@article{HerbstVoethDotanStoehr2017,
  author    = {Herbst - Voeth, Uta and Dotan, Hilla and St{\"o}hr, Sina},
  title     = {Negotiating with work friends},
  series = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {0885-8624},
  doi       = {10.1108/JBIM-12-2015-0250},
  pages     = {558 -- 566},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Purpose - This study aims to investigate whether a team of females negotiates differently than a team of males, and whether (workplace) friendship moderates the relationship between single-gender team composition and negotiation outcomes. Design/methodology/approach - The authors used two laboratory studies and paired 216 MBA students into single-gender teams of friends and non-friends, and then engaged them in several dyadic multi-issue negotiations. Findings - The results show that on average, male teams of non-friends reached significantly better outcomes than female teams of non-friends. However, and interestingly, female teams of friends perform equally to male teams of friends. Research limitations/implications - The authors contribute both to the negotiations and the workplace friendship literature because very little research has examined negotiation among friends at work and in particular team negotiations. In addition, the authors also contribute to the literature on gender differences in negotiations because existing research has rarely examined the differences between all-male and all-female teams and especially the relationship between same-sex teams and their effects on negotiation outcomes. Practical implications - This research has clear implications to managers with regard to team composition. Specifically, a winning all-female team should not be changed! Originality/value - This is the first study to examine the relationship between workplace friendship, gender and negotiation outcomes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HerbstKemmerlingNeale2017,
  author    = {Herbst, Uta and Kemmerling, Birte Christina and Neale, Margaret A.},
  title     = {All in, one-at-a-time or somewhere in the middle?},
  series = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {0885-8624},
  doi       = {10.1108/JBIM-12-2015-0251},
  pages     = {580 -- 586},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Purpose: While industrial marketers have long bundled their products and services to sell them as packages, to what extent should negotiators also rely on packaging their offers? Clearly, negotiating at a package level can tax the cognitive capacity of the involved parties at some point. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the impact of the number and type of issues that should be negotiated simultaneously to leverage the package strategy efficiently and effectively in multi-issue buyer-seller negotiations. Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted and analyzed negotiation simulations with 676 students from 2 public universities. Findings: The authors' results suggest that negotiating three out of six issues simultaneously is the least efficient but most effective strategy in multi-issue buyer-seller negotiations. Moreover, they found that bundling distributive and integrative issues is more efficient and effective than only bundling distributive or integrative negotiation issues in a package offer. Originality/value: Past research has examined the impact of negotiating a package as compared to each issue separately; however, little empirical attention has been directed toward understanding how to apply a package strategy in complex multi-issue negotiations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PreussvanderWijst2017,
  author    = {Preuss, Melanie and van der Wijst, Per},
  title     = {A phase-specific analysis of negotiation styles},
  series = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {The journal of business \& industrial marketing},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {0885-8624},
  doi       = {10.1108/JBIM-01-2016-0010},
  pages     = {505 -- 518},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Purpose - The purpose of this study is to analyze whether negotiators stick to one single negotiation style or whether their styles vary during the negotiation process. The paper seeks to identify different combinations of phase-specific negotiation styles and investigates the relationship between these combinations and negotiation performance and satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on a large online negotiation simulation that allows a phase-specific analysis of negotiation styles via an elaborate coding scheme. Findings - The findings reveal that negotiators generally do not limit themselves to a single negotiation style. Instead, they vary their style in the course of different negotiation phases. The authors distinguish between five distinct phase-specific negotiation style patterns that differ with regard to their impact on negotiation performance but not negotiation satisfaction. Practical implications - Negotiation practitioners get to know different phase-specific negotiation style patterns and get insights into which pattern is the most promising for negotiation performance. As a result, they can acquire this phase-specific negotiation style pattern to enhance their performance. Originality/value - The paper contributes to existing negotiation style literature, because it is the first to analyze negotiation styles from a phase-specific point of view.},
  language  = {en}
}