NCJ Number
101535
Journal
Negotiation Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1986) Pages: 179-186
Date Published
1986
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Competitive and problemsolving theories of negotiation behavior are examined in terms of the goals and standards of good theory.
Abstract
Theory, by defining comprehensive issues in a meaningful way and identifying the questions to ask in support of a particular objective, provides much the same benefits to its user as does a geographic map. Like a map, it can be evaluated by a set of realistic standards. It should provide a reasonably accurate representation of the reality for which it is being presented, a useful description of factors important to those taking an action, and a consistently good outcome achieved by the competent user. Competitive negotiation theorists claim a close approximation to reality and a general superiority of outcomes, while problemsolving theorists assert a descriptive superiority of their mode of conflict resolution in terms of outcome. Each theory makes basic and conflicting assumptions about the interests, resources and distribution, and goals of negotiation. Each finds correspondences in the actual behavior patterns of negotiators. Each pattern is associated with certain strengths and weaknesses. An analysis of the risks of each suggests that as attempts are made to improve negotiator performance, the more closely will the behaviors reflect a problemsolving approach. Thus, the problemsolving theory appears to better satisfy the three quality standards for a general theory. 8 references.