Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Purpose: - The purpose of the UPDATE section is to provide teachers of OB with a summary of the major
conceptual areas in a specific topic including (1) a concise introduction to the major concepts, (2) a sense of the scope
and depth of the topic, and (3) a list (briefly annotated) of some key articles or books that would provide the reader
with a solid working knowledge of the conceptual work on the topic.
In the spirit of continuing education, such articles would allow us all to upgrade or at least update our concep-
tual knowledge on a wide variety of topics. In the spirit of an applied behavioral science, these articles could
strengthen the connection and dialogue between theory and practice.
Submissions should be sent to David Berg, UPDATE Editor, Yale School of Organization and Management,
Box lA, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.
Roy J. Lewicki
Duke University
and diffuse; few authors have performed the task of groups, projects or departments in a company have
drawing this literature together and presenting it to a conflicting preferences or priorities that must be
managerial audience. The absence of this integration resolved, and when the groups seek to influence each
has inhibited the development of conceptual models other to determine this resolution. Marketing and pro-
for describing basic negotiation processes, or illus- duction departments in a company frequently negoti-
trating the broad range of managerial and organiza- ate on how new products should be developed and pro-
tional problems that may be viewed in these terms. moted. A staff group debates with an operating group
Second, models of bargaining and negotiation are also on the relative usefulness of a long range planning
tied to models of power, influence and &dquo;politics&dquo; in model. Two departments disagree on budget priorities.
organizations, themselves neglected topics in the OB Plant A, which manufactures component parts for
literature. Finally, bargaining and negotiation have products that are assembled by Plant B, attempt to
been treated as &dquo;formalized&dquo; managerial processes resolve differences created by different standards of
which only occur at the interorganizational level, e.g., quality control and allocation of costs.
collective bargaining, merger and acquisition, pur-
chasing and sales. In fact, however, bargaining and Interorganizational negotiation occurs when two
9
33
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
fringe benefits, and working conditions is the most tween players, characteristics of the interacting par-
obvious example. Mergers between companies, sales ties. etc. Examples can be found in books by Tedeschi
and purchasing agreements, acquisition of financing, (1972) and Wrightsman, O’Connor and Baker (1972).
and the management of relationships with governmen- A second stream of social psychological research
tal organizations -
Experimental economies and applied mathematics, distributive and integrative roughly corresponding
-
particularly the early conceptions of game theory to competitive and cooperative negotiations, or
(Rappaport, 1966; Shubik, 1964). Game theory pro- &dquo;hard&dquo; bargaining and problem-solving. These two
vided simple models and paradigms for representing distinctions continue to pervade current thinking
the choice alternatives available to decision makers about negotiation processes, and will be described
with interdependent economic interests, as well as more extensively below.
theories and models for predicting &dquo;economically A second area of focus in the labor-management
rational&dquo; behavior in these situations. Contemporary area was in procedures for dispute resolution, par-
research may be found in Young (1975); good treat- ticularly arbitration and mediation. The arbitration
ments for understanding applications to negotiation and mediation models were well-understood by practi-
are found in Davis (1970) and McDonald (1975). tioners of labor relations, but poorly described and
understood by behavioral scientists. Descriptions of
Basic social psychology. There were several the functions and activities of third parties can be
streams of research in social psychology that made fvound in Elkouri and Elkouri (1978) and Stevens
early contributions to current research in negotiation. (1963). Douglas (1962) presents an outstanding exam-
One group extended the work of the economic game ple of the mediation process by reproducing the
theorists, examining the impact of various forms of transcript from a negotiation and mediated dispute.
economic games and models on behavior. Research
efforts were determined to discover whether economi- Political science and international relations. The
cally &dquo;rational&dquo; solutions would prevail when various last group that contributed a great deal to early con-
social psychological factors were manipulated - e.g., ceptualization of the bargaining process were political
the nature of the payoff matrices, the number of inter- and behavioral scientists, who were most interested in
action trials, opportunities for communication be- describing, modeling, simulating and/or resolving
34
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
conflicts between political groups or nations. Par- action that evolves over time, and attempts to specify
ticularly during the cold war of the late 1950s and early what the bargainer must do at each stage of the time
1960s, a number of social and behavioral scientists process, from beginning to end. Each of these models
turned their attention to the increasing international will be described below, with attention given to the
tension and its implications. Kenneth Boulding, Erich more current writings and research.
Fromm, Harold Lasswell, Thomas Schelling, Lewis
Coser, Otto Klineberg, Herbert Kelman, Roger Fisher Types of negotiation. Probably the single most
and Morton Deutsch all wrote extensively on the popular description of negotiation processes applied to
behavioral scene about aspects of conflict escalation, organizational settings is drawn from the work of
negotiation, and conflict management. Representative Walton and McKersie (1965). Walton and McKersie
samples of early work in this area can be found in described four different &dquo;models&dquo; or types of negotia-
Smith (1971) and Kelman (1965). Schelling (1963) and tion : distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining,
Ikle (1964) remain as brilliant classics in the area. attitudinal structuring and intraorganizational
As can be determined from this review, a number bargaining.
of social science disciplines have made early theoretical
or conceptual contributions to the current literature in 1. Distributive bargaining is best described as win-
negotiation. These approaches represent either the lose bargaining, or negotiating under conditions of
development of basic theory and models (as repre- zero-sum conflict. Using simple concepts of utility
sented by the work in economics, game theory, and theory and game theory, Walton and McKersie devel-
basic social psychology), or descriptions of negotiation oped a reward-cost model for assessing negotiating
processes and problems within certain areas of applied issues that are structured such that one party will gain
concern (particularly labor relations and international at the expense of the other (e.g., negotiating a wage
affairs). In the past ten years, there has been an exten- rate). Central to distributive bargaining is the deter-
sive bridging of theory and research between the con- mination of target points (outcomes desired as a result
ceptual models and the applications. Research on bar- of negotiation), resistance points (minimal outcomes
gaining in social psychology and organizational that one will settle for before refusing to bargain fur-
behavior has become more rich and realistic by ther), and positive and negative settlement ranges
enhancing the complexity and realism of the experi- (overlap or nonoverlap of target points such that both
mental designs and negotiation scenarios. Conversely, parties can achieve a possible settlement above their
much of the writing in labor relations, international resistance points). Determining these points for
relations and other areas of negotiation has been himself will enable a bargainer to decide what to aim
strengthened by basic economic and psychological for in negotiation, and when to &dquo;walk away&dquo; and re-
models. The remainder of this review will focus on ject an unacceptable offer. The opponent’s target and
these more contemporary integrations. In examining utility points may then be determined by interrogation,
this work, several models for organizing the contem- and/or influenced by tactics designed to persuade the
porary literature will be proposed and described. opponent to reveal the resistance point, to modify the
perception of how realistic the target point is, or to
convince the opponent that achievement of the objec-
Classification Schemes and Key Concepts tives is unlikely.
No single model or conceptual approach has
received general acclaim as the sole approach for view- 2. Integrative bargaining is usually described as
ing and understanding negotiation processes. As the &dquo;win-win&dquo; bargaining, &dquo;nonzero-sum conflict,&dquo; or
various historical roots of contemporary research have even &dquo;problem solving.&dquo; Integrative bargaining is
been intertwined by more recent writers, three domi- most amenable to negotiating problems when the par-
nant approaches to negotiation have emerged: the ties desire to arrive at a solution that is mutually
&dquo;types of negotiation&dquo; model, the &dquo;components of satisfactory to both sides, and when such a solution is
negotiation&dquo; model, and the &dquo;stages of negotiation&dquo; feasible given the issues in dispute. Rather than to
model. The &dquo;types&dquo; approach proposed different develop target points and resistance points, parties
kinds of negotiation for different issues and different approach negotiation as a &dquo;problem to be solved&dquo;;
parties. The &dquo;components&dquo; model treats negotiation they then mutually develop a strategy for commonly
as a complex social interaction, and subdivides the identifying the problem, searching for alternative solu-
process into the various component factors that are tions, developing preference orderings for various
likely to influence bargaining outcomes. Finally, the solutions, and developing joint agreement on a par-
&dquo;stages&dquo; model approaches negotiation as social inter- ticular solution that will satisfy both sides. This
35
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
process is described by Walton and McKersie, 4. Intraorganizational bargaining is discussed in
elaborated by Filley (1975), and well summarized in a the context of boundary roles and role conflict.
note by Ware (1980). Negotiators are often faced with inconsistent demands
Integrative bargaining is a significantly different and pressures from their constituency and from the
process than distributive bargaining, requiring dis- opposing negotiator role. Walton and McKersie
tinctly different attitudes and behaviors on the part of address the nature of role conflict, and suggest a
negotiators. In order to be successful in distributive number of tactics that can be used to manage the ex-
bargaining, negotiators must distort and manipulate pectations and objectives of one’s constituency.
information, use threats and bluffs, and be minimally More recent research has made progress in this
honest and trustworthy in their conduct. In contrast, area. Research by Adams (1976) and his associates has
successful integrative bargaining requires the extensively explored the nature of &dquo;boundary roles&dquo;
disclosure of factual and valid information, the and boundary role conflict, analogous to the pressures
absence of threats and bluffs, and increasing levels of felt by a negotiating representative. Moreover, a
trust and openness in order to be successful. Dif- number of authors (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980;
ferences between the two models, and implications of Abell, 1975) have begun to focus on the use of
these differences, are well summarized in a subsequent bargaining strategy and tactics as a mechanism for
article by Walton and Dutton (1969). managing influence and resolving interunit disputes,
etc. Bacharach and Lawler have made some distinct
3. Attitudinal structuring defines the nature of the theoretical progress in this regard.
relationship between the parties. Walton and McKersi6
argue that there are four major attitudinal determi- Components of negotiation. Walton and McKer-
nants of the relationship between negotiating parties: sie’s description of various types of negotiation have
(1) motivational orientation and action tendencies, continued to be useful descriptors of various forms of
(2) beliefs about the other party’s legitimacy, (3) feel- negotiation. Their distinction between distributive and
ings of trust toward the other, and (4) feelings of integrative bargaining has been particularly useful for
friendliness-hostility toward the other. Differences in recognizing the polar opposites of competitive vs.
these elements lead to one of five basic patterns in the cooperative dispute resolution processes. Yet most
relationship: conflict, or a state of high competitive- negotiation is not purely distributive, integrative, atti-
ness ; containment-aggression, or a state of moderate tudinal or intraorganizational, but a blend of these
competitiveness; accommodation, a state of in- processes as various parties become involved, as the
dividualistic orientation in which each side tries to issues change, and as negotiation evolves over time. As
obtain only its own outcomes; cooperation, a state of a result, efforts have been made to develop more
cooperative relationship; and collusion, in which par- sophisticated descriptors of the negotiation process.
ties actively form a coalition to pursue common ends. The efforts of behavioral scientists to reduce com-
Walton and McKersie demonstrate how this model plex negotiations to manageable research proportions
accounts for differences and changes in bargaining led to the evolution of the &dquo;component&dquo; models of
relationships, and actively employ balance theory negotiation. Much of the laboratory research in
(Heider, 1958) as a vehicle for analyzing and bringing experimental gaming and bargaining evolved by
about changes in relationships. treating various bargaining outcomes as the dependent
&dquo;Managing relationships&dquo; in negotiation has variable in an experimental design, and identifying
received surprisingly little attention in more contem- several independent variables that would affect the
porary negotiating literature. Perhaps this is because dependent variable. For example, what is the impact
so much of the research in negotiation has occurred of differences in personality &dquo;type&dquo; (e.g., internal vs.
under controlled laboratory conditions, which can external control) on outcomes? Or what is the impact
readily simulate a short-term negotiation but not of the availability and use of threats on bargaining
understand or measure complex long-term relation- outcomes? Massive volumes of research have explored
ships between parties. Yet much of the negotiation the wealth of independent variables that can affect
that occurs in organizations -
even at the intergroup bargaining results. When this research is classified and
and interorganizational levels -
36
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
Harnett and Cummings, 1980) are also extremely negotiators that do not exist when negotiators perform
useful. in private, and/or when their performance is not held
After describing the basic characteristics of a accountable to peers or superiors. The presence of
bargaining relationship, Rubin and Brown identify six accountability pressures create expectations in
key components of negotiation: the goals and motiva- negotiators to look good, to be tough, and to not yield
tions of the negotiator, the social structure in which under pressure. Research by Brown (1968) on face sav-
the negotiation occurs, the nature of the issues, the ing behavior in negotiation has dramatically high-
physical characteristics of the negotiation site, the time lighted the power of this effect. Finally, the nature of
frame available, and the personality characteristics of negotiation as a social process also contributes to the
negotiators. Each of these are important to negotia- emergence of certain &dquo;norms&dquo; or expectations that
tion in the following ways: shape the way bargainers are expected to behave.
Strong emergent norms of rationality (&dquo;be rational,&dquo;
1. Elements of goal structure determine the nature &dquo;stick to the facts,&dquo; &dquo;be logical&dquo;), reciprocity (&dquo;trade
of the interdependence between the parties. Several concession for concession,&dquo; &dquo;tit for tat,&dquo; &dquo;give a little
aspects of goal structure are important. The first is the -
37
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
packaging and repackaging individual demands and ceeded in an almost futile search to ascertain which
offers into acceptable groupings is instrumental in characteristics are most consistently discriminating.
accomplishing negotiation objectives (Fisher, 1969). Both Rubin and Brown (1975) and Hamner (1980)
Finally, much of the writing on the nature of issues review a large volume of early experimental studies in
naturally leads to the selection of particular persuasion this regard. Rubin and Brown conclude that the per-
tactics by which particular issues can be presented and sonality variable can best be summarized as a dimen-
won. Not only are many of the &dquo;how to do it&dquo; books sion called &dquo;Interpersonal Orientation,&dquo; broadly
(presented below) valuable in this regard, but the in- defined as the degree to which the individual
structor in negotiation will find a great deal of useful negotiator attends to the interpersonal and social cues
material in the social psychological writings on persua- of his opponent as a determinant of (his) own strategy.
sion and attitude change. The nature of source, mes- This dimension may be combined with motivational
sage, target and context factors as they affect impact orientation (cooperative individualistic
-
com- -
and acceptability of communications can be made very petitive) to define the personal style the negotiator will
relevant to a perspective on negotiation that equates it use. To my knowledge, this idea has never been direct-
with sales and marketing. King and McGinnies (1972), ly tested in research. Other recent authors e.g., -
and Zimbardo, Ebbesen and Maslach (1977) have Thomas (1976, 1979), have experimented successfully
done an outstanding job of reviewing the relevant with conflict management style as a variable that will
literature in persuasion for more applied purposes. broadly account for differences. Even though authors
continue to propose broad descriptors of personal
4. Physical site characteristics in negotiation refer style that should have significant impact in negotiation
to the impact of the spatial environment and site on e.g., Maccoby (1976) or Warschaw (1980) prob- -
-
bargaining outcomes. Factors such as the shape of the lems of style measurement and demonstrated relation-
table, the use of various types of furniture, the for- ship to negotiation strategy continue to plague the
mality or informality of the negotiation environment, research and writing in this area. We can conclude that
and the neutrality of &dquo;ownership&dquo; of the physical research summaries on the impact of personality vari-
space take on great symbolic significance in negotia- ables have been largely inconclusive. If this result is
tion. Rubin and Brown have reviewed what little taken at face value, it would suggest that negotiation
research exists in this area, and what can be deduced effectiveness is more responsive to skill training and
from social ecology studies; more interesting teaching development, and that the &dquo;personality&dquo; of the
materials can be derived from popular treatments such negotiator is less of a factor than was traditionally
as Korda (1975), in which the author gives a number of assumed.
graphic examples of the use of furniture and space to
convey power.
The component approach to negotiation as stated
5, Temporal factors in negotiation determine the earlier, approaches negotiation by analyzing the
importance of time and time allocation. Skilled bargaining process and disecting it into cause and
negotiators employ time-related tactics in a variety of effect elements. The advantage of this approach is that
ways: stalling, delaying or filibustering to wear the it has facilitated the grouping of hundreds of research
opposition down, or setting artificial deadlines and studies into some coherent organizing scheme. Once
options to speed the process up. In addition, most such a grouping has occurred, it is also easier to iden-
negotiators are aware that the settlement of many tify areas in which research results are conclusive,
issues is related to Parkinson’s law - i.e., work fills inconclusive, directly conflicting, or even absent. For
the time available, and fatigue or time expiration are these reasons, the component model has appealed to
used as justification for concession making, rather research scholars and teachers of negotiation.
than actually coming to believe the validity or Even though much work is left to be done, one way
significance of the other side’s point of view. Time this research can be used is to evolve &dquo;contingency
management has been generally neglected in negotia- models&dquo; of negotiation behavior, style and tactics.
tion research, again perhaps because these studies have This approach would combine research on particular
focused on such limited time perspectives. negotiation styles (Walton and McKersie) and compo-
nent elements in order to achieve particular types of
6. Personality factors are the sixththat shape
area negotiation results. Since most actual negotiations are,
negotiation outcome. Although students
most of in fact, a mix of distributive and integrative processes,
negotiation agree that the personality characteristics of attitudinal restructuring, and intraorganizational
the negotiator affect outcomes, the research has pro- bargaining elements, such &dquo;contingency models&dquo;
38
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
would be extremely useful for advancing the integra- for executive development groups and MBAs. The best
tion of research and practice by specifying what works in this area are by Nierenberg (1973), Cohen
negotiators need to do to achieve particular outcomes. (1980), and Levin (1980). Each of the stages in the
Finally, extensive reviews of research on component time-series model will now be described:
elements would allow the opportunity to comprehend
which component elements are most likely to account 1. Preparation and planning. Planning for
for the end result in negotiation. Do the goals and/or negotiation requires that the parties consider several
nature of the issues tend to explain or predict negotia- factors. First, they need to determine the nature of the
tion outcomes more than the social structure or time conflict situation they are in facts, history, and how
-
39
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
the parties also exchange their initial proposals or agreements that occur in business are long-term con-
demands. For example, these &dquo;preliminary meetings&dquo; tracts : agreements, purchasing contracts, leasing
are a common occurrence prior to long contract agreements, labor contracts, etc. The nature of these
deliberations between union and management. relationships require that parties remember that they
cannot use negotiating strategy and tactics which will
b. Clarification and justification. Once initial damage the ongoing working relationship between the
positions are exchanged, parties explain, amplify, parties, and conversely, that developing and monitor-
clarify, bolster and justify their initial demands. Large ing the working relationship in between negotiations
amounts of supporting information and documenta- will definitely affect the quality of the negotiation.
tion are provided (c.f., Beckman, 1977, for examples Although several of the volumes give brief acknowl-
in buyer-seller negotiations). &dquo;Expert&dquo; testimony and edgment to this phenomenon, interim relations be-
evidence may be solicited. Parties seek to educate and tween parties deserves much more treatment in the
inform each other on the issues and their importance. negotiation literature.
Personal styles and the use of tactics. The
c.
managerially-oriented books provide some informa- ture in their format, negotiation and bargaining may
tion on the factors that need to be observed in con- be actively integrated with the topics of power, conflict
cluding and implement agreements, wording of con- management, intraorganizational relations, strategy
tracts and agreements, and developing procedures for formulation, and relationships between organizations
implementation and monitoring. However, they do and their environments. Treatment of these topics can
not provide extensive treatment of the problems that include an examination of bargaining and negotiation
arise in managing the agreement, or in building and as mechanisms for exercising power and managing
maintaining high quality, long-run relationships be- relationships within and across organizational boun-
tween the negotiating parties. Most of the negotiated daries. Descriptive, analytical insights may be drawn
40
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
from the &dquo;components&dquo; models described earlier, Bibliography and References
whereas the course of actual deliberations may be
To promote the identification of those references
assessed through the &dquo;types&dquo; or &dquo;time-series&dquo; models.
which are primarily applied in their orientation as
distinct from those references which are primarily
Summary research, this bibliography has grouped the references
The future of teaching and research in negotiations accordingly. Obviously, some sources perform both
roles well, and the author apologizes for any arbitrari-
will involve a deeper and richer treatment of bargain-
ness in classification.
ing as a central management skill. Managers of the
future will be operating in environments in which the
economic pressures are strong, in which the resources Applied (Managerially-Oriented) References
-
natural and human resources as well as time and Beckman, N., Negotiations. Lexington, Massachusetts:
money - are scarce. Moreover, a number of diverse Lexington Books, 1977.
and competing groups within the organization - Buskirk, R., Handbook of Management Tactics. New York:
Hawthorne Books, 1976.
women, minorities, and special interest groups - and
Cohen, H., You Can Negotiate Anything. Secaucus, New
outside the organization environmental lobbies,
-
41
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015
Deutsch, M., The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, Connec- Rappaport, A., Two Person Game Theory: The Essential
ticut : Yale University Press, 1973. Ideas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966.
Douglas, A., Industrial Peacemaking. New York: Columbia Rubin, J., and Brown, B., The Social Psychology of Bargaining
University Press, 1962. and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Druckman, D., Negotiations: Social Psychological Perspec- Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict. New York:
tives. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1977. Oxford University Press, 1963.
Elkouri, F., and Elkouri, E. A., How Arbitration Works, 3rd Sherif, M., In Common Predicament. Boston, Massachusetts:
Edition. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966.
1978.
Shubik, M. (ed.), Game Theory and Related Approaches to
Filley, A., Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview, Social Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1975.
Smith, C. G. (ed.), Conflict Resolution: Contributions of the
Fishbein, M., and Azjen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavioral Sciences. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press,
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, 1971.
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1975.
Stevens, C. M., Strategy and Collective Bargaining Negoti-
Fisher, R., "Fractionating Conflict." In Smith, C., Conflict ation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.
Resolution: Contributions of the Behavioral Sciences. Indiana:
Tedeschi, James (ed.), The Social Influence Process. Chicago:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1971. Aldine-Atherton, 1972.
Fisher, R., International Conflict for Beginners. New York: Thomas, K., "Conflict and Conflict Management." In M. L.
Harper and Row, 1969. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Hamner, C., "The Influence of Structural, Individual and Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
Strategic Differences." In Harnett, D. L., and Cummings, L. L., Thomas, K., "Organizational Conflict." In S. Kerr (ed.),
Bargaining Behavior: An International Study. Houston, Texas: Organizational Behavior. Columbus, Ohio: Grid Publishing Co.,
Dame Publications, 1980. 1979.
Harnett, D. L., and Cummings, L. L., Bargaining Behavior: Walton, R. E., and McKersie, B., A Behavior Theory of Labor
An International Study. Houston, Texas: Dame Publications, 1980.
Negotiation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.
Heider, F., The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New Walton, R. E., and Dutton, J. M., "The Management of Inter-
York: John Wiley, 1958. departmental Conflict: A Model and Review." Administrative
I. L., and Kelley, H. H., Communi-
Hovland, C. I., Janis, Science Quarterly, 14, 1969, 73-84.
cation and Persuasion. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Ware, J., "Bargaining Strategies: Collaborative vs. Competi-
Press, 1953. tive Approaches." Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearinghouse,
Ikle, F. C., How Nations Negotiate. New York: Harper and 1980.
Row, 1964. Wrightsman, L., O’Connor, J., and Baker, N., Cooperation
Kelman, H., International Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Competition: Readings on Mixed Motive Games. Belmont,
and Winston, 1965. California: Belmont Publishing Co., 1972.
King, B. T., and McGinnies, E., Attitudes, Conflict and Social Young, O., Bargaining: Formal Theories of Negotiation.
Change. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1975.
Lewicki, R., and Litterer, J., Dynamics of Bargaining (tenta- Zimbardo, P., Ebbesen, E., and Maslach, C., Influencing Atti-
tive title). Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Company, 1982b. tudes and Changing Behavior. Second Edition. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1977.
Mintzberg, H., "The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact."
Harvard Business Review, July-August 1975, 49-61.
42
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 14, 2015