Aspiration Level
Follett (1940) argued that negotiators are most likely to identify and adopt integrative solutions when they firmly uphold their viewpoints, unless and until they are convinced that these views are not viable.
Walton and McKersie (1965) stressed the importance of motivation in achieving joint gains. According to Pruitt and Lewis (1975), aspirations (goals concerning what and how much the negotiator wants to gain from the negotiation) affect joint gains attainment. These authors and others clearly indicate that negotiators who hold higher aspirations negotiate higher joint gains. Aspirations keep negotiators motivated throughout the negotiation to identify an agreement that fulfills those aspirations; aspirations also deter satisficing4 and motivate search (Galinsky, Mussweiler, & Medvec, 2002; Hamner & Harnett, 1975; Kimmel et al., 1980; Pruitt, 1981; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975). Thus, aspirations stand alongside distributive and integrative strategies as important determinants of negotiation outcomes.In sum, the process lens focuses on joint gains and attempts to identify how negotiation strategy affects joint gains. Research shows that distributive strategy hinders insight and detracts from joint gains, whereas integrative strategy increases the odds of achieving both. In addition, research points out that aspiration level positively affects joint gains, because it motivates search and minimizes satisficing.
The Cultural Lens: What Are
the Relationships Between Culture, Negotiation Strategy, and Joint Gains?
In many ways, the IBM-Lenovo deal covered new and sensitive cultural territory. The two companies had to work together, closely and cooperatively, to assure the U.S. government that handing IBM’s PC business to a Chinese company would not compromise U.S. security. Although the two companies appeared to navigate these particular cultural sensitivities well, cultural slipups still occurred.
For example, IBM executives once failed to meet their Lenovo counterparts at the airport, a major cultural faux pas because it signalled disrespect for the Chinese negotiators (Hamm et al., 2005). Undoubtedly, cultural differences also introduced some challenges at the negotiation table itself. Cultural differences in negotiating strategy are the focus of this section. The prior section reviewed negotiation strategy research primarily conducted in Western cultures— especially the United States. However, recent research has begun to explore negotiation strategy across cultures. This section reviews some of the striking influences of culture on strategy.Culture is the distinct character of a social group (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995). It is composed of observable behaviors and institutions and of largely unobservable psychological elements such as values, beliefs, and norms (Brett, 2007). Culture emerges as a functional solution to group members’ most commonly encountered dilemmas and problems of social interaction (Trompenaars, 1996; Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). Thus, culture provides commonly accepted strategies of action expected to be effective in particular social situations. Research on the impact of culture on negotiation has primarily addressed two questions associated with the model in Figure 11.1. First, do negotiators from different cultures achieve similar levels of joint gains? Second, do negotiators from different cultures use negotiation strategies similarly?