covid
Buscar en
Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones
Toda la web
Inicio Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones Negociar en circunstancias cambiantes: los motivos sociales como moderadores del...
Journal Information
Vol. 30. Issue 3.
Pages 141-148 (September - December 2014)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
7881
Vol. 30. Issue 3.
Pages 141-148 (September - December 2014)
Open Access
Negociar en circunstancias cambiantes: los motivos sociales como moderadores del capital económico y relacional
Negotiating in changing circumstances. Social Motives as moderators of the relational and economic capital
Visits
7881
Francisco J. Medinaa,1,
Corresponding author
fjmedina@us.es

Autor para correspondencia.
, Jimena Y. Ramirez Marinb
a Universidad de Sevilla, España
b IÉSEG School of Management, Francia
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Resumen

El presente estudio analiza cómo la cantidad de recursos disponibles para la negociación, al aumentar o disminuir a lo largo del tiempo, inciden en las relaciones entre los negociadores y en los resultados alcanzados en la negociación. Los autores predijeron que el capital relacional y los resultados cuantitativos de la negociación dependen de la secuencia de recursos disponibles y están moderados por la motivación social de los negociadores. En un estudio experimental longi- tudinal, parejas de negociadores se enfrentaban de manera repetida a lo largo de tres semanas. Las ganancias disponibles en cada serie de tres negociaciones iban aumentando o disminuyendo dependiendo de la condición. Aunque consideradas globalmente, las situaciones de negociación eran idénticas, las secuencias decrecientes condujeron a peores resultados en la negociación. Del mismo modo, los negociadores con motivos prosociales a diferencia de los negociadores egoístas mostraron mejores resultados económicos y mayor capital relacional con independencia de la secuencia. Consistente con las hipótesis planteadas, las secuencias crecientes y la motivación prosocial promueven el capital relacional entre las partes, sugiriendo que las relaciones entre las partes dependen de los resultados presentes en la mesa de negociación y del motivo social. Se proponen implicaciones teóricas y prácticas, y tendencias para la investigación futura.

Palabras clave:
Secuencias
Negociaciones repetidas
Motivos sociales
Capital relacional
Abstract

The present study focuses on how the amount of resources available in a negotiation, when they increase or decrease, influences the relational and economic capital in a negotiation. The authors argue the relationships between negotiators and the outcomes they achieve depend on the specific sequence of available resources and on the social motivation of the parties. In an experimental longitudinal study, students participated during three weeks in a distributive nego- tiation task. Results show that decreasing sequences lead to worse quality agreements and as predicted pro socially motivated reached higher relational outcomes than proself motivated ne- gotiators regardless of the sequence. Consistent with the authors’ hypotheses, increasing sequen- ces and a prosocial motive promoted economic outcomes and relational capital, suggesting that the relationships between negotiators depend on the sequence of the outcomes and the social motivation. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Keywords:
Sequences
Repeated negotiations
Social motives
Relational capital
Referencias
[Ariely, 1998]
Ariely, D. (1998). Combining Experiences Over Time: The Effects of Duration, Intensity Changes and On-Line Measurements on Retrospective Pain Evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 19-45.
[Ben Yoav and Pruitt, 1984]
Ben Yoav, O. y Pruitt, D.G. (1984). Resistance to Yielding and the Expectation of Cooperative Future Interaction in Negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 323-335.
[Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992]
Carnevale, P.J. y Pruitt, D.G. (1992). Negotiation and Mediation. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 531-582.
[De Dreu et al., 2006]
De Dreu, C.K.W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K. y Euwema, M.C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927-943
[Gelfand et al., 2006]
Gelfand, M.J., Smith-Major, V., Raver, J.L., Nishi, L.H. y O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-451.
[Giebels et al., 2003]
Giebels, E., De Dreu, C.K. W y Van de Vliert, E. (2003). No Way Out the Bait or Two Sided Exit Options in Negotiation: The Influence of Social Motives and Interpersonal Trust. Group Processes and Integroup Relations, 6, 369-386.
[Greenhalgh and Chapman, 1998]
Greenhalgh, L. y Chapman, D.I. (1998). Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of business transactions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 465-489.
[Greenhalgh and Gilkey, 1993]
Greenhalgh, L. y Gilkey, R.W. (1993). The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators’ cognitions and tactics. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 167-186.
[Henderson et al., 2006]
Henderson M. D., Trope Y. y Carnevale, P. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 712-729.
[Kernan et al., 2007]
Kernan, M.C., Hunt, C.S. y Conlon, D.E. (2007). Expectancy disconfirmation and negotiator reactions across negotiation episodes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,143-162.
[Kramer, 1999]
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-98.
[Loewenstein and Prelec, 1993]
Loewenstein, G.F. y Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100, 91-108.
[Loewenstein and Sicherman, 1991]
Loewenstein G. F. y Sicherman N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wages? Journal of Labor Economics, 9, 67-84.
[Mannix et al., 1995]
Mannix, E.A., Tinsley, C.H. y Bazerman, M.H. (1995). Negotiating over time: Impediments to integrative solutions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 241-251.
[Messick and McClintock, 1968]
Messick, D.M. y McClintock, C. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-25.
[Moran and Ritov, 2006]
Moran, S. y Ritov, I. (2006). Experience in integrative Negotiations: What needs to be learned? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,77-90.
[Neale and Fragale, 2006]
Neale, M.A. y Fragale, A.R. (2006). Social cognition, attribution, and perception in negotiation: The role of uncertainty in shaping negotiation processes and outcomes. En A. W. Kruglanski, J.P. Forgas (Series Eds.) y Thompson, L. (Vol. Ed.), Frontiers in Social Psychology: Conflict and Negotiation (pp. 27-54). New York: Psychology Press.
[Novemsky and Schweitzer, 2004]
Novemsky, N. y Schweitzer, M.E. (2004). What makes negotiators happy? The differential effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 186-197.
[O’Connor et al., 2005]
O’Connor, K.M., Arnold, J.A. y Burris, E.R. (2005). Negotiator's bargaining histories and their effects on future performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 350-362.
[Okhuysen et al., 2003]
Okhuysen, G.A., Galinsky, A.D. y Uptigrove T. A. (2003). Saving the worst for last: The effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 91, 269-279.
[Read and Powell, 2002]
Read, D. y Powell, M. (2002). Reasons for sequence preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 433-460.
[Rubin et al., 1994]
Rubin, J., Pruitt, D.G. y Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[Steinel et al., 2007]
Steinel, W., Abele, A.E. y De Dreu, C.K. W. (2007). Effects of experience and advice on negotiation process and performance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 533-550.
[Stuhlmacher et al., 1998]
Stuhlmacher, A.F., Gillespie T. L. y Champagne V. (1998). The impact of time pressure in negotiation: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 97-115.
[Thompson and Hastie, 1990]
Thompson, L. y Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 98-123.
[Trope and Liberman, 2003]
Trope, Y. y Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
[Van de Vliert et al., 1995]
Van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M.C. y Huismans, S.E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281.
[Van Kleef and De Dreu, 2002]
Van Kleef, G.A. y De Dreu, C.K. W. (2002). Social Value Orientation and Impression Formation: A Test of Two Competing Hypotheses about Information Search in Negotiation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 59-77.
[Weingart et al., 1993]
Weingart, L. R, Benett, R.J. y Brett, J.M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 504-517.

La correspondencia sobre este artículo debe enviarse al Dr. Francisco J. Medina. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad de Sevilla. C/ Camilo José Cela, s/n, 41018 Sevilla.

Article options