"An analysis of the negotiation process as well as the behavior and actions of individuals and groups within an organization involved in them. A focus on various strategies to conduct successful negotiations and build relationships in an organizational setting."
--Siena Heights University
Negotiating Styles and Personalities
Charles Jacobson
Department of Organizational Leadership, Siena Heights University
LDR 655-OB: Negotiations as a Process
Dr. Robert Cote
March 24, 2024
Negotiating Styles and Personalities
This paper will discuss five distinct types of negotiating styles (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008) and four different personality types (Bogdanoff, 1996) which may affect the way a negotiator comes to the bargaining table. Understanding each of these types and which ones apply to the opposing negotiator can be an effective way to understand the most effective way to negotiate with them to get desired outcomes.
Five Types of Negotiating Styles
There are five types of negotiating styles according to Ogilvie and Kidder (2008). These negotiating styles include competitive, accommodating, collaborative, compromising, and avoiding. Each style can be broken down by defining their focus on taking care of the negotiator's own needs or other’s needs (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). It is important to realize which style a negotiator uses as each can be defended in a particular manner, at the same time it is important to understand that a negotiator can and will use multiple styles (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). There have been links between extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with the need for achievement, as well as links between dominating behaviors and disagreeableness and the need for power (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008).
Competitive
A competitive negotiating style ranks high on the scale of taking care of oneself (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). Negotiators who use this style are not looking for items in which to compromise but are trying to find ways for them to come out on top. Competitive-style negotiators used a more positional stance and spent less time looking for integrative ways to compromise.
Accommodating
Negotiators who use the accommodating style of negotiations show regard for the other side, but not for themselves (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). While this may be productive in agreeing it would not be advantageous to have an accommodating-style negotiator on your team.
Collaborative
The collaborative negotiating style ranks high on the scales of taking care of oneself and others. Collaborators look for ways to come together to find a solution that works for both sides. Collaborators work to get a deal done that is mutually beneficial (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008).
Compromising
The compromising negotiating style can be defined as a combination of looking out for oneself and others, but not to the point of the collaborating style. Compromising negotiators tend to shoot for partial satisfaction for themselves and others (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008).
Avoiding
Negotiators who use the avoiding negotiation style show a low amount of importance to finding solutions for both themself and others (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). Negotiators who avoid, do little to find any common ground and even less to find solutions at all. How does one negotiate with someone who does not want to come to the table? Avoiding negotiations results in no solutions and is non-productive.
Four Personality Types
There are four different personality types in negotiations as described by Bogdanoff (1996). They are described as the driver, analytical, expressive, and amiable negotiation personality types.
Driver (Steamroller)
The driver or steamroller personality type is a person who has little time for details, they are a person who wants the negotiation to go quickly and are only concerned about the bottom line. Facts and figures are for someone else to worry about, so give them limited options. Drivers like to be in control so challenging them can be a treacherous slope. When negotiating with a driver, their impatience and lack of desire for information can be used against them, as the limited options given to them can be tailored for optimum results for the other side. If the driver is well prepared this could become more difficult. Being well-prepared, as a negotiator, is always a great course of action, however, the speed of negotiations, when dealing with a driver personality, makes being well-prepared a must (Bogdanoff, 1996; Pinet & Sander, 2013).
Analytical (Datacrat)
An analytical negotiation personality type relies on information. So, providing them with data is a great way to get them to collaborate, however, they cannot be backed into a corner or made to decide before they are ready. They will need an extended amount of time to make sure that they are making the correct decision (Bogdanoff, 1996).
Expressive (Butterfly)
Expressive negotiation personality types value the relationship between the two negotiating parties over the results. They will want to spend time conversing and getting to know their opponent. They like to do business with those who like and respect them (Bogdanoff, 1996).
Amiable (Mr. Nice Guy)
The amiable negotiation personality type is the largest group of negotiating types. If a person cannot be defined by one of the other categories, they are part of this personality group. Amiable negotiators have a challenging time making decisions and may need more time than some of the other groups. Their main goal is to not offend the other side so they will take time trying to accomplish that goal. They also can be hard to read because of this need to not offend. They may send mixed messages as they try to get what they want yet to do it in a manner that is not offensive (Bodganoff, 1996).
The Author’s Negotiating Style and Personality
The author has an extensive history of negotiating, both at the jewelry store he works at and during his time as a city commissioner and mayor. He likes to believe that he has a collaborating style of negotiating with an amiable personality. This has not always been the case as he began his career, as a politician, as more of a steamroller personality which did not lend itself to building long-term relationships on the commission and at times made it difficult to garner consensus to get things done. This became apparent when others on the board also took a steamroller stance and the commission became a place where ideas went to die in turmoil.
As mayor, the author adopted a more collaborative approach, which always had an analytical component, to always build consensus and teamwork to make sure the commission stayed productive and worked together. The role of the mayor is much different than the role of the commissioner. The mayor should have the welfare of the commission high on their priority list, whereas a commissioner can be less concerned with the welfare of the commission.
At his place of business, the author always negotiates collaboratively with an amiable personality to build long-term relationships. Almost 30 years of negotiating with clients have made it much easier on a day-to-day basis to be successful at coming to agreements that are mutually beneficial with building long-term relationships as the focus.
What Sets the Author Off
The author can be set off by people who come to the table unprepared. He always told his commissioners that he would never be mad if they took an opposing viewpoint if they were prepared and had a basis for their stance. People who do not have a full grasp, because they have not taken the time or initiative, of the implications of a decision or who ignore facts are seen as disrespecting the process and the others who are participating in the process. Wasting other people’s time and energy is disrespectful and makes the author question why the unprepared person is even involved.
References
Bogdanoff, E. S. (1996). Recognizing personality types. American Agent & Broker, 68(7), 16.
https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/recognizing-personality-types/docview/194955932/se-2
Ogilvie, J. R., & Kidder, D. L. (2008). What about negotiator styles? International Journal of
Conflict Management, 19(2), 132-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810856076
Pinet, A., & Sander, P. (2013). The only negotiation book you’ll ever need. Adams Media, a division of F & W Media, Inc.
Defining, Identifying, and Combatting Common Negotiation Tactics
Charles Jacobson
Department of Organizational Leadership, Siena Heights University
LDR 655-OB: Negotiations as a Process
Dr. Robert Cote
April 7, 2024
Defining, Identifying, and Combatting Common Negotiation Tactics
Negotiation Tactics
According to Robinson et al. (2000), there are five negotiating tactics. These include bluffing, misrepresenting their position, falsification, deception, and misrepresentation to constituencies. These tactics are used to gain an advantage; however, they can have detrimental effects on future ongoing relationships due to their nature. It has been found that negotiators who believed their deceptive practices would come to light were less likely to use them Volkema & Leme Fleury, 2002).
Bluffing (Add-on and Nibbling)
Bluffing occurs when a negotiator is not truthful in taking an action. Bluffing techniques could be used to inch an opposing negotiator closer to the position they would like, similar to the add-on and nibbling technique, where a deal is agreed upon and then one side asks to add a little more to the agreement (Pinet & Sander, 2013). Bluffing could also be an instance where something of no value is portrayed as having value, and used accordingly, to gain something of value. Fake promises, such as agreeing to a deal and then asking for a little more, were seen as the second most unethical negotiation practice (Robinson et al., 2000).
The add-on/nibbling tactic occurs after a deal has been presumably successfully negotiated. A deal has been struck, but before it is signed, the opposing side asks to add just one more thing. They are banking on the fact that the relief from getting the deal done overrides the desire to continue to fight over a small addition. The way to overcome this tactic is to have each side list all of the topics they would like to talk about before the negotiations begin. Then questions should also continuously be asked throughout the process whether there is anything else they would like to add. When the final agreement has been made there is no excuse for adding on as there were opportunities throughout the process. If the opposing side persists, it is effective to have small add-ons of your own to counter theirs which will more than likely shut down any further efforts to add on (American Management Association, 2023).
Misrepresenting Their Position (Good Cop/Bad Cop)
Negotiators misrepresenting their position is another commonly used negotiation tactic. Good cop/bad cop is a great example of negotiators working to muddy the waters with different arguments coming from one side (Pinet & Sander, 2013). Misrepresenting their position causes time to be wasted, and does not show an air of collaboration, as important information is being held from the other side. It is important to get all sides as much information as possible, as the more people involved, the more different ideas will be promoted, and a possible solution found (Brodt & Thompson, 2001). Robinson et al. (2000) found misrepresentation as the most egregious unethical negotiation tactic.
The classic good cop/bad cop tactic can employ multiple people with one person/group
attempting to get more and being less collaborative with the opponent, while another
person/group appears to be more collaborative. Sometimes this tactic can be produced by just
one individual taking both roles. The best way to counter this tactic is to be forthright and open
by telling the opposing side that you would like to work in a more collaborative manner. If that
does not work focus your attention on dealing with the good cop (Shonk, 2024).
Falsification (Straw-Man Technique)
Falsification occurs when wrong, or error-filled information is introduced to confuse (Robinson et al., 2000). This could be an instance where something of no value is portrayed as having value, and used accordingly, to gain something of value. This is commonly referred to as the straw-man technique (Pinet and Sander, 2013). Falsification can lead to a fractured relationship which could result in more difficult dealings in the future (Saraydar, 1984).
This is a difficult tactic to uncover. Coming to the negotiating table prepared is a great way to start. Preparing, and understanding, the opposing side will make it easier to catch a situation where they are proposing a false value for a concession. The best way to counter this tactic is to ask more questions to try to pick apart why they value this concession in such a manner. If they do not want to participate in digging deeper you know that they are attaching a false value. Participating in further discussion allows the opportunity to discover the real value of the concession (American Management Association, 2023).
Deception (Shills and Decoys)
Deception occurs when a negotiator argues in such a manner that the opposing negotiator is left with only the ability to come to an erroneous conclusion (Robinson et al., 2000). The use of shills and decoys (Pinet & Sander, 2013) are tactics negotiators use to deceive the other side. Once discovered, this type of practice would be very damaging to future relationships between the negotiators.
Using shills and decoys is another tactic that is employed during the negotiation process. Negotiators can throw a massive amount of information into the process which is meant to confuse and overwhelm the other side. Much of this information is used to cause the other side to come to conclusions that may or may not be true. This clouds the judgment of the opponent from seeing the real facts that are pertinent to their negotiation. The key is to understand what is being presented and ask questions to make sure that you understand. Do not agree to anything that you do not understand. Many times, this information will need experts in the field, as the negotiator presenting it will use technical information and terminology requiring topical expertise (American Management Association, 2023).
Misrepresentation to Constituencies
Portraying partial truths or mistruths as facts regarding other parties in the negotiating relationship is another tactic used during negotiations (Robinson et al., 2000). These untruths are even more damaging today with the 24-hour news cycle and the proliferation of information available on social media which can be spread quickly, with little attention to the factuality of the information and little recourse. This type of added pressure which is now added to the negotiation process can have a strong effect on where they end.
Negotiators will at times misconstrue their opponent’s actions to their constituents. In the past, this may not have been as prevalent as the time required to get this information passed out would be too long. However, today, in the world of emails and social media, this information can be disseminated in real-time. The amount of pressure garnered, by this passing of information, from the constituents can be quite large, thereby affecting where the negotiations lead from that moment.
Conclusion
It is important to be able to understand by identifying when a particular negotiation process is being used. Knowing that a particular negotiation process is being used is tantamount to, effectively negating it, and subsequently moving forward to find the preferred result in the negotiation process.
The negotiation tactics discussed in this paper have a broader acceptance in the negotiation process than they would in other normal business transactions. By agreeing to negotiate both sides are admitting that they would like to interact and, more than likely, continue to have relations (Lenarčič et al., 2023). Negotiators, while not happy about the use of these tactics, assume that they are part of the negotiation process. It is all part of the game of negotiating a deal. Negotiators understand that most people can agree, as long as they feel the other side is working toward an agreement as well (Schelling, 1957). These negotiation tactics can cause some division, however, that is negated somewhat by the understanding of them occurring in the context of the negotiation process. Fleck et al. (2013) found that the best predictor of a negotiator’s desire to work with another negotiator in the future was the fact that an agreement was reached and the negotiators positive feelings about the outcome of that agreement.
References
American Management Association. (2023, May 5). The 5 most common negotiation tactics and how to counter them. The 5 most common negotiation tactics and how to counter them. Retrieved April 7, 2024, from https://www.amanet.org/articles/the-5-most-common-negotiation-tactics-and-how-to-counter-them/
Brodt, S., & Thompson, L. (2001). Negotiating teams: A levels of analysis approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 208-219. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.5.3.208
Fleck, D., Volkema, R., Levy, B., Pereira, S., & Vaccari, L. (2013). Truth or consequences: The effects of competitive-unethical tactics on negotiation process and outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 328-351. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-11-2012-0084
Fulmer, I. S., Barry, B., & Long, D. A. (2009). Lying and smiling: Informational and emotional deception in negotiation: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 691-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9975-x
Lenarčič, B., Faganel, A., & Zoran, A. G. (2023). Research on the principles and actual alternative proposals for a commercial negotiation approach. [Raziskava načel in alternativnih predlogov za pristop v sodobna komercialna pogajanja] RUO.Revija Za Univerzalno Odlicnost, 12(3), 178-198. https://doi.org/10.37886/ruo.2023.012
Pinet, A., & Sander, P. (2013). The only negotiation book you’ll ever need. Adams Media, a division of F & W Media, Inc.
Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor
model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(6), 649-664. 3.0.CO;2-#"
TARGET="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-
JOB45>3.0.CO;2-#
Saraydar, E. (1984). Modeling the Role of Conflict and Conciliation in Bargaining: The
dichotomy of motivation the model degree of firmness and the decision move timing asa
quasi bargaining tactic explicit communication, expectations, and the decision move time
as a bargaining tactic external firmness as a bargaining tactic bluff tactics and “loss of
face” notbluff, conflict, and conciliation optimum us of conflict and conciliation
references.The Journal of Conflict Resolution (Pre-1986), 28(3), 420. https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly- journals/modeling-role-conflict-conciliation-bargaining/docview/235762196/se-2
Schelling, T. C. (1957). Bargaining, communication, and limited war: Tacit Co-ordination
(Common Interests) Tacit Bargaining (Divergent Interests) Explicit Bargaining Tacit
Negotiation and Limited War Prior Arrangements REFERENCES. The Journal of
Conflict Resolution (Pre-1986), 1(1), 19.
https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/bargaining-communication-limited-war/docview/235719862/se-2
Shonk, K. (2024, February 9). The good cop, bad cop negotiation strategy. PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/the-good-cop-bad-cop-negotiation-strategy/
Volkema, R. J., & Leme Fleury, M. T. (2002). Alternative negotiating conditions and the choice of negotiation tactics: A Cross-cultural comparison: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(4), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014496017565
The Internet and Immediate Access to Information’s Role in Negotiations
Charles Jacobson
Department of Organizational Leadership, Siena Heights University
LDR 655-OB: Negotiations as a Process
Dr. Robert Cote
April 24, 2024
The Internet and Immediate Access to Information’s Role in Negotiations
This paper will be a qualitative study of the effects of the Internet on negotiations. Ease of access to information as well as the complications created by remote negotiations will be explored.
The internet and the ability, of nearly everyone, to gain instant access to information has had an incredible impact on negotiations. The ability for negotiators to look up information in real time during the negotiation process, even while sitting at the negotiating table, has sped up the process (Pinet & Sander, 2013). The fact that both sides have almost equal access to the information takes away some of the ability of negotiators to bluff, or even in unfortunate circumstances, to attempt to mislead or sandbag the information they are producing. There is also a huge influence from the public with the internet and the instant access people have to information that was not available so quickly before (Pinet & Sander, 2013). This is extremely visible in the field of government as information can be easily delivered to the public to both inform and incite.
Ease of Access to Information
The overwhelming use, quicker learning times, and availability of devices that can access the internet have made the movement of information much more fluid. No longer does a person need to wait to read the newspaper, or to show up at work to find out how the negotiations are going. They can be updated in real time through social media, text groups, and email.
With the push of a button, a negotiator can inform the people they represent in their own words, delivering their message. There is no need for some third party to report what is happening the negotiator can formulate the message they want to send in the manner they want to send it. Sometimes things get lost in translation when there is a middle person such as a reporter. Now the negotiator controls the message and puts their slant on what is happening.
Negotiator’s Access to Information
The ease of access to information is a key development of the internet. In the past, negotiators might need to stop their negotiations, for hours or days, to check with others to verify information such as financials and other data. Now, with a simple search public information is readily available to both parties while private information that might be needed can be accessed by the negotiator for that side of the negotiation. Information that is needed to continue the negotiation process, whether it is to verify facts to corroborate with the opposite side, or to help understand the ramifications of an offered concession, can now be accessed in real-time allowing for much faster negotiations.
Access to information, quickly and easily, aids in leveling the playing field as it causes a shift in the power that information brings and makes both sides more equal. Information access also serves to help counter tactics that might be used such as bluffing and misrepresenting the facts. A negotiator will be less likely to attempt to use deceptive practices if they think their deception would be uncovered (Volkema & Leme Fleury, 2002). The availability of the equipment to access the internet and the knowledge of how to use it allows for more of these deceptive practices to be uncovered which results in a reduction in their use. This allows negotiators to focus on other aspects of the negotiation, thereby making negotiations more efficient.
Remote Negotiations
Negotiations that occur remotely whether it be by text, email, or videoconferencing each have their complications. The written word can be difficult to decipher context and tone, so email and text both have that extra layer of communication complications. Zoom and other videoconferencing applications do include the visual aspect of communication, however, screen size implementation can give a reduced signal when compared to in-person contact as a person’s hands and arms may be out of the screen.
Body Language
Body language can be up to 2/3 of the communication process (Gupta, 2013). Body language can express both positive and negative connotations . The use of emails and texts in the negotiation process therefore removes 2/3 of the information a negotiator could glean from being in an in-person negotiation process. Videoconferencing allows for visual contact; however, the visual aspect can be manipulated to only include facial expressions, and the other bodily cues normally taken from in-person negotiations are lost. So, while videoconferencing is better than email or text in providing body language indicators it can provide incomplete information in comparison to in-person negotiations.
Positive Body Language
Body language makes up a major percentage of our process of communication. It has been estimated that two-thirds of communication is conveyed through body language (Gupta, 2013). Positive body language is made up of actions such as maintaining eye contact, smiling, nodding while listening, and sitting or standing up straight are all great examples of projecting positive body language (Kucuk, 2023).
Displaying positive body language in the negotiation process is important as it contributes to the building of the negotiator’s influence during the process. Maintaining eye contact shows many things to the opposing negotiator. Maintaining eye contact while speaking can show warmth, confidence, and a sense of control which are all positive traits for coming to a positive result while negotiating. Standing or sitting up straight also shows an air of confidence. Smiling while speaking or listening shows a quality of warmth which may be beneficial in increasing trust and collaboration to help close the win-win deals that can be so valuable. Nodding while listening shows that a person is attentive and actively listening, again great traits to show to build rapport to help increase collaboration (Kucuk, 2023).
Negative Body Language
Negative body language can include actions such as crossing your arms, frowning, avoiding eye contact, and slouching. These forms of body language show a closed-off position which is not willing to engage the other. Crossing your arms shows an unwillingness to engage, and a standoffishness that is not conducive to creating a collaborative environment. Likewise, frowning shows a lack of friendliness which would be detrimental to building the kind of positive relationship that would produce a collaborative resolution. Slouching can give the appearance that you are uninterested and disengaged and can affect your level of confidence. (Kucuk, 2023).
Remote negotiations also have some benefits. People who negotiated in writing whether by text or email were less likely to be emotional and more likely to use logic. They were also able to repeat each of the other’s concerns and address them one by one which would be more difficult in a face-to-face negotiation. These benefits of remote negotiations were more readily seen in asynchronous communications as compared to synchronous communications (Robert et al., 2004).
Informing the Public
The internet provides the ability to inform the public in real-time and even before time. The ability to give quick updates increases access for the intended audience and allows for both the immediate release of information and a way to get information to people quickly so that they might be able to be mobilized in a way that was not available before the internet.
Public Information
The internet allows people to get information out quickly to their intended audience. If there is a piece of information which is needed to be disbursed it can be quickly done through email, text, or social media distribution. The intended audience can be built through the collection of email and phone numbers by the message sender, and also by the message receiver through the process of signing up for notifications or following certain information deliverers. These processes make it quick and easy to get the information that you want to send to the people who want to hear it. The key here is that it takes little effort on both sides to get involved in the communication process. One can imagine a union negotiator sending the results of a negotiation that just concluded to its members, or a city sending information about its next commission meeting to the public to let them know what is going to be discussed at their next meeting. These are effective ways to get needed information to people who have a vested interest in receiving it.
Public Pressure
There is another side to the value of the ease of information dissemination. The ability to use information to your advantage in the bargaining process through the cultivation and use of public pressure.
Social media is a great avenue for cultivating and manipulating public pressure to your advantage. With social media, the information sender controls their message. There is no longer a need for a middleman to pass the message along which decreases the chance of the message being misconstrued or watered down. The information sender has total control. The message can be tailored to elicit a desired response from its receivers. Many times, the first person out with the message sets the tone for what happens next.
Imagine a union negotiator sending out an update from a recently concluded negotiation session and what tone they could set with their constituents depending on how they word their comments. They may be able to even use email or text to their advantage by wording things in such a way that their intended audience may get riled up, but they can go back to their opposing negotiator and use the excuse that they misread his tone and context because it was a written communication. This gives the negotiator both the benefit of riling up his constituents and saving face with his opposing negotiator by saying he did not intend to rile them up. This is part of the internet version of theatrics that could be used today.
In government, we see examples of elected officials using social media to get their constituents fired up to voice their opinions. Local government officials have been known to put out calls for people to attend meetings to let their voices be heard, which is much more effective now, due to social media and the internet, than it ever was in the past. The power of many people showing up to a meeting to voice their opinions cannot be overstated.
Conclusion
The Internet has had a strong influence on negotiation practices. Both sides have easier access to information, which allows for faster negotiation times (Pinet & Sander, 2013). The reduction in non-verbal communication by using text and email (Kucuk, 2023) can be somewhat offset by the ability to look back at the written conversation and address items point by point (Robert et al., 2004). The ability to quickly disseminate information, and to be able to control the message, to those who have a vested interest, is a valuable use of the internet. Also using this quick information-delivering process enables constituents to be rallied quickly to put added pressure on negotiations.
References
Gupta, N. (2013). Effective body language in organizations. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(1), 35-44. Retrieved from https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effective-body-language- organizations/docview/1434861392/se-2
Kucuk, T. (2023). The power of body language in education: A study of teachers’
perceptions. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(3), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i3p275.
Pinet, A., & Sander, P. (2013). The only negotiation book you’ll ever need. Adams Media, a division of F & W Media, Inc.
Robert, v. E., French, W., & Stellmaszek, F. (2004). Resolving conflicts over ethical issues: Face-to-face versus internet negotiations: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, Suppl.Building Ethical Institutions for Business (Guest Editors:, 53(1-2), 165- 172. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039406.58170.67
Volkema, R. J., & Leme Fleury, M. T. (2002). Alternative negotiating conditions and the choice of negotiation tactics: A cross- cultural comparison: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(4), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014496017565
The Internet and Immediate Access to Information's Role in Negotiations Presentation