出价还是不出价?这就是问题所在!谈判中的先发优势与后发优势

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT Negotiation Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-13 DOI:10.1111/nejo.12438
Y. Maaravi, Aharon Levy, B. Heller
{"title":"出价还是不出价?这就是问题所在!谈判中的先发优势与后发优势","authors":"Y. Maaravi, Aharon Levy, B. Heller","doi":"10.1111/nejo.12438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the past two decades, negotiation research has established a first‐mover advantage based on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Negotiation scholars have argued that first offers serve as anchors that affect both counteroffers and settlement prices. Consequently, management education—including negotiation articles, books, courses, and seminars—often recommends that negotiators move first to “anchor” their counterparts. Nonetheless, a growing body of recent research contradicts this general advice and points to a second‐mover advantage in specific cases. Interestingly, this contradiction was termed the “practitioner‐researcher paradox,” as practitioners and negotiation experts appeared to understand the benefits of moving second in negotiations, which scholars—up until recently—generally have overlooked. The current article offers a solution to this paradox by proposing three key factors that might explain the conditions and circumstances of first‐ versus second‐mover advantage in negotiations. These three factors are central in negotiation research and practice: information, power, and strategy. Given the centrality of first offers in negotiations, the solution to this paradox is crucial for negotiation scholars, businesspeople, managers, and anyone else who finds themselves in a negotiation.","PeriodicalId":46597,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Bid or Not to Bid? That is the Question! First‐ Versus Second‐Mover Advantage in Negotiations\",\"authors\":\"Y. Maaravi, Aharon Levy, B. Heller\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nejo.12438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the past two decades, negotiation research has established a first‐mover advantage based on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Negotiation scholars have argued that first offers serve as anchors that affect both counteroffers and settlement prices. Consequently, management education—including negotiation articles, books, courses, and seminars—often recommends that negotiators move first to “anchor” their counterparts. Nonetheless, a growing body of recent research contradicts this general advice and points to a second‐mover advantage in specific cases. Interestingly, this contradiction was termed the “practitioner‐researcher paradox,” as practitioners and negotiation experts appeared to understand the benefits of moving second in negotiations, which scholars—up until recently—generally have overlooked. The current article offers a solution to this paradox by proposing three key factors that might explain the conditions and circumstances of first‐ versus second‐mover advantage in negotiations. These three factors are central in negotiation research and practice: information, power, and strategy. Given the centrality of first offers in negotiations, the solution to this paradox is crucial for negotiation scholars, businesspeople, managers, and anyone else who finds themselves in a negotiation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Negotiation Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Negotiation Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12438\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12438","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的二十年里,谈判研究已经建立了基于锚定和调整启发式的先发优势。谈判学者认为,首次报价是影响还价和结算价格的锚。因此,管理教育——包括谈判文章、书籍、课程和研讨会——通常建议谈判者首先“锚定”他们的对手。尽管如此,最近越来越多的研究与这一一般建议相矛盾,并指出在特定情况下具有后发优势。有趣的是,这种矛盾被称为“从业者-研究者悖论”,因为从业者和谈判专家似乎理解在谈判中屈居第二的好处,而直到最近,学者们普遍忽视了这一点。本文提出了三个关键因素,可以解释谈判中先发优势与后发优势的条件和情况,从而解决了这一矛盾。这三个因素是谈判研究和实践的核心:信息、权力和战略。考虑到首次报价在谈判中的中心地位,解决这一悖论对谈判学者、商人、经理和其他任何参与谈判的人来说都至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
To Bid or Not to Bid? That is the Question! First‐ Versus Second‐Mover Advantage in Negotiations
For the past two decades, negotiation research has established a first‐mover advantage based on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Negotiation scholars have argued that first offers serve as anchors that affect both counteroffers and settlement prices. Consequently, management education—including negotiation articles, books, courses, and seminars—often recommends that negotiators move first to “anchor” their counterparts. Nonetheless, a growing body of recent research contradicts this general advice and points to a second‐mover advantage in specific cases. Interestingly, this contradiction was termed the “practitioner‐researcher paradox,” as practitioners and negotiation experts appeared to understand the benefits of moving second in negotiations, which scholars—up until recently—generally have overlooked. The current article offers a solution to this paradox by proposing three key factors that might explain the conditions and circumstances of first‐ versus second‐mover advantage in negotiations. These three factors are central in negotiation research and practice: information, power, and strategy. Given the centrality of first offers in negotiations, the solution to this paradox is crucial for negotiation scholars, businesspeople, managers, and anyone else who finds themselves in a negotiation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Negotiation Journal is committed to the development of better strategies for resolving differences through the give-and-take process of negotiation. Negotiation Journal"s eclectic, multidisciplinary approach reinforces its reputation as an invaluable international resource for anyone interested in the practice and analysis of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution including: - educators - researchers - diplomats - lawyers - business leaders - labor negotiators - government officials - and mediators
期刊最新文献
Flipping the Power Dynamics in Measurement and Evaluation: International Aid and the Potential for a Grounded Accountability Model Introduction to Special Issue: Localization and the Aid Industry Toward a Third Local Turn: Identifying and Addressing Obstacles to Localization in Peacebuilding Implications of Time on Donor Behavior and Processes in Relation to Localization Transition to Open Access
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1