Over the last years the number of business partnerships has increased significantly (e.g., Eden
and Huxham, 2001; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Teegen and Doh, 2002). There are various
drivers for this kind of strategic re-orientation among companies. Whereas companies have
previously relied on profitability of protected home markets, the changed economic climate1
has fostered collaboration between them (Bleeke and Ernst, 1993). Firms collaborate to master
the challenges caused by these changes. At the same time they benefit from better access
to new markets, pooling or swapping technology, sharing of risks, larger economies of scale
in joint research and/or production, and economies of scope (e.g., Contractor and Lorange,
1988; Lorange and Roos, 1991).
Business partnerships can be defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent
firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and acknowledge a high level of
mutual interdependency (Mohr and Spekman, 1994, p. 135). Examples of organizational
forms which support this kind of cooperation are strategic alliances, joint ventures, licence
agreements, research and development (R&D) partnerships, and franchising (e.g., Borys and
Jemison, 1989; Ring and Van de Ven, 1992).
Ring and Van de Ven (1994) explain that business partnerships emerge, evolve and dissolve
over time. In spite of the benefits which business partnerships can contribute to a company's
success, reported failure rates range between 30 and 70 percent (e.g., Bleeke and Ernst, 1993;
Das and Teng, 2000; Visioni, 2002).
Differences between collaborating companies in terms of aims, cultures, structures, procedures,
languages, power, and accountabilities are said to make the effective management of
business partnerships not easy and are admittedly unerringly negative influencing factors on
their success (e.g., Eden and Huxham 2001). [...]
1 e.g., emergence of intense global competition, economic integration among countries, formation of regional
markets, technological innovation, and shortening of product life cycles (cf. Olson and Singsuwan, 1997).
2 Partnerships attributes are, for example, trust, interdependency, commitment, culture, cooperation, and
coordination.
3 Communication behaviour: quality, participation, and information sharing.
4 Conflict Resolution techniques: joint problem solving, persuasion, domination, and harsh words.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Relevance to Business Practice
1.2. Academic Relevance
1.3. Theoretical Contribution of this Thesis
1.4. Thesis Structure
2. Literature Review – Negotiation Style Scoring Instruments
2.1. Psychometric Properties – An Overview
2.1.1. Reliability Indexes
2.1.2. Validity Indexes
2.2. Historical Development of Approaches to Measure Negotiation Behaviour
2.3. The Managerial Grid
2.4. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument
2.4.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
2.4.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
2.5. The Conflict Management Message Style Instrument
2.5.1. Critical Assessment of Theoretical Foundation
2.5.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
2.6. The Hall Conflict Management Survey
2.6.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
2.6.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
2.7. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II
2.7.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
2.7.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
2.8. The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument
2.8.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
2.8.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
2.9. Conclusion
3. Discussion of an Integrated Theoretical Foundation
3.1. Attitude-Behaviour Theorising
3.1.1. The Theory of Reasoned Action
3.1.2. Critical Assessment of the TRA
3.2. Developing a New Model for the Explanation of an Individual’s Behaviour
3.2.1. Predispositions
3.2.2. Strategy
3.2.3. Tactics
3.2.4. Relational Influencing Factors
3.2.5. Situational Influencing Factors
3.3. A Model for the Classification of Negotiation Styles
4. Development of the Negotiation Styles Scoring Instrument
4.1. Construct Definition
4.2. Object Classification
4.3. Attribute Classification
4.4. Rater Identification
4.5. Scale formation
4.6. Enumeration
4.7. Designing Scenarios to Define Different Negotiation Situations
5. Empirical Validation of the Proposed Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument
5.1. Methodology
5.1.1. Participants
5.1.2. Procedure and Results
5.2. Discussion of the Results
6. Suggestion of a New Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument
7. Summary and Conclusions
8. References
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this thesis is to develop and empirically validate a new scoring instrument that accurately measures a manager's negotiation style specifically within the context of business partnerships. The work seeks to address the gap in existing academic literature where current instruments fail to account for the interplay between an individual's stable negotiation predispositions, their planned strategies, and their adaptive tactics when influenced by specific relational and situational variables.
- The impact of relational factors, such as interdependency and the behaviour of the other party, on negotiation outcomes.
- The integration of attitude-behaviour theorising and the interactionism approach to explain negotiation behaviour.
- The critical evaluation of existing conflict and negotiation style instruments regarding their psychometric properties and theoretical foundations.
- The development of a measurement scale using the C-OAR-SE procedure to ensure content validity.
- The influence of situational context, such as negotiation issues (claiming vs. creating value), on the choice of negotiation tactics.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Attitude-Behaviour Theorising
The concept idea of attitude-behaviour theorising is to explain human behaviour by underlying attitudes (Ajzen, 1988). The attitude-behaviour theorising is based on the broad assumption of consistency in human affairs. Following the fact that consistency and regularity in our physical world are taken for granted, most psychologists claim that, even though human thoughts and feelings are not physical, consistency is a fundamental property of human thoughts, feelings, and actions (Ajzen, 1988). The dispositional view proposes the idea of behavioural consistency; otherwise put, consistency across different behaviours, performed in different situations, to the extent that the behaviours in question are all instances of the same underlying disposition (Ajzen, 1988). In reverse, psychologists could not attribute individual’s reactions toward a given target to stable underlying dispositions if they were completely inconsistent across time and various contexts. For both personality and social psychologists it is common to explain human behaviour by a person’s stable underlying dispositions.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the practical and academic relevance of negotiation styles in business partnerships, establishing the need for a new validated instrument.
2. Literature Review – Negotiation Style Scoring Instruments: Provides a comprehensive critique of existing conflict and negotiation instruments, evaluating their theoretical foundations and psychometric properties.
3. Discussion of an Integrated Theoretical Foundation: Develops a conceptual framework based on attitude-behaviour theorising to explain negotiation behaviour as a result of predispositions, strategies, and tactics.
4. Development of the Negotiation Styles Scoring Instrument: Applies the C-OAR-SE procedure to generate items and design the structure for the new scoring instrument.
5. Empirical Validation of the Proposed Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument: Describes the empirical study conducted with postgraduate students to test the validity and reliability of the proposed instrument.
6. Suggestion of a New Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument: Presents the final version of the refined scoring instrument based on the empirical findings.
7. Summary and Conclusions: Summarises the findings, discusses limitations, and suggests avenues for future research.
Keywords
Negotiation, business partnerships, negotiation style, scoring instrument, psychometric properties, attitude-behaviour theorising, C-OAR-SE, reliability, validity, managerial grid, conflict management, negotiation strategy, negotiation tactics, interactionism, business management.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this thesis?
The thesis aims to develop a new, empirically validated scoring instrument designed specifically to measure a manager's negotiation style within the context of business partnerships.
What are the primary research themes explored?
The core themes include the integration of individual predispositions with strategic and tactical choices, the influence of relational and situational variables on negotiation behaviour, and the development of measurement scales that meet rigorous validity standards.
What is the primary goal or research question?
The goal is to fill the academic gap left by existing instruments that treat negotiation behaviour as a stable, context-independent trait, and instead provide a tool that captures the dynamic nature of negotiations in inter-organisational settings.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes a literature review to identify shortcomings in current models, followed by the application of the C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development and an empirical survey involving postgraduate students to test the instrument's validity and reliability.
What does the main body cover?
The main body examines existing psychometric instruments, discusses the theoretical foundations of human behaviour (specifically attitude-behaviour theorising), details the methodology for creating the new scoring instrument, and presents the empirical results of the study.
Which keywords best characterise this research?
The work is characterised by terms such as negotiation, business partnerships, psychometric properties, C-OAR-SE, conflict management, and attitude-behaviour theorising.
How does the proposed model handle different negotiation situations?
The model incorporates relational and situational factors by designing specific scenarios (building blocks) that represent variations in interdependency and negotiation issues, allowing managers to tailor the assessment to their specific business context.
Why is the "C-OAR-SE" procedure used instead of traditional factor analysis?
The author argues that traditional factor analysis and internal consistency checks are insufficient for ensuring content validity. The C-OAR-SE approach prioritizes theoretical definition and content validity, which the author contends provides a more robust foundation for developing measurement instruments in the social sciences.
- Quote paper
- Christian Wurm (Author), 2003, Development of a Validated Scoring Instrument for Businesses to Help Measure Negotiation Styles in Business Partnerships, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/24588
