop a
psychometric instrument to estimate the trainees negotiation skills pre- and
post-training. It is necessary to know parts of negotiation skills ingenerated in
personality traits and parts built by learning, to design training programs around the
individual needs of each trainee. This is more valuable for one-on-one training of top
executives that lack time and patience to stay in training for long periods.
The regular practice of providing a mix of the three methods of training in courses
(e.g. Fortgang, 2000), is effective as is with some small additions. Instead of the regular
debriefing after each simulation, it is better to provide a list of effective strategies that
help each role player to reach Pareto-efficient goals. Also, students can be asked to
disclose their strategies. This method would help students more to identify their
weaknesses and strengths to reinforce the learned lessons from the simulations.

Negotiation
training

205

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

206

There are some valuable directions for future research, none was validated
empirically, are worthy of testing. For instance, negotiation experts suggest that
repeating similar or same simulations toward the end of the course helps to increase
and test trainees acquired skills (Pattton, 2000). Engaging trainees in real negotiations
with real businessmen after finishing training is an ideal manner to test trainees
performance in a realistic to avoid self-fulfilling biases of trainees (Pattton, 2000). Other
effective methods are to provide some kind of immediate punishment or rewards in
order to enhance trainees motivation to learn (Kniveton, 1975). There is a need for
more studies in the rich, yet not so cared for, field of negotiation training.
Notes
1. Didactic-analogical training, also referred to as conceptual training, provides trainees with
negotiation principles directly through readings, and lectures (Rollof et al., 2003).
Experiential training is based on Kolbs (1974) model of learning from experience (Lewicki,
1997). Experiential training begins by engaging students in experience, role-play
simulations, and then generalizes knowledge from it, or begins by abstracted lessons and
moves to experience (Lewicki, 1997). Reflective training is a complementary follow up
training to analyze and generalize acquired lessons from experiential training (Rollof et al.,
2003). Reflective training lets participants learn by analyzing their results compared to
others during the debriefing process after simulations (Susskind and Corburn, 2000).
2. According to the behavioral theory, behavior of negotiators refers to the strategies they
apply during negotiation process. Therefore, strategy and behavior are used
interchangeably in this paper.
3. There is a group of 11 studies that been conducted in first week of negotiation course. It was
not clear whether these studies offered training for students at all. So, I e-mailed authors to
ask them first about the exact training time that students received, before deciding to include
these studies in the meta-analysis. It turned out to be one day of training.
References
Anastakis, D. (2003), Negotiation skills for physicians, The American Journal of Surgery,
Vol. 185, pp. 74-8.
Anderson, C. and Thompson, L.L. (2004), Affect from the top down: how powerful individuals
positive affect shapes negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 125-39.
Bazerman, M. and Neale, M.A. (1982), Improving negotiation effectiveness under final offer
arbitration: the role of selection and training, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67,
pp. 543-53.
Bazerman, M.H. (1994), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Bazerman, M.H., Magliozzi, T. and Neale, M.A. (1985), Integrative bargaining in a competitive
market, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, pp. 294-313.
Becker, G. (1975), Human Capital, 2nd ed., National Bureau of Economic Research, New York,
NY.
Berger, G., Kern, M. and Thompson, L. (2003), The enlightened negotiator: what is the best type
of interaction?, Proceedings of the 16th Annual IACM Conference.
Brett, F., Northcraft, G. and Pinkley, R. (1999), Stairways to heaven: an interlocking
self-regulation model of negotiation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 435-51.

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Brett, J.F., Pinkley, R.L. and Jackofsky, E.F. (1996), Alternatives to having BATNA in dyadic
negotiation: the influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7, pp. 121-37.
Brodt, S.E. (1994), Inside information and negotiator decision behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58, pp. 172-202.
Carroll, J.S., Bazerman, M.H. and Maury, R. (1988), Negotiator cognitions: a descriptive approach
to negotiators understanding of their opponents, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 41, pp. 352-65.
Clyman, D.R. and Tripp, T.M. (2000), Discrepant values and measures of negotiator
performance, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp. 251-74.
Coleman, P.T. and Lim, Y.Y.J. (2001), A systematic approach to evaluating the effects of
collaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 17,
pp. 363-92.
Cooper, H.M. (1989), Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Ertel, D. (1999), Turning negotiation into a corporate capability, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 77, pp. 55-70.
Fortgang, R.S. (2000), Taking stock: an analysis of negotiation pedagogy across four
professional fields, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 325-38.
Friedman, R. (1992), From theory to practice: critical choice for mutual gains training,
Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 91-8.
Galinsky, A.D. and Mussweiler, T. (2001), First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking
and negotiator focus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 657-69.
Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T. and Medvec, V.H. (2002), Disconnecting outcomes and
evaluations: the role of negotiator focus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 1131-40.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, G.F. and Thompson, L. (2004), Analogical encoding: facilitating
knowledge transfer and integration, paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society.
Gist, M., Bavetta, A.G. and Stevens, C.K. (1990), Transfer training method: Its influence on skill
generalization, skill repetition, and performance level, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 501-23.
Gist, M., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), Effects of self-efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 837-61.
Gist, M.E. and Stevens, C.K. (1998), Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training
method on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 142-69.
Greenhalgh, L. and Chapman, D.I. (1998), Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and
demonstration of their impact on the process and outcome of negotiation, Group Decision
and Negotiation, Vol. 7, pp. 465-89.
Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W. (1985), The effects of negotiator preferences,
situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 9-33.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, Sage Publications, London.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (2004), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Negotiation
training

207

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

208

Hunter, L. and McKerise, R. (1992), Can mutual gains training change labor-management
relationships?, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 319-30.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley, B. and Magnuson, D. (1995), Training elementary school
students to manage conflict, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 673-86.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J. and Fredrickson, J. (1997), The impact of
conflict resolution training on middle school students, The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 137, pp. 11-21.
Kim, P.H., Diekmann, K.A. and Tenbrunsel, A.E. (2003), Flattery may get you somewhere: the
strategic implications of providing positive vs negative feedback about ability vs
ethicality in negotiation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90,
pp. 225-43.
King, C. and Puls, M. (1996), Global theatre: a training programme for international negotiations
a case study using videoconferencing, Training & Management Development Methods,
Vol. 10, pp. 829-40.
Kniveton, B.H. (1975), Negotiation training and social psychology, Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 6, pp. 59-72.
Koszegi, S. and Kersten, G. (2003), On-line/off-line: joint negotiation teaching in Montreal and
Vienna, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, pp. 337-45.
Lee, D.-H. (1988), A Reformation of the Interorganizational Bargaining Process, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Lewicki, R.J. (1997), Teaching negotiation and dispute resolution in colleges of business: the state
of the practice, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 253-69.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2000), Practical Meta-analysis, Sage Publications, London.
Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L. and Gentner, D. (2003), Analogical learning in negotiation
teams, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2, pp. 119-27.
Mastenbroek, W. (1991), Development of negotiating skills, in Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.),
International Negotiation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 379-99.
Morris, M.W., Larrick, R.P. and Su, S.K. (1999), Misperceiving negotiation counterparts:
when situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 52-67.
Movius, H. (2008), The effectiveness of negotiation training, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24,
pp. 509-31.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. (2003), Learning negotiation skills: four models of
knowledge creation and transfer, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 529-40.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985), The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence
on bargaining behaviors and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28,
pp. 34-49.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1992), Negotiator cognition and rationality: a behavioral
decision theory perspective, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 51, pp. 157-75.
Nierenberg, G.I. (1984), The Art of Negotiating, Pocket Books, New York, NY.
Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A. and Earley, P.C. (1994), Joint effects of assigned goals and training
on negotiator performance, Human Performance, Vol. 7, pp. 257-72.
Northcraft, G.B., Preston, J.N., Neale, M.A., Kim, P.H. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (1998), Non-linear
preference functions and negotiated outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 73, pp. 54-75.

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

Novemsky, N. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2004), What makes negotiators happy? The differential
effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 186-97.
Park, J.-E. and Holloway, B.B. (2003), Adaptive selling behavior revisited, The Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-51.
Pattton, B.M. (2000), On teaching negotiation, in Wheeler, M. (Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideas
and Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 7-62.
Pecorino, P. and Boening, M. (2001), Bargaining and information: an empirical analysis of
multistage arbitration game, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 922-48.
Peterson, R.M. and Lucas, G.H. (2001), Expanding the antecedent component of the traditional
business negotiation model: pre-negotiation literature review and planning-preparation
propositions, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 37-49.
Polzer, J.T. and Neale, M.A. (1995), Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting within
the context of negotiation, Human Performance, Vol. 8, pp. 3-26.
Raiffa, H. (1982), The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Rollof, M., Putnam, L. and Anatasious, L. (2003), Negotiation skills, in Greene, J. and
Burleson, B. (Eds), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 801-34.
Runkle, C., Osterholm, A., Hoban, R., McAdam, E. and Tull, R. (2000), Brief negotiation program
for promoting behavior change, Education for Health, Vol. 13, pp. 377-86.
Russ-Eft, D. and Zenger, J. (1995), Behavior modeling training in North America: a research
summary, in Mulder, M., Nijhof, W. and Brinkerhoff, R. (Eds), Corporate Training for
Effective Performance, Academic Publishers, London.
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), The science of training: a decade of progress, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 471-99.
Stevens, C.K. and Gist, M.E. (1997), Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on
negotiation skill maintenance: what are the mechanisms?, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp. 955-78.
Stevens, C.K., Bavetta, A.G. and Gist, M.E. (1993), Gender differences in the acquisition of salary
negotiation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 723-35.
Susskind, L. (2004), Negotiation training: are you getting your moneys worth?, Negotiation,
pp. 3-5.
Susskind, L. and Corburn, J. (2000), Using simulations to teach negotiation, in Wheeler, B.C.
(Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideas and Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 285-310.
Thompson, L. (1990), Negotiation behavior and outcomes, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,
pp. 515-32.
Thompson, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), Surface-similarity inhibits learning: making the case
for learning in different domains, paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Thompson, L., Gentner, D. and Lowenstein, J. (2000), Avoiding missed opportunities in
managerial life: analogical training more powerful than individual case training,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, pp. 60-75.
Thompson, L., Valley, K.L. and Kramer, R.M. (1995), The bittersweet feeling of success:
an examination of social perception in negotiation, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 467-92.
Van Boven, L. and Thompson, L. (2003), A Look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models
in negotiation, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 6, pp. 387-404.

Negotiation
training

209

JEIT
34,3

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

210

Walters, A.E., Stuhlmacher, A.F. and Meyer, L.L. (1998), Gender and negotiator
competitiveness: a meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 76, pp. 1-29.
Weingart, L.R., Hyder, E.B. and Prietula, M.J. (1996), Knowledge matters: the effect of tactical
descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 1205-17.
Weingart, L.R., Prietula, M.J., Hyder, E.B. and Genovese, C.R. (1999), Knowledge and the
sequential processes of negotiation: a Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 366-77.
Weissbein, D. (2000), Improving Training Effectiveness Through Motivation: Creating a
Psychological States Intervention, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
White, S.B. and Neale, M.A. (1994), The role of negotiators aspirations and settlement
expectations on bargaining outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 57, pp. 303-17.
Further reading
Blount, S., Thomas-Hunt, M.C. and Neale, M.A. (1996), The price is rightor is it? A reference
point model of two-party price negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 68, pp. 1-12.
Bottom, W.P. and Paese, P.W. (1999), Judgment accuracy and the asymmetric cost of errors in
distributive bargaining, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 8, p. 349.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J. and Thompson, L. (2003), Learning and transfer: a general role for
analogical encoding, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 393-405.
Schweitzer, M.E. and Croson, R. (1999), Curtailing deception: the impact of direct questions on
lies and omissions, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10, pp. 225-48.
Shell, G.R. (1999), Bargaining for Advantage, Viking Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Thompson, L. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2004), Why negotiation is the most popular business school
course, Ivey Business Journal Online, Vol. 68, pp. 1-7.
White, S., Valley, K.L., Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.A. and Peck, S.R. (1994), Alternative models of
price behavior in dyadic negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 57, pp. 430-47.
About the author
Eman ElShenawy is Assistant Professor at The Faculty of Commerce at the Suez Canal
University, Ismailia. She joined the Suez Canal University in 1996 not counting her years in the
USA as a PhD student. Her PhD degree was received from Washington State University. Her
research interests are in negotiations, personality traits effects on strategic decision making and
negotiations, cross-cultural teams and entrepreneurship. Eman ElShenawy can be contacted at:
eelshenawy@scuegypt.edu.eg

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 04:53 06 October 2015 (PT)

1. Sai On Cheung, Pui Ting Chow. 2011. Withdrawal in Construction Project Dispute Negotiation. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 137, 1071-1079. [CrossRef]
2. Uta Herbst, Markus Voeth, Christoph Meister. 2011. What do we know about buyerseller negotiations
in marketing research? A status quo analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 967-978. [CrossRef]

You might also like