Identifying and Explaining the Marketing Managers’ Perceptions of Face-to-face Inter-organizational Negotiations

Document Type : Articles

Authors

• Amir Ghafourian Shagerdi ¹
• Mehdi Sanei ²

¹ Imam Reza University

² faculty member

https://doi.org/10.22067/pmt.v11i2.83769

Abstract

1- INTRODUCTION
Today’s widespread use of organizational negotiations led many managers to exert obsessive-compulsive reactions such as fear of negotiation. According to previous research, managers may perceive a single phenomenon differently. Therefore, one of the main concerns of scholars is to know the managers' perception of the negotiation phenomenon. In this regard, an important issue is that individuals’ perception of organizational situations is not necessarily consistent with reality; interpretation of reality may be different from reality itself. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to know how managers perceive the organizational negotiation phenomenon. To do so, it is to identify and categorize their negotiating experiences to reach a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
There are various definitions of negotiation, all of which convey the same concept in a different way. According to a common definition, negotiation refers to a dialog-based process that is accomplished to solve a problem or achieve an agreement on common interests in such a way that satisfies all parties. As defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, negotiation is the act or process of negotiating with the other party to reach an agreement on the issue at hand. Thompson considers negotiation as a decision-making process among individuals which is sometimes necessary to reach the organizational goals. Bazerman and Moore suggest that negotiation may occur when two or more parties need to do common actions but have different priorities and preferences (Buettner, 2006).
3- METHODOLOGY
This present study utilized the phenomenography method. The statistical population was comprised of expert marketing managers at Toos Industrial Town of Mashhad and sample members were selected by conducting a non-probabilistic purposeful sampling. To identify descriptive categories from interviews, they were written down and processed through theoretical coding. Obtained data were analyzed repeatedly to ensure that extracted categories are most consistent with interviews' content. Finally, descriptive categories incorporated in a wider framework called result space. In each step, first, descriptive categories were designed, and then, their inclusiveness and exclusiveness were examined with respect to the fields and codes resulted from analyzed interviews.
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Different perceptions of the under-study phenomenon were identified and presented in 6 separate descriptive categories and 3 levels of perceptual complexity. At the first level of perceptual complexity i.e. the individual level, there is a descriptive category referred to as self-promotion. In this category, the phenomenon of negotiation was determined to have a direct effect on the relationships, so that increases the emotional weight of individual communications. In addition to increasing the quantity and quality of interpersonal communications within the organization, increasing trust in personal relationships has been experienced. The focus of this category is on “fruitful relationships” and “trusted relationships.” The second level of perceptual complexity i.e. the organizational level encompasses 4 descriptive categories entitled unethical tricks, social networks, positive networking, and reinforcing the human role. At the third level of perceptual complexity i.e. the social level, there is one descriptive category. This level represents the negotiation-averse behaviors and negotiation occurs in the context of social culture. This culture does not have the capacity to solve problems through negotiation and the vast majority of behaviors are dominated by boredom and impatience.
5- CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
Based on the obtained results discussed above, practical and research implications are presented as follows:
(A) Based on the descriptive category of negotiation-averse culture, it is necessary for supervisors to examine this undesirable perceived image of organizational negotiation, and given the organization’s social responsibility, make needed changes in all the organizational levels and even in the employees’ families.
(B) It is recommended that managers pay attention to the collective consciousness of the organization members about the importance of negotiation in line with adopting new technologies. Hence, managers can better plan both training and using the negotiation.
(C) In the interpretive researches on the organization most of which are based on observation and interview for data gathering, individuals do not usually express their lived experience without distortion. Therefore, it is suggested that other researchers do the same research using another qualitative method and compare the results.

Keywords

• negotiation
• face-to-face negotiation
• phenomenography
• Perception of Managers

References

Akerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115-127.

Anguix, V. S.; Julian, V.; Botti, V., & Fornes A. G. (2013). Studying the impact of negotiation environments on negotiation teams’s performance, Information Sciences, 219, 17-40.

Arvantis, A.; Postman, M. P., & Hantzi, A. (2019). Agreement in the ultimatum game: An analysis of interpersonal and intergrouo context on the basis of the consensualistic approach to negotiation, New Ideas in Psychology, 54, 15-26.

Ashcroft, S. (2004). Commercial negotiation skills, Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(6), 229-233

Bazerman M. H., & Moore D. A. (2008). Judgement in managerial decision making, 7th Ed., Wiley Pub.

Beenen G., & Barbuto J. E. (2014). Let’s make a deal: a dynamic exercise for practicing negotiation skills, Journal of Education for Business, 89: 149-155

Bright, D.; Parkin, B., & Welsh, S. (2001). Future negotiation skills’ a development issue? Future, 33, 557-568.

Buettner, R. (2006). A classification structure for automated negotiations, international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, 18-22 Dec., Hong Kong, China, 523–530.

Carnevale, P. J., & Kim Y. K. (2012). Negotiation, the encyclopedia of human behavior, by ramachandran, V. S., 2th ed., vol. 1, 677-686, Elsevier/Academic Press., London, England.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches., 3th Ed., Sage publications, London.

Danaeefard, H., & Kazemi, S. M. (2011). Interpretative research in the organization: phenomenological and phenomenographical strategies. Imam Sadiq University Pub., Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Fernandez, C. S. P., & Roberts, D. (2015). Strengthening negotiation skills, part II, Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 21(3), 304-307

Fisher, R., & Davis, W. H. (1987). Interpersonal skills, Negotiation Journal, 3(2), 117-121.

Fisher, R., & Ury W. L. (1981). Getting to yes: negotiation agreement without giving in, 1st Ed., Penguin Group, United Kingdom.

Galin, A.; Gross M., & Gosalker, G. (2007). E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 787-797.

Gangopadhyaya, A.; Kamin, C.; Kiser R.; Shadrake, L., & Yudkowsky, (2013). Assesing residents, interprofessional conflict negotiation skills, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Medical Education, 47, 1119-1146.

Geiger, J. (2014). Media effects on the formation of negotiator satisfication, Group Decis Negot, 23, 735-763.

Ghanbari, S.; Kalantari, F., & Mokhtarnia, I. (2016). Interpersonal perception, approch to the analysis of social relations, Journal of Rooyesh-e-Ravanshenasi, sixth year, 3(20), 225-239, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Ghoshal, S. (2014). Bad management theories destroy good management practices, (H. Khaleghi Trans.). Commercial Surveys, 12(69), 45-67, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Graham, J. L.; Lawrence L., & Requejo W. H. (2014). Going forward to the past: a brief history of negotiation, Inventive Negotiation, Palgrave Macmillan Pub., chapter 1, 9 – 18.

Grondin, S. (2016). Psychology of perception, Springer international publishing, Switzerland.

Haselhuhn, M. P.; Wong E. M.; Ormiston M. E., & Inesi M. E. (2012). Negotiation face to face: men’s facial structure predicts negotiation, Performance Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1).

Jebel Hong, S.; Soleimani, M., & Hosseini, K. G. (2018). Overview on conflict and negotiation topics, the 5 th international conference on psychology, education and lifestyle, 1-14, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Jensen, K., & Unt, I. (2004). Negotiating partnerships: increase profits and reduce risks, International Business Review, 13, 533-538.

Karrass, C. L. (1994). The negotiation game, harper business pub., New York.

Kerstten, G. E. 1, 2, Stefan E. Strecker 1, and Ka Pong Law 1, K. Bauknecht, M. Bichler & B. Proll (Eds), (2004). Protocols for electronic negotiation systems, EC-web 2004, LNSC 3182, 106-115.

Khaleghi, H. (2017). Analysis of perceptions of the power of technology in interpersonal communications of employees, Ph.D. thesis, faculty of economics & adminisrative sciences, Mashhad Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran. (in Persion)

King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research, Sage, London.

Kolenda, N. (2018). 31 negotiation tips and techniques, https://www.nickkolenda. com/negotiation-tactics/.

Marton, F. (2005). Phenomenography: a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. in R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb. Taylor & E-library.

Mohammadpour, A. (2010). The method in method: about making knowledge in the humanities. Tehran: sociologists pub., Iran. (in Persian)

Moor, A. D., & Weigand H. (2004). Business negotiation support: theory and practice, International Negotiation, 9, 31-57.

OU Qiong (2017). A brief introduction to perception, Studies Literature and Language, 15(4), 18-20, Canada.

Pandey, D.; Kumar, P., & Tiwari, R. G. (2017). Adaptive negotiation strategies, International Journal of Computer Applications, 166(10), 21-30.

Parlamis, I. D., & Geiger, I. (2015). Mind the medium: a qualitative analysis of email negotiation, Group Decis Negot, 24(2), 359-381.

Provis, C. (2000). Honesty in negotiation, Business Ethics: a European Review, 9(1), 3-12.

Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation, 1st Ed., Harvard University Press.

Saunders, M.; Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Fifth edition, pearson education limited, prentice hall.

Scriven, M.; Gallagher, J. J., Calvin, A. D.; Hanley C.; Mc Connel, J. V., & Mc Guigan F. J. (1961). Psychology, Boston: Allyn & Bacon Inc.

Sokolova, M., & Szpakowicz, S. (2005). Analysis and classification of strategies in electronic negotiations, B. K´egl and G. Lapalme (Eds.): AI 2005, LNAI 3501, 145–157.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edition, Sage Pub., Inc., London.

Talebzadeh, S. H. (2006). Sensory perception in the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, Philosophy and Theology, Philosophy, Autumn and Winter 2006, No. 12, 63-72., Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Tassone, B. G. (2017). The relevance of husserl’s phenomenological exploration of interiority to contemporary epistempology, Palgrave Communications, 1-11.

Thompson, L. L. (2004). The mind and heart of the negotiator, 3th Ed., Prentice Hall Pub.

Tudoran, D., & Boglut, A. (2014). Types of negotiation tactics, Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 46(2), 395.

Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (1996). Managers as negotiators: a test of power versus gender as predictors of feelings, behavior, and outcomes, Leadership Quarterly, 7(1), 63-85, JAI Press Inc.