Search

Although negotiations between teams can result in informational advantages resulting in higher joint gain, the presence of teams can also undermine trust, fuel competition, and impair joint gain. This research addresses this challenge by using structured dialogues to develop trust that helps to establish cooperative interdependence between teams. Building upon prior research in negotiations and intergroup relations, we propose that superordinate goal dialogues can increase trust and facilitate strategy to generate high quality outcomes. Across four face-to-face negotiation studies, we document that structured dialogues about superordinate goals increase trust and teams’ use of negotiation strategy to ultimately improve joint gain. We identify the boundary conditions that shape when superordinate goal dialogues are most likely to increase joint gain, as well as when they will not be effective.

PurposeIt is important to infer and diagnose whether a negotiator is trustworthy. In international negotiations, people may assume that high-trust nations are more likely to produce more trustworthy negotiators. Does this assumption hold universally? This study aims to address this research question by investigating the relationship between national-level societal trust and individual-level trust in negotiations.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a cross-sectional research design and a sample of 910 senior managers from 58 nations or regions. The hypotheses are tested by hierarchical linear modeling.FindingsThis study draws on the dynamic constructivist theory of culture to propose moderated hypotheses. Results show that societal trust predicts individuals’ social perceptions of attitudinal trust in negotiations, only when cultural face norms are weak rather than strong; societal trust predicts individuals’ social perceptions of behavioral trust in negotiations (i.e. high information sharing and low competitive behavior), only when negotiators process information analytically rather than holistically.Originality/valueThis study is the first to examine the relationship between national-level societal trust (i.e. generalized trust) and individual-level trust in negotiations (i.e. particularistic trust). It uses a large-scale, multinational sample to show that relying on societal trust to infer trust in negotiations is valid only in Western societies.

This chapter reviews the theory and research linking culture, negotiation strategy, and joint gains. It distinguishes between motivational and behavioral theories of negotiation strategy but concludes that two theories of strategy are functionally equivalent with respect to predicting joint gains as both measure value-claiming and value-creating strategy. It explains how the intersection of cultural levels of trust and tightness–looseness account for cultural differences in the use of negotiation strategy. It concludes, based on a meta-analysis, that value-creating negotiation strategy as conceptualized and measured by motivational or behavioral theory predicts joint gains in Western, but not in non-Western, culture negotiations.

In three studies, we investigate a new low-trust path to negotiate joint gains. Study 1 used meta-analytical evidence to establish that frequent use of multi-issue offers (MIOs) predicts joint gains, even after controlling for use of information sharing. Study 2 used a senior manager sample and showed that low-trust negotiators used MIOs more frequently than high-trust negotiators, and negotiators who use MIOs and also processed information with a holistic rather than analytic mindset generated more accurate insight and higher joint gains. Study 3 used an experimental design and examined the full path through which low-trust negotiators rely on MIOs to develop insight and reach joint gains. By proposing and testing a new low-trust path to joint gains, this research increases our understanding of trust in negotiations and provides practical advice for negotiators who are themselves low-trust or who face low-trust counterparts.

Mixed-motive negotiations are strategically, socially, and motivationally complex. Theorists argue that multiparty negotiations exacerbate these complexities leading to inefficient outcomes. In contrast, we propose that multiparty negotiators respond to the complexities of their negotiation context by using strategy differently than dyadic negotiators and that one reason why is that they arrive at the negotiation table with weaker fixed pie perceptions than dyadic negotiators. Results across three studies showed that multiparty negotiators had weaker fixed pie perceptions compared to dyadic negotiators. Multiparty negotiators also engaged in more integrative strategic behavior and used more complex complementary and structural sequences of behavior than dyadic negotiators. These differences in use of strategy helped multiparty negotiators achieve Pareto efficient outcomes equal to those of dyads. To obtain a conservative estimate of the effect size of context on fixed pie perceptions, we conducted an internal meta-analysis of our file drawer.

Purpose This study aims to address three important but under-researched questions in the trust and negotiation literature: What do negotiators do to determine the trustworthiness of a potential business partner? What trust criteria motivate their search and help them interpret the information their search reveals? Whether there are systematic cultural differences in search and criteria, and if different, why? Design/methodology/approach This study used qualitative methodology. The data are from interviews with 82 managers from 33 different national cultures in four regions of the world identified by cultural levels of trust in negotiation and tightness-looseness. Interviews focused on how negotiators determined the trustworthiness of potential business partners in intracultural negotiations. Findings Analyses revealed four search activities negotiators use to gather information about a potential business partner: due diligence, brokerage, good will building and testing; and five criteria for determining the trustworthiness of a new business partner: respect, mutual values, competence, openness and professionalism. Quotes illustrate how these search activities and criteria manifest in different cultures. Research limitations/implications This study used multiple cases to build a longitudinal picture of the process. It did not follow a single case in depth. The study focused on identifying cultural central tendencies at the same time recognizing that there is always variability within a culture. Practical implications Knowing what is culturally normative allows negotiators to anticipate, interpret and respect their counterpart’s behavior. Such knowledge should facilitate trust development. Originality/value This study provides an in-depth understanding of cultural similarities and differences in the process of trust development in negotiating new business relationships.

Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring itto a stalemate. How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making. If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.

The literature on the use and effectiveness of negotiation strategies reveals intriguing yet unexplained patterns of cultural differences. Negotiators in some regions of the world rely on the quest...

This article, adapted from “How Mediation Works: Theory, Research, and Practice,” published earlier this year by Emerald Insight, is intended in part for a traditional audience of mediators, aspiring mediators, and lawyers. But the book also aimed at a broader audience, including the increasing number of disputants who have been directed or encouraged to mediate by judges or lawyers, yet know little or nothing about it.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss cultural causes of conflict in the workplace and call for research to address what happens when cultures collide generating workplace conflict. The author assumes that because cultures differ in terms of functional solutions to problems of social interaction that there will be conflict when people from different cultures are interdependent in the workplace. The author discusses types of culture and their conflict management profiles with respect to three characteristics of conflict management: direct vs indirect confrontation; emotional expression, and third party conflict management. The author proposes what happens when cultures collide and calls for research on those collisions. Design/methodology/approach Application of the cultural literature on self-worth to three elements of workplace conflict: direct vs indirect confrontation of conflict, feelings and expressions of negative emotions associated with conflict and timing and type of third party intervention. Findings When people from dignity, face, and honor cultures are working together the fundamental differences in the logic of self-worth in these three types of culture may cause conflict. People from dignity and honor cultures are likely to confront conflict directly, while those from face cultures are more likely to confront conflict indirectly. Workplace conflict generates negative emotions, but culture seems to affect whether that emotion is anger, shame or both. The timing of third party intervention into workplace conflict, that is, how managers intervene in workplace conflict has some parallels with how community mediators act in that culture. Research limitations/implications There is limited research comparing management of workplace conflict in dignity, face, and honor cultures. The author generates propositions and suggests a research strategy for collecting data to test propositions. Practical implications Understanding what is culturally normative in terms of self-worth, confrontation, emotional expression, and managerial intervention can help people involved in workplace conflict understand what they are experiencing. It can also help managers intervene effectively. Social implications How people react to workplace conflict varies with culture as does how managers intervene. Knowing this provides people with the first element of cultural intelligence that may help them manage conflict to facilitate a more creative and effective multicultural work environment. Originality/value This paper integrates theory and research from cross-cultural psychology, the psychology of emotion and the literature on third party intervention into community conflict to explain the patterns of cultural conflict and conflict management in the workplace. It also suggests what it may take to manage cultural conflict in the workplace successfully.

Purpose This study aims to explain to negotiators how to go about learning about their counterpart’s interests and priorities and the strategies they are likely to bring to the intercultural negotiation table. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a review of theoretical and empirical literature on culture and negotiation strategy. Findings This study helps to understand the counterpart’s environment, including recent developments on the political economic and social front that define and constrain the role of the firm in society, affect the firm’s access to capital, generate the criteria by which society evaluates the firm and determine the level of involvement of government in the firm’s affairs. This study also explains how to investigate the counterpart’s interests and priorities – the motivations that underlie negotiator’s positions. Finally, it explains how to use multi-issue offers (MIOs) and patterns of changes in MIOs to infer the counterpart’s interests and priorities. Originality/value Negotiating in a global environment benefits from a clear understanding of how negotiators’ cultures influence their interests and priorities and the strategies they bring to the intercultural negotiation table.

The first across-the-table negotiation between Google and China concluded successfully in 2006, when Google received a license to establish a local domain (google.cn) targeted at Chinese Internet users and not subject to the “Great Firewall.” During these negotiations both Google and the Chinese government struggled to reach an outcome that would be acceptable to their constituents. Google was caught between pleasing its shareholders and preserving its reputation for free access to information, while China was balancing the desire for cutting-edge search technology and the concern that liberal access to information would undermine its political-economic model. In the end, the negotiation resulted in Google operating two domains in China: Google.com and Google.cn. In early 2010, Google announced that its corporate infrastructure had been the target of a series of China-based cyber attacks and accused the Chinese government of attempting to further limit free speech on the web. These incidents led to a public conflict and private negotiations between Google and the Chinese government, which culminated in July 2010 when the Chinese government renewed the google.cn license knowing that Google was redirecting all Chinese customers search to its google.hk.com site This case concerns the changes in Google and the Chinese government's environment that led to Google withdrawing services from google.cn and the Chinese government saving face by renewing the google.cn license. The case is based on the publicly reported events surrounding two series of negotiations between the U.S. technology giant Google and the Chinese Government regarding Google's license in China.

Based on the negotiation between Google and the Chinese government to allow access by Chinese citizens to a high-speed Chinese version of the Google search engine. In order to reach agreement with the Chinese government, Google had to agree to allow the government to censor access to some sites turned up by Google's search engine. In agreeing, Google compromised its open-access policy. There were inquiries into the agreement by the U.S. Congress and some outcry from U.S. citizens.To learn how to analyze a negotiation from the perspective of each party when one is a government and the other a private-sector organization; a subpoint here is the difference between short-term and longer-term interests. To address the difficulties of balancing business ethics and financial objectives; an important point here is to address what it means to be ethical in a for-profit business environment. To understand the long-term effects of short-term actions.

One Acre Fund (OAF) was founded by Andrew Youn in 2005 for the purpose of helping to solve the chronic hunger problem in Africa. The idea is to provide the resources (seed, fertilizer, and education) necessary for African farm families to feed themselves when their land holdings are one acre or less. The business model of OAF is that of a cooperative: OAF buys resources like seeds and fertilizer in bulk at reduced prices and distributes them to small farmers who otherwise could not afford them. This case concerns the negotiation that OAF's manager of external relations and research, Moises Postigo, conducted to buy fertilizer in the last quarter of 2007. The case provides an opportunity for students to analyze a real-world deal-making negotiation in a developing economy. A number of aspects of the context of the negotiation and the negotiation process itself make for good class discussion. Postigo did a good job preparing for the negotiation, making the case one that emphasizes proper use of negotiation planning and sensitive understanding of the negotiation environment. Some of the elements that make for good discussion include the following: OAF was a new organization, unknown to the five major providers of fertilizer in Kenya. The negotiations were entirely conducted by cell phone. Negotiations went through stages of request for a bid, discussion with multiple bidders, selection of a provider, and negotiation. There were multiple issues, including price delivery and form of payment. Postigo was negotiating in the shadow of the possibility that the Kenyan government would start selling subsidized fertilizer to small farmers.Analyze the fundamentals of a real-world negotiation; Consider cultural implications for negotiation strategy; Consider negotiation strategy decisions particular to the context: commodity purchase, developing country, etc. Understand how the economic and political context affects negotiations; Understand the importance of relationships in negotiations.

Summary What affects the way that trust develops in negotiations? In two studies, we used an actor–partner interdependence model to investigate how both negotiators' trust propensity prior to the negotiation and two types of behavior during the negotiation affect negotiators' trust development. Study 1 demonstrated that both focal negotiators' (actors') and their counterparts' (partners') trust propensity were positively associated with negotiators' trust development. Study 2 showed that actors' and partners' trust propensity had an indirect effect on trust development via both actors' and partners' negotiation behaviors. Negotiators' trust propensity positively affected their use of Q&A (questions and answers about interests) and negatively affected their use of S&O (substantiation about positions and single-issue offers). Actors and partners' negotiation behaviors in turn affected their own and their partners' trust development. Our studies propose and test a model to understand how negotiators' trust propensity and negotiation behaviors affect the development of trust in negotiation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Recent negotiation research has produced a groundswell of insights about the effects of culture on negotiation. Yet, few frameworks exist to organize the findings. This review integrates recent research using a two-dimensional framework: The first dimension organizes the research into that which has taken: (1) a comparative intracultural approach, versus (2) an intercultural approach. The second dimension organizes the research by its emphasis on: (1) inputs into negotiation, (2) processes of negotiating, and (3) outcomes of negotiation. This framework helps to organize extant research and produces novel insights about the connections between disparate research streams, revealing both commonalities and culture-specificities in negotiation strategy and outcomes and suggesting that intercultural negotiations are difficult but not insurmountable. We conclude by discussing several areas in which more research on culture and negotiation is urgently needed in today's globalizing world.

Summary This study compares negotiation strategy and outcomes in countries illustrating dignity, face, and honor cultures. Hypotheses predict cultural differences in negotiators' aspirations, use of strategy, and outcomes based on the implications of differences in self-worth and social structures in dignity, face, and honor cultures. Data were from a face-to-face negotiation simulation; participants were intra-cultural samples from the USA (dignity), China (face), and Qatar (honor). The empirical results provide strong evidence for the predictions concerning the reliance on more competitive negotiation strategies in honor and face cultures relative to dignity cultures in this context of negotiating a new business relationship. The study makes two important theoretical contributions. First, it proposes how and why people in a previously understudied part of the world, that is, the Middle East, use negotiation strategy. Second, it addresses a conundrum in the East Asian literature on negotiation: the theory and research that emphasize the norms of harmony and cooperation in social interaction versus empirical evidence that negotiations in East Asia are highly competitive. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

When does expressing anger in negotiations lead to concessions? Although research has begun to address this question, it has not yet examined the influence of the negotiation context. We propose that the effect of expressing anger depends on the competitiveness of the negotiation situation. Specifically, when the negotiation situation balances cooperative and competitive elements, expressing anger elicits larger concessions than no anger, and responses are driven by cooperation-inducing strategic inferences (e.g., a perception that the anger expresser is tough and threatening). However, when the negotiation context is predominantly cooperative or predominantly competitive, expressing anger does not elicit larger concessions than no anger, and responses are driven by cooperation-inhibiting affective reactions (e.g., reciprocal anger and a desire to retaliate against the anger expresser). Results from two computer-mediated negotiation experiments using different negotiation scenarios, different manipulations of the competitiveness of the situation, and different subject populations supported our hypotheses.

This study extends prior research on conflict in teams by showing that a team’s chances of appropriately managing one type of conflict depends on what other types of conflicts are co-occurring. We interviewed 44 managers from different industries who had recently participated in a negotiating team, asking about within-team conflicts and how those conflicts were managed. The data showed that task conflict increased the likelihood that teams managed co-occurring procedural conflicts appropriately, but that procedural conflicts decreased the likelihood that teams managed co-occurring task conflicts appropriately. These results explain why some teams fail to realize the theorized benefits of task conflict and why procedural conflict does not always have a deleterious impact on team performance: The co-occurrence of these different types of conflict can alter what strategy a team uses to manage conflicts.

In this work we develop and validate a model measuring norms that distinguish three types of culture: dignity, face, and honor (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Our motivation is to produce empirical evidence for this new cultural framework and use the framework to explain cultural differences in interdependent social interactions such as negotiation. In two studies, we establish the content validity, construct validity, predictive validity, and measurement invariance of this measurement model. In Study 1, we present the model's three-factor structure and situate the constructs of dignity, face, and honor in a nomological network of cultural constructs. In Study 2, which uses a sample of participants from 26 cultures, we show that the measurement model discriminates among people from the three cultural regions corresponding to the dignity, face, and honor framework. In particular, we report differences between face and honor cultures, which are not distinguished in other cultural frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). We also show that the measurement model accounts for cultural differences in norms for use of negotiation strategy.

The observation that in China people generally do not trust strangers motivated us to study this phenomenon. We used the literature of guanxi to define strangers, and we drew on intergroup contact theory to hypothesize that positive experiences with outgroup, but not with ingroup members will increase trust in strangers. In three experiments we found that perceiving support from (Study 1), receiving help from (Study 2), and being trusted by (Study 3) outgroup members led to higher trust in strangers. Indirect reciprocity mediated this relationship, suggesting that people generalize experiences with one outgroup member to other social actors, and in turn, increase their trust in strangers. Study 4 showed that intrapersonal trust increased after a positive outgroup experience. Study 5 replicated this finding using secondary field data. This research contributes to the trust literature by showing how specific and eventful experiences increase trust in strangers.

the leader of a multicultural software development team was frustrated. the american and european members of the team were delivering on time, but he was getting nothing from the Japanese members. Multiple meetings with the Japanese members generated seeming commitment but no follow- up. the team leader, an indian, located in

Around the world, negotiators who fail to trust fail to achieve their goals. In other words, trust appears to be a near-necessity that global negotiators cannot afford to ignore. Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in negotiations scarce, so negotiators also need practical guidance on why to trust, how to trust, and how to work within the level of trust that prevails in their own negotiations. Drawing from 15 years of cross-cultural negotiation research, the current paper first highlights the centrality of trust to negotiation, noting its influence on behaviors and ultimately on outcomes. It then describes the scarcity of trust in negotiations around the world, and especially in certain cultures. The joint importance and scarcity of trust noted, we then provide research-validated guidance for diagnosing the level of trust in negotiation and putting that diagnosis into practice through strategic adjustments. Overall, this approach helps to sensitize global negotiators to the importance and implications of trust.

This study tested hypotheses drawn from the literature on gender, leadership, and conflict management about the outcomes facilitated by men and women in third party roles in dispute resolution in organizations. Data collected in association with an MBA teambuilding exercise showed that when women played third party roles in which they lacked authority over disputants, they were able to facilitate an outcome that was both acceptable to disputants and met organizational interests, more than men in these roles or than men and women in third party roles with authority. Behavioral data suggested that this effect was due to women in the third party peer role eschewing and men in the third party role displaying agentic behavior. The study contributes to the literature on gender, leadership, and conflict management by showing women's traditional leadership strengths of collaboration and participation can result in unique outcomes when they have less rather than more authority over disputants.

Within the United States, teams outperform solos in negotiation (Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). The current research examined whether this team advantage generalizes to negotiators from a collectivist culture (Taiwan). Because different cultures have different social norms, and because the team context may amplify the norms that are salient in a particular culture (Gelfand & Realo, 1999), we predicted that the effect of teams on negotiation would differ across cultures. Specifically, we predicted that since harmony norms predominate in collectivist cultures like Taiwan, the team context would amplify a concern with harmony, leading Taiwanese teams to negotiate especially suboptimal outcomes. In support, 2 studies showed that Taiwanese teams negotiated less-optimal outcomes than Taiwanese solos. We also used a moderated-mediation analysis to investigate the mechanism (Hayes, 2012), documenting that the interactive effect of culture and context on outcomes was mediated by harmony norms. By showing that the same situational conditions (team negotiations) can have divergent effects on negotiation outcomes across cultures, our results point toward a nuanced, sociocontextual view that moves beyond the culture-as-main-effect approach to studying culture and negotiations.

These studies integrate research on social influence and negotiation to predict the effectiveness of influence strategies in the East and the West. Building on prior research documenting cultural differences in preferences for interests, rights, or power arguments (Tinsley 1998, 2001), we propose that framing such arguments as logical versus normative appeals will further explain cultural variation in influence-strategy effectiveness. We present results from a negotiation-vignette study demonstrating Canadian students are more responsive to arguments framed logically, whereas Chinese students are more responsive to arguments framed normatively, depending on the ethnicity of their counterpart. Then we present results from a negotiation simulation conducted by U.S. and Japanese dyads, indicating that these within-culture patterns of influence effectiveness support the social-psychological needs perspective and predict negotiation outcome. These findings offer extensions to existing theory on culture and neg...

East Asian cultures are widely held to be fairly homogeneous in that they highly value harmonious social relationships. We propose, however, that the focus (dyadic versus group) and the nature (emotional versus instrumental) of social relations vary among the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cultures in ways that have important implications for the negotiation tactics typically employed by managers from these three cultures. Our data are from a web survey administered to three hundred eighty-eight managers from China, Japan, and South Korea. In this article, we discuss how the differences in the focus and the nature of business relationships in China, Japan, and Korea are manifested in the different norms for negotiation tactics endorsed by managers from these three countries.

PurposeIn this study of Korean and US negotiators, the authors aim to demonstrate limits on the presumption that inter‐cultural negotiations are doomed to generate low joint gains.Design/methodology/approachIn a laboratory study with 45 bi‐cultural Korean students and 47 mono‐cultural American students, the authors created a total of 16 US‐US, 15 Korean‐Korean, and 15 US‐Korean dyads. The authors audio‐recorded their negotiation conversations and analyzed the content of the negotiation transcripts. The authors focused on the use of pronouns and coded how they were used and the impact this use had on the outcomes of the intra‐ and inter‐cultural negotiations.FindingsResults show that inter‐cultural dyads generate higher joint gains than Korean or US intra‐cultural dyads. The explanation based on social awareness and social distance theorizing shows that inter‐cultural negotiators, one of whom is bi‐cultural, who use language, especially the pronoun “you” to close social distance, achieve higher joint gains than intra‐cultural negotiators who do not.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors conclude that the language people use in social interaction, especially pronouns, is an indicator of social awareness and signals attempts to close social distance.Originality/valueThis research demonstrates that the way negotiators use language predicts their economic outcomes.

This study elaborates theoretically and tests empirically a model linking fusion teamwork to creativity in multicultural teams (Janssens & Brett, 2006). The study also introduces cultural metacognition, a dimension of cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003), as an antecedent of fusion teamwork and creativity. Data were from 246 members of 37 multicultural teams. Results generated from a multilevel modeling analysis were consistent with hypotheses: Across teams, when team members were more highly culturally metacognitive, fusion teamwork and creativity were more likely. All analyses were controlled for generalized affect toward the team to reduce threats to validity of common method bias and affect. The results suggest the value of fusion teamwork for generating creativity in multicultural teams and the importance of having members of multicultural teams who have high versus low levels of cultural metacognition.

This research examines the extent to which the email medium exacerbates the aggressiveness of opening offers made by negotiators from two distinct cultures. Hypotheses derived from negotiation, communication, and culture research predict that Hong Kong Chinese negotiators using email would exhibit a reactance effect and consequently engage in more aggressive opening offers and claim higher distributive outcomes than similar negotiators in the United States. Study 1 examines intercultural email negotiations and results indicate that Hong Kong Chinese negotiators made more aggressive opening offers and attained higher distributive outcomes than their U.S. counterparts. Study 2 results replicate Study 1 findings in an intracultural negotiation setting and also show favorable outcomes for Hong Kong email negotiators when compared to both Hong Kong and U.S. face-to-face negotiators. Overall, the findings suggest that Hong Kong Chinese and U.S. negotiators vary substantially in how they negotiate via email and face to face, which results in differences in distributive outcomes.

In certain cultures, relationships are the reason for negotiation. In this article, we offer a rationale regarding why relationships have more or less salience across cultures. We present psychological, economic and sociological factors that explain the reasons for negotiating relationally. Propositions are made as to how cultural construal about relationships influences offers, targets and limits, negotiation strategy and, ultimately, economic and relational outcomes. Our major explanatory construct is new: cultural consensus about relationships. This construct is grounded in well developed theory of self construal and new empirical research showing the utility of measures of consensus in explaining cultural differences in behavior. With this theoretical contribution, we join the group of scholars who are advocating that more attention should be paid to negotiators’ subjective evaluations of the social and emotional consequences of negotiation.

This article reports the results of two studies. The first study, based on the responses of attorneys to questions about the reasons for the success of mediators with and without prior judicial experience, shows that the capacity of the mediator to gain the confidence of the disputants was most important for mediators with and without prior judicial experience. Although certain process skills were viewed as important to the success of both former judges and nonjudges, in general, process skills were significantly more important for nonjudges than for former judges. The capacity to provide useful case evaluations, on the other hand, was significantly more important for former judges than for nonjudges. The second study, based upon attorney responses to questions about unsatisfactory mediators, reinforced the conclusions of the first study regarding the importance of confidence-building attributes. For both judges and nonjudges, the mediator's inability to gain the confidence of the parties was a major reason for his or her lack of success.