International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World...

International Negotiation 11 287ndash316 2006copy 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV Printed in the Netherlands

287

Steve Weiss is an associate professor of policy and international business at the SchulichSchool of Business at York University (Toronto) In 2006 he received the university-wide awardfor teaching in graduate programs He has delivered negotiation programs to business gov-ernment and education groups in 10 countries

International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing WorldReflections on the Contributions and Future of a (Sub) Field

STEPHEN E WEISSSchulich School of Business York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto Ontario M3J 1P3Canada (Email sweissschulichyorkuca)

Abstract Research on international business negotiation has been underway for 35 years It hasdeveloped within two major paradigms the macro-strategic which focuses on organizationalwholes and the micro-behavioral which focuses on individuals The former further divides intobusiness-government relations and interfirm relationship streams while the latter branches intocomparative and intercultural studies While this article summarizes these bodies of literatureits main purpose is to offer a critique of this research consider its contribution to practice andto the field of international negotiation and stimulate ideas for future research

Keywords international business negotiation international relations culture

In early 2006 Luxembourg-based steelmaker Arcelor which had successfullylured Canadarsquos Dofasco away from Germanyrsquos ThyssenKrupp the previousyear became itself the acquisition target of Mittal Steel an Indian-controlledfirm headquartered in the Netherlands During the same period US-ownedBoeing sold 27 787-Dreamliners to Air India and finalized a supply contractwith Japanrsquos Toray for the carbon fiber needed to produce the aircraft InChina Google Inc (US) negotiated with government authorities over regu-latory conditions for operation of their Internet search engine

These are but a few examples of the millions of international business (IB)negotiations that occurred during early 2006 These were the headline-grab-bers but less prominent actors also negotiated across borders All told theamount of IB negotiation worldwide seems to have exploded in recent yearsand shows no signs of abating That is ample reason to ask what we knowabout such negotiation

Instead of only enumerating what we have learned so far we could considerhow much of the phenomenon we now understand Can we predict even half

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 287

288 STEPHEN E WEISS

of the twists and turns of the process or the terms of final outcomes For thatmatter what besides the obvious cases above actually qualifies as IB nego-tiation Is international merger amp acquisition (MampA) negotiation more simi-lar to international sales negotiation than it is to domestic MampA negotiationAnd if IB negotiation is viewed as a subfield of international negotiation ndash thesubject of this journal ndash how can the subfield significantly advance the fieldThen again given developments in the world economy have the nature andcourse of IB negotiation changed so much that findings of studies from dif-ferent decades cannot simply be pooled Such questions have been answeredonly partially in literature to date or not addressed at all Within the space ofthis article I cannot cover all of these questions fully either but I trust thatoffering some thoughts and asking provocative questions as the editor hasasked will be of some value

This article is organized in five major sections After defining IB negotia-tion and its changing context the text summarizes research within two majorparadigms the macro-strategic and micro-behavioral My goal is not to pro-vide a comprehensive review (for that see Weiss 2004) Subsequent sectionsconsider contributions to international negotiation research contributions topractice and future research A young field ndash far younger than internationalbusiness or international relations let alone political science or economics ndashIB negotiation has made a lot of progress as we will see but there is much yet to do

The Phenomenon

To be able to identify examples of IB negotiation in the headlines and else-where we need a good operational definition One of the few previously pub-lished definitions states that international business (IB) negotiation is thedeliberate interaction of two or more parties (at least one of them a businessentity) originating from different nations who are attempting to define orredefine the terms of their interdependence in a business matter (Weiss1993270) Notice the emphasis on the type of actor and subject of negotiationThis understanding includes negotiations between multinational enterprises(MNEs) and host governments over foreign direct investment At the sametime it differs from ndash in fact subsumes ndash much ldquocross-cultural negotiationrdquoa term that is confusingly often treated as a synonym in research as well aspractitioner works

Todayrsquos negotiations are not always easily classified however even by thisdefinition Consider the talks in 2006 between representatives of four kid-napped foreign oil workers and their Nigerian captors Is that IB negotiation

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 288

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS NEGOTIATION IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD 289

What about negotiations held in the US between the US subsidiaries of aJapanese-owned automaker and a Japanese-owned parts supplier Accordingto the definition above the first case qualifies (the business matter being oper-ations or employee safety) but the second does not (both parties originate fromthe same nation be it Japan or the US) Because of the various criteria pos-sible determination of origin or nationality is often complicated1

For this article let us set aside ldquodifferent national originsrdquo and construeldquointernationalrdquo to mean involvement of at least two national contexts whetherthat occurs via the partiesrsquoaffiliations or the business matter This allows us toinclude the Japanese example above In addition bear in mind that a party maybe an individual not necessarily an organization or group In early 2006 forexample one individual ndash Saudi Prince Alwaleed ndash spearheaded the $5 billionpurchase of Canadian-owned Fairmont Hotels amp Resorts Inc All in all indi-viduals and teams representing companies large and small and individuals inbusiness for themselves negotiate with diverse counterparts ndash investorsemployees suppliers customers public officials interest groups and others ndashin a wide variety of cross-border situations

The Changing Context

Over the last three decades since the beginning of dedicated research on IBnegotiation the broad context ndash world context ndash for such negotiation haschanged markedly Just think of the political economic social and techno-logical developments and ubiquitous references today to ldquoglobalizationrdquoThese developments bear mention here if only briefly for they haveinfluenced the nature and scope of IB negotiation (as illustrated above) andshould shape our understanding and interpretation of research

The number of countries ndash economic arenas for business actors ndash hasincreased by over 50 from 124 (1970) to 191 (2003) based on UnitedNations membership At the same time notwithstanding this fragmenta-tion most countries have expanded their international economic tiesboth regionally and globally The US Canada and Mexico establishedthe North American Free Trade Agreement (effective 1994) and 12countries formed the European Union (effective 1993) and subsequentlyadded 13 members (as of 2004) Signatories to the 1947 GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade have undertaken three rounds of multi-year talks (Tokyo 1973ndash79 Uruguay 1986ndash94 Doha 2001-ongoing)and created in 1994 a World Trade Organization that today comprises139 member countries

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 289

290 STEPHEN E WEISS

Since 1970 the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of countriesworldwide has multiplied 12-fold to US$557 trillion (purchasing powerparity in 2004)2 While five economies ndash Britain France Germany Japanand the US ndash accounted for 60 of the total in 1980 they representedonly 40 in 2004 Other economies from the Asian Tigers to emergingldquoBRICrdquo markets (Brazil Russia India China) have also demonstratedtheir dynamism Remarkably international trade has grown nearly twiceas fast as World GDP since 1970 and foreign direct investment (FDI) hasgrown even faster (Hill 20028ndash9 15ndash16)

MNEs have played major roles in generating and shaping this activity In2002 General Electric alone operated in over 100 countries and touted a transnationality index (foreign to total assets sales and employees) of 84 (UNCTAD 20046) Wal-Mart the worldrsquos largest if not most transnational MNE generated $288 billion in sales in 2004 Only16 nations had larger GDPs and Wal-Martrsquos 16 million employeescould be compared to Israelrsquos entire labor force of 24 million

Meanwhile individuals worldwide have gained far-reaching capabilitiesin gathering information connecting and communicating Out of a worldpopulation of 64 billion in 2004 3 billion had telephones (fixed ormobile) The Internet a technology introduced to the public only adecade ago attracted an estimated 840 users ndash twice the number fouryears earlier3 In addition to disseminating information it has facilitatedbusiness transactions Over 200 million people have registered witheBay Inc an on-line marketplace that operates in 33 countries carriesover 100 million listings and adds 6 million new listings daily

This is a picture of international and global dimensions This article distin-guishes between the two terms reserving the latter strictly for coordinatedactivities that transcend national borders and occur simultaneously in many locations around the world (Eden amp Lenway 2001387) While theglobalization of business has accelerated especially in certain industriesinternational business can also still be viewed as it should be on bilateral andregional levels4

Existing Research A Synopsis

Academic research on IB negotiation may be traced back to 1970 the date ofa doctoral dissertation entitled ldquoInternational Business Negotiations A Studyin Indiardquo (Kapoor 1970) at New York University That year Harvard Business

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 290


Review also printed ldquoHow to Negotiate in Japanrdquo (Van Zandt 1970) Thus ini-tial interest in the subject came from IB scholars and practitioners who saw itas a way to understand better how to further business objectives

Scholarly interest intensified during the 1980s and gained critical mass inthe mid-1990s International Negotiation devoted an entire issue to IB nego-tiation in 1999 (Vol 4 no 1) By then the field had also attracted negotiationresearchers who were intent on testing the generality of intranationally devel-oped ideas A small group of scholars started to specialize in IB negotiation

The resulting corpus of studies may be classified by subject matter of nego-tiation number and types of parties geographical coverage negotiationprocess variables and research method to name just a few possibilities5

Comprehensive reviews are already available in existing literature so this sec-tion describes representative work in two previously identified paradigms formost IB negotiation research to date the ldquomacro-strategicrdquo focus on interac-tions between organizations and aspects of bargaining power and a separateldquomicro-behavioralrdquo focus on individual negotiators and their behavior (Weiss2004418) In addition this section distinctively offers for reference a listingof noteworthy journal articles throughout the 35 years organized by decade(see the appendix) and an emphasis in the text on recent studies

Macro-Strategic Paradigm

The macro-strategic paradigm consists of two streams of research The firsttargets MNE-foreign government relations Originally labeled the ldquobargain-ing schoolrdquo and representing some of the earliest research on IB negotiationit is now referred to as ldquointernational business-government relationsrdquo The sec-ond newer stream is directed at interfirm relationships

International business-government relations

Early empirical work on this topic explored the impact of foreign MNEsrsquoresources on the outcomes of market entry negotiations with host govern-ments Typically the data concerned US-owned MNEs in Latin America orAsia MNE resources included capital technology product differentiationproduct diversity and access to other markets and negotiation outcomes weremeasured in terms of the percentage of subsidiary ownership obtained by theMNEs (a proxy for negotiation successfulness)

During the 1970s the most salient concept in this paradigm was the ldquoobso-lescing bargainrdquo (Vernon 1968) Put simply an MNErsquos bargaining power in arelationship with a foreign government deteriorates over time The firmrsquossuperior initial position diminishes as soon as it begins to invest and transfer

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 291

292 STEPHEN E WEISS

resources whereas the host government gains leverage by various meansWhen its power exceeds the firmrsquos the government can force renegotiationsand try to improve upon the original terms of their agreement

This concept continued to orient research in subsequent years although ithas generated considerable debate Skeptics contend that the assumption of anantagonistic relationship between business and government is outdated sincethe early 1980s they argue governments have sought FDI (China andMexico for instance loosened their FDI regulations in 1984) Other scholarscounter that the emphases on market entry and obsolescence may have lost rel-evance but the core elements of Vernonrsquos model ndash partiesrsquo goals resourcesand constraints ndash still apply It has been updated as the ldquopolitical bargainingmodelrdquo (Eden Lenway amp Schuler 2005)

Empirical studies since the early period have refined and extended thatwork They include additional outcome measures such as actual ownershipadjusted by firm or country preference extent of MNE control over sub-sidiariesrsquo key functions and bargaining success over time Researchers havealso analyzed influences other than MNE resources variables such as hostgovernment resources host country-home country ties (Ramamurti 2001)macroeconomic conditions and moves by pressure groups (For an excellentcollection of recent writings see Grosse 2005)

What has been learned about these negotiations An obsolescing bargainhas indeed occurred in some countries (Vachani 1995) MNE technology andproduct differentiation have had significant positive effects on actual sub-sidiary ownership levels in at least three empirical studies (Fagre amp Wells1982 Kobrin 1987 Lecraw 1984 cf Vachani 1995) So has export marketaccess (cf Kobrin 1987) On the other hand these and related factors haveexplained less than 50 of the variation in actual ownership (cf Lecraw1984) and their influence has not held up for other outcome and success meas-ures such as firm-corrected ownership A major lesson so far seems to be thatMNE-host government relationships and negotiations have many dimensionsa number of which have yet to be systematically identified and evaluated

Interfirm relationships

If firms in IB negotiate with governments about investment incentives andoperating conditions they negotiate with each other about financing suppliesproduction sales and distribution These activities give rise to various rela-tionships and agreements For IB negotiation researchers the relationships ofmost interest have been joint ventures (JVs) strategic alliances and MampAs

Joint ventures which entail the creation of a separate legal organizationbegan drawing significant research attention in IB in the early 1980s amidst

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292


heightened media coverage (recall Beijing Jeep ndash one of the first Sino-foreignJVs) and growing awareness of high failure rates This research did not highlight the role of negotiation but it did expose pertinent factors such as pos-sible contributions of prospective parents and different organizational struc-tures (eg Killing 1982) and later partner selection criteria (Geringer 1991)By the second half of the 1980s negotiation-specific work appeared (egWeiss 1987)

The decade since the mid-1990s has seen a more concentrated effort tounderstand JV negotiation especially through rich case studies An analysisof four Sino-US JVs showed in contrast to the survey-based business-government research above that ownership was not negotiated by the partiesmanagement control was (Yan amp Gray 1994) Moreover bargaining powerwas measured by contextual as well as resource-based factors Other case stud-ies have explicated the key issues in JV negotiations (Faure 2000) the impactof external stakeholders on negotiations in Eastern Europe (Brouthers ampBamossy 1997) and types of explanations for agreement and no-agreementoutcomes (Weiss 1997) In addition conceptual work includes an integratedframework for JV contract negotiations (Luo 1999) and an exposition of theobsolescing international JV bargain (Inkpen amp Beamish 1997) (For more oninternational JV negotiation see Urban 1996 and the ldquoMicro-BehavioralParadigmrdquo section below)

Macro-strategic research on international alliances which include JVs butalso other forms of tie-ups (Dussauge amp Garrette 19992ndash22) has tended totake up similar questions about partner resources relationship forms and jointperformance The impact of culture has figured prominently in a number ofworks from primers on how to negotiate alliances in Japan (Kobayashi 1988)or China (Nair amp Stafford 1998) to empirical studies of Mexican preferencesconcerning governance structures (Teegen amp Doh 2002) and Renaultrsquos cultivation of an ldquounlikelyrdquo alliance with Nissan (Korine Asakawa amp Gomez 2002) There are other notable works on types of conflict arising frompartnersrsquodifferent perceptions of their contributions (de Mattos Sanderson ampGhauri 2002) the nature of relational quality and trust (Arino de la Torre ampRing 2005) and determinants of reciprocity (Kashlak Chandran amp DiBenedetto 1998) (For more on alliance research see Contractor amp Lorange2002)

Finally for interfirm relationships scholars have analyzed cross-borderMampA activity which has produced eye-catching results like Mittal-Arcelorand grew 7-fold in world value between 1987ndash99 (UNCTAD 200010ndash16) Aswith JVs and alliances general literature on the subject can guide the negoti-ation researcher MampA literature addresses different possible motives of theparties (Chen amp Hennart 2004 Trautwein 1990) and aspects of the acquisition

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS

process such as escalating momentum and expectational ambiguity (Jemisonamp Sitkin 1986) With respect to negotiation research on international MampAshowever a computerized search found only three scholarly writings of notea broad conceptual discussion oriented to the European Union (de Beaufortamp Lempereur 1996) a case study of the Telia (Sweden)-Telenor (Norway)merger talks (Fang Fridh amp Schultzberg 2004) and an interview-based analy-sis of the Italian acquisition of a French firm followed by guidelines for nego-tiators (Sebenius 1998 also Morosini 1998190ff) Perhaps the recency of IBnegotiation researchersrsquo attention and the sensitivity of MampA deal-makingexplain the limited amount of published research (For a recent collection ofwork on international MampAs see Buckley amp Ghauri 2002)

As a whole the stream of research on interfirm negotiations has provideddescriptions of real negotiations and insights into negotiation structure bar-gaining power and influencing conditions Careful case studies those basedon rare access to all parties have demonstrated the complexity of negotiationsin IB (eg Brouthers amp Bamossy 1997 Weiss 1997) in ways not evident inthe large n studies prevalent in business-government research But they arefew as alliance researchers have noted (Salk 2005) the process of negotiationrequires closer examination There are no theories of interfirm negotiation inIB that address its complexity and fully explicate process and outcome

Micro-Behavioral Paradigm

The second of the two main approaches to IB negotiation research the micro-behavioral paradigm is focused on individualsrsquo behavior In contrast to themacro-strategic paradigm this research has typically been based on one typeof business transaction buysell6 These studies have analyzed various facetsof negotiation behavior but the main theme ndash a driving force ndash for most ofthem has been national culture

This research may be subdivided into two categories The first containscomparative studies that is cross-cultural comparisons of intracultural nego-tiation behavior Although such negotiation is not international per se thiswork shares with international work an interest in understanding negotiationpractices in different countries and it constitutes the bulk of micro-behavioralresearch The other body of work that we can review is strictly intercultural

Comparative studies

In the early 1980s Graham (1983) undertook a series of experiments withBrazilians Japanese and Americans that involved 1-on-1 person negotiationof a combination of three goods (The three-goods agenda allowed for differ-

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294


ent types of bargaining) Graham sought to uncover differences in the threenationsrsquo intracultural behavior and to explain any variance in negotiation out-comes He used pre- and post-negotiation questionnaires to obtain data forthree sets of variables negotiator characteristics (eg self-esteem culturalbackground) situational constraints (eg buyerseller role) and process measures (eg negotiatorrsquos strategy) By the mid-1990s his research covered15 countries and over 1000 participants making it the most extensive collec-tion of such studies to date

Subsequent investigators pursued the same questions as Grahamrsquos withmore conceptual and methodological sophistication The first wave ofrefinement unbundled culture as a binary variable identified constitutive val-ues such as individualism and collectivism (Hofstede 1984) and directlytested experimental subjectsrsquo individual standings on these dimensions (Morriset al 1998 Tinsley amp Pillutla 1998) Researchers thereby related observedbehavior to cultural particulars and also detected intracultural variation

The second wave evident since the early 2000s has added even more to thestudy of culture and negotiation Conceptual developments include negotia-torsrsquo use of combinations of strategies as opposed to single styles (Tinsley2001) interactional elements of negotiation ndash action-response sequences ndashrather than separate segments of individual behavior (Adair amp Brett 2005) and previously neglected situational and environmental influences on strate-gic choices and behavior (Kumar amp Worm 2004 Volkema amp Fleury 2002)Cross-cultural researchers have also increasingly pursued negotiator cogni-tion (Gelfand et al 2001) and expanded geographical coverage beyond Top 20 economies Methodologically researchers have carried out more directobservation of negotiator behavior albeit still in experimental settings ratherthan relying on self-report questionnaires (Roemer et al 1999) adopted culturally appropriate survey instruments instead of depending on a singleUS-anchored tool (Liu Friedman amp Chi 2005) and discovered new expla-nations by using different outcome measures for different cultural groups(Ma et al 2002)

What has been learned from comparative research so far In most countriesaccording to Grahamrsquos data partners reciprocate a negotiatorrsquos use of a prob-lem-solving approach ndash PSA (question-asking and information-gatheringabout needs and preferences) Negotiator PSA does not explain much variancein negotiator profit outcomes but combined with a few other variables itaccounts for over 50 of the variance in partner satisfaction outcomes(Graham Mintu amp Rodgers 1994) Paradoxically PSA increases partner sat-isfaction in the US Canada and Germany but decreases it in the UK andChina Yet these results stem from one scenario and single samples of culturesand one could reasonably hesitate to rely solely on them

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS

Turning to comparative research as a whole we can ask whether it asintended has 1) produced valid descriptions of negotiator behavior in par-ticular cultures and 2) succeeded in predicting negotiator behavior in inter-cultural or international settings Experimental studies of Japanese negotiatorsa frequently targeted group have led to some dramatic findings but they tendto concern only a few elements of negotiation behavior and have not held upacross studies Graham (1993) reported that Japanese negotiated much moresuccessfully as buyers than as sellers (and even labeled this the most distinc-tive feature of Japanese negotiation) but that did not occur in earlier and laterinvestigations by other researchers (Harnett amp Cummings 1980 Brett ampOkumura 1998502) Similarly some studies have described Japanese nego-tiation behavior as information-gathering and joint problem-solving whileothers have emphasized compromise or power strategies (Brett amp Okumura1998 Gelfand et al 2001 Tinsley 2001)7

Reasons for these apparent inconsistencies have begun to show up inresearch that is more sensitive to contextual influences It has revealed thatindividualistic and collectivistic orientations long assumed to be polar oppo-sites are not mutually exclusive in a culture The same negotiator may act indi-vidualistically under certain conditions and collectivistically under otherconditions (Black amp Mendenhall 1993 Cho amp Cho 2001 Kumar amp Worm2004314) Recent attention to institutional factors which are seldom repre-sented in experiments has also enriched understanding of negotiation behav-ior in different countries (Lin amp Miller 2003 Xin amp Pearce 1996)

Even if descriptions of intracultural negotiation behavior become consis-tent studies have already cast doubt on the validity of predicting individualsrsquobehavior in intercultural negotiation from their intracultural practices Peoplein many cultural groups interact differently with outsiders (Brett amp Okumura1998 Francis 1991) This finding is not invariant either however for peoplein other cultures do not alter or adapt their behavior in different cultural set-tings (Adler amp Graham 1989 Tse Francis amp Walls 1994) Where comparativeresearch may have the most potential to serve IB research is in elucidating thedynamics within a team of compatriots and the pressures it deals with fromexternal cultural sources

Intercultural research

Finally in existing literature one can find studies of intercultural negotiationand cultural aspects of IB negotiation I employ the two terms to distinguishbetween relatively abstract negotiations usually in experimental settings thatfeature cultural factors and more fully fleshed out international negotiationstypically in situ In both areas researchers have focused on describing andunderstanding negotiator behavior and interaction

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296


Much of the early research was done by survey (eg Tung 1982) Americanresearchers set out to characterize Americansrsquo counterparts in real negotia-tions and pinpoint causes of American success or failure Questionnairesincluded items on the business environment (eg labor costs) as well asspecific aspects of individual behavior (eg bargaining style) although theywere usually administered only to one side ndash the Americans ndash and tappedimpressions based on respondentsrsquo aggregate experience One of the fruits ofthis research is a series of studies on US-Chinese negotiations that spans a 16-year period Recent survey work features more penetrating probes of par-ticular facets of negotiation behavior (eg influence tactics in Rao amp Schmidt1998) application to previously neglected countries (eg Saudi Arabia in Al-Ghamdi 1999) and access to all parties at the negotiating table (eg Linamp Miller 2003)

Experimental scientists took up intercultural negotiation much later A turn-ing point in business research was Brett and Okumurarsquos (1998) analysis ofAmerican and Japanese behaviors in a negotiation experiment on syndicationrights for a TV series Subsequent examples of intercultural experimentsinclude studies of mental models in US-Chinese negotiations (Liu 2004)judgment bias in US-Greek negotiations (Gelfand amp Christakopoulou 1999)and virtual interaction (Kersten amp Noronha 1999) Such work which is stillless plentiful than comparative work typically involves student negotiators ormanagers in training (For a recent collection of comparative and interculturalnegotiation studies see Gelfand amp Brett 2004)

The third and last method for intercultural research which has produced fewbut fascinating studies is ethnography There are at least two studies of thiskind on negotiator behavior in ldquoWestern-Chineserdquo negotiations (Faure 2000Miles 2003) A similar approach augmented with surveys has been used toinvestigate one effect of intercultural interaction in a JV the creation of aldquonegotiated (third) culturerdquo (Brannen amp Salk 2000)

As we have done with all of the other research streams we can ask Whathas been learned here The surveys on US-Chinese negotiations offer inter-esting comparable findings (eg Brunner amp Taoka 1977 a replication by Leeamp Lo 1988 Tung 1982 Stewart amp Keown 1989 Rondinelli 1993) Based onAmerican perceptions Chinese negotiating behavior entails slow decision-making tough bargaining (eg price reductions of as much as 50) and pro-longation of the process This picture held up across 16 years of surveys Oneof the few changes detected was a greater propensity to initiate internationaltalks (Stewart amp Keown 1989)

As to the keys to Americansrsquo successfulness in these negotiations surveyresults changed over time In the early years Americans thought knowledgeof Chinese culture was crucial whereas later they gave more weight to the

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS

uniqueness of the US companyrsquos product In an interesting twist at least one survey with Chinese respondents has indicated that Americans may havebeen unaware of other success factors such as ldquoconstituent shadowsrdquo and facesaving (Shi 2001 Shi amp Wright 2001)

Experimental intercultural studies have demonstrated that US andJapanese negotiators realize fewer joint gains with each other than when theynegotiate intraculturally (Brett amp Okumura 1998) They appear to develop lessunderstanding of counterpartsrsquo priorities in the former than in the latter Theyreciprocate offers at a much lower rate than intracultural negotiators do (Adairamp Brett 2005) We have also learned that the degree to which interculturalnegotiators change their mental models of negotiation as they negotiate hasa significant positive effect on joint gains (Liu 2004) Intercultural work isessential to IB negotiation research but it is only in the early stages of itsdevelopment

A Critique of Existing Research

Not long ago Reynolds Simintiras and Vlachou (2003) assessed over 100peer-reviewed journal articles on IB negotiation published between 1990 and2000 The three researchers considered the articles with respect to five topicsenvironmental and organizational conditions cultural factors negotiator char-acteristics negotiation-related factors and negotiation outcomes They foundthe articles to be ldquoless than decisiverdquo contributions to existing conceptual mod-els and concluded (p 249)

The [topics] pertaining to IB negotiations are highly complex withvarious interrelationships between variables and unless a dominant par-adigm emerges [ie an ldquoall-encompassing model of IB negotiationsrdquo]the likelihood of major advances is rather slim

Their concern about an all-encompassing model was well-takenOur synopsis of existing research also reveals fragmentation and atomistic

treatment The macro-strategic and micro-behavioral paradigms focus on different units of analysis and aspects of negotiation Even within each para-digm there are disparate streams of research The amount of work thatattempts to combine the two approaches or develop multi-level analysis iswhile growing still rather limited (chronologically de la Torre 1981 Weiss1993 McCall 1996 Tinsley Curham amp Kwok 1999 Shi 2001 Arino de laTorre amp Ring 2005)

There are models of IB negotiation in the literature even rather encom-passing ones (for a review see Weiss 2004424ff) but none as noted above

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298


has gained general acceptance Their low status seems more a matter ofinsufficient empirical scrutiny to date than an assessment of their quality Inany event without such a model one is hard pressed to answer questionsraised at the outset of this article such as how much of IB negotiationprocesses and outcomes are understood and whether the nature of the phe-nomenon has changed over the last 35 years

A number of other concerns may be identified in the ldquowhatrdquo and ldquohowrdquo ofIB negotiation research to date They include the number and types of coun-triesnational cultures selected a focus on bilateral negotiations the treatmentof organizational parties as monolithic wholes and of individuals as solitaryprincipal negotiators and the external validity of experimental studies

Many of the countries in these studies have been chosen for reasons of con-venience or ease of access to data For Graham another criterion was promi-nence as a major trading partner of the US An alternative for statisticalpurposes would be the expected degree of difference (whatever the dimension)in order to maximize the range of variation Also in order to build knowledgebases with confidence researchers could select common country targets Asit stands there is too little geographical overlap in macro-strategic and micro-behavioral studies

Research in both paradigms has concentrated almost exclusively on bilateralnegotiations (cf Money 1998) Yet global business by definition has led tomultilateral or linked bilateral negotiations such as the Dofasco-Arcelor-Mittal deal mentioned above and the ldquolocational tournamentsrdquo that take placewhen automakers plan a new assembly plant These and many other IB nego-tiations involve talks on multiple levels A company negotiates with nationalstateprovincial and municipal governments Existing research has largely setthe latter arenas aside

In a related vein both paradigms have treated parties narrowly and whilethere are analytical benefits to abstraction they may be offset by doubts aboutthe applicability of findings to real negotiation processes and outcomesMacro-strategic analyses have treated both companies and national govern-ments as units (cf Encarnation amp Wells 1985) ignoring internal divisions andactivities that complicate ldquoactionrdquo by the unit Micro-behavioral researchcontains a bias as well especially in the largely US-sponsored studiesreviewed above Their bilateral negotiation designs consistently put individ-uals in the role of principals We have not learned much about the behavior ofindividuals as representatives or as team members in IB negotiations

Lastly concern about external validity a criticism perhaps raised too read-ily in social science generally has two clear sources with respect to micro-behavioral research on IB negotiation The first has to do with generalizabilityacross experiments or surveys for there are few replication studies in the

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS

literature (US-Chinese negotiation surveys are an exception) Untilresearchers repeat their experiments with different subjects from the samecountrycultural group using the same negotiation scenario or try otherresearchersrsquoscenarios we ought to view their findings with some reservationThe second source has to do with real IB negotiations which relative to manyother types of negotiation tend to be complex So many experimental designshave pared down the agenda richness of context and number of actors thatone could well question whether resulting negotiation proceedings and out-comes can be used to inform our understanding of real IB negotiations (seeEliashberg Lilien amp Kim 1995)

Contributions to International Negotiation Research

If international negotiation ndash the domain of this journal ndash denotes ldquonegotiationsbetween governments or private entities (the latter including corporations andnonprofit organizations) involving persons of different nationalitiesrdquo (Kauf-mann 19898) then IB negotiation certainly fits within it How does researchon IB negotiation contribute to research on international negotiation Does IBresearch amount to stand-alone work on a subset of actors within the field orcan it stimulate support and be integrated with work in other subfields

The most established subfield often equated with the field at large is inter-national political or diplomatic negotiation ndash negotiation typically betweennational governments8 They negotiate with each other over matters rangingfrom security to scientific exchange but they also negotiate with other non-governmental parties As with IB negotiation the boundaries of this subfieldare not entirely clear For the limited purposes of this section that is to pro-vide a basis for comparison and to consider the added value of IB research letus view relevant political research as work on negotiation that has appearedin international relations (IR) journals

Specifically we can refer to a systematic collection of IR articles publishedsince 1976 a year notable for the release of Zartmanrsquos The 50 Solution anda reprint of Iklersquos classic How Nations Negotiate The articles appeared in fourjournals International Studies Quarterly World Politics InternationalOrganization and a non-US source European Journal of Political Research(International Negotiation is not included as it began later in 1996) There aretwo subsets of the collection (Weiss 2000) The first which covers 1976ndash1993consists of 90 doubly screened and rigorously content analyzed articles Thesecond subset covering 1994ndash2005 consists of 64 articles identified by titlekey words but not further screened for relevance or content analyzed

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300


The Nature of IR Research

The content analyzed IR articles (1976ndash93) concentrate mostly on negotiationsinvolving security issues (33) and then on trade (19) and general politicalissues A handful of articles cover investment (FDI) negotiations (6) andthere are none at all on joint ventures or understandably sales Over 80 ofthe articles address only government parties while 7 address companies aswell as governments The organizational level of analysis prevails (60)compared to a mere 7 of articles on individuals and 30 that incorporatemultiple levels With respect to geographical scope the largest portion of the90 articles (33) does not focus on a particular country The country mostattended however is the former Soviet Union

In this work a number of researchers have delved into elaborate explana-tions for negotiation outcomes (eg Friedheim amp Durch 1977 Inoguchi ampMiyatake 1979 Odell 1980) Other major points of interest in terms of nego-tiation concepts are agenda-settingissue linkage (eg Bennett amp Sharpe1979) bargaining power and two-level (internal-external) games (Schoppa1993) Almost half (46) of the articles have been case studies Data has beensourced most frequently from public literature then from documentsarchivessurveys and in merely 1 of the 90 articles experiments (The order in IBresearch is just the reverse)

The other subset of IR articles (1994ndash2004) appears from preliminaryreview to both extend previous work and branch out in new directionsExtensions include articles on company-government negotiations over FDI(Bartlett amp Seleny 1998) bargaining power (Meunier 2000) game theoreticperspectives (Zagare amp Kilgour 2003) and cooperation theory includingenforcement effects (Fearon 1998) New work ventures into cognition andknowledge structures (Bonham Sergeev amp Parshin 1997) language use(Duffy Frederking amp Tucker 1998) impatience (Blaydes 2004) ripeness(Forde 2004) effects of transparency (Stasavage 2004) and clustered negoti-ations (Pahre 2001)

Added Value from IB

Now then what does IB research add to IR research and more importantly tointernational negotiation as a whole

For starters IB research fills gaps in knowledge about the process and out-comes of negotiations that are clearly within the purview of IR These includenegotiations involving subjects such as investment (FDI) and JVs (those in which governments participate) (To compare coverage of negotiation sub-jects by IB and IR see Figure 1) In addition IB provides knowledge about

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sales Invest JointVenture

Security Trade GenPolitics

Labor Commons Other

IB Journals IR Journals

(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1

behavior at an individual level including negotiators from countries and cul-tures not studied in IR While early IR research concentrated on the SovietUnion for instance IB focused on Japan

On a conceptual front IB offers extensions and elaboration of ideas alreadyin IR literature as well as new concepts Examples include a longitudinal ratherthan point-in-time perspective of bargaining power (from the obsolescingbargain) and the variety possible in partiesrsquo resources (from the macro-strate-gic paradigm) New or unusual concepts include the ldquoproblem-solvingapproachrdquo in negotiator behavior and cultural values such as uncertaintyavoidance Some of these concepts may be imported ldquoas isrdquo others requireadaptation

IB research also offers methodological innovation and data for analysis IBresearchers appear to have more experience with experimental designs and aredeveloping analytic techniques applicable to negotiations in IR (eg codingsystems in Adair amp Brett 2005) For countries that both subfields haveexplored (eg China) data from IB on negotiator behavior may be used by IRresearchers to test the robustness of their findings Imagine the possibilities inbeing able to combine and compare experimental data on individual behaviorwith information from archives and memoirs (eg Dobrynin 1995)

On an entirely different level IB research presents IR with a contrastingbusiness perspective on the very purpose and nature of negotiation activity

Subjects of International Negotiations in Research Articles(By Type of Source Journal for 1975ndash93)

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302


undertaken for economic gain This point of view serves IR in at least twoways First it informs analysis of the interests and behavior of governmentsrsquocounterparts in company-government negotiations (an area where the twosubfields clearly overlap) These negotiations are no longer limited to invest-ment issues MNEs are becoming more active in public policy (see Kobrin2005 Saner Yiu amp Sondergaard 2000 on business diplomacy) and states areengaging with business not only as regulators but as customers competitorsand partners (eg public-private partnerships) Second by occasionally tak-ing an IB perspective ndash viewing negotiations from a different worldview IRresearchers may detect otherwise neglected factors and gain new insights Thisapplies not only to company-government negotiations but to other ldquomixednegotiationsrdquo (those between dissimilar parties ndash parties with different raisonsdrsquoAtre intergovernmental negotiations and international negotiations gener-ally (See Doh amp Teegen 2002 and International Negotiation issues on NGOs(1999) and international economic negotiations (2000))

Finally beyond the contributions to IR research IBrsquos contributions to inter-national negotiation as a field deserve mention The obvious one is a body ofknowledge on a subset of international negotiations (recall Figure 1) But thereis more When juxtaposed with IR IB research enables us to see commonali-ties in negotiation structures conditions processes behavior and outcomes ndashin short the commonalities that characterize international negotiation9 Theyallow us to distinguish processes and outcomes in international negotiationfrom those in other negotiations and to proceed to build this field

Contributions to Practice

Since its beginnings research on IB negotiation like research on other nego-tiations has been motivated partly by the desire to improve negotiatorsrsquocapa-bilities and achievements Zartmanrsquos (1976) The 50 Solution if primarily anIR work was subtitled ldquoHow to Bargain Successfully with Hijackers StrikersBosses Oil Magnates Arabs Russians and Other Worthy Opponents in ThisModern Worldrdquo (Note the prescience with respect to counterparts) Afterthree decades one can legitimately ask whether IB research has improvedpractice Or given the expansiveness of that question one might just as appro-priately ask whether IB research assists a team or individual in a particularnegotiation

I faced the second question directly when a student approached me foradvice concerning a complicated high stakes negotiation Her father hadbeen working overseas for a subcontractor on an offshore oil rig when mili-tants from the host country stormed it and took him and other foreigners

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS

hostage Wanting him released unharmed as soon as possible the student ndashletrsquos call her ldquoSarahrdquo ndash had scoured news sources for information about theevent and amazingly obtained phone numbers and addresses for two key par-ticipants in the hostage negotiations She wanted to take action potentially inthose negotiations and asked me ldquoWhat should I dordquo

My initial response for both of us was to work through a standard negoti-ation analysis (parties issues interests conditions actions to date) Severalparties were involved the rig-owning company the subcontractor the host andmultiple home country governments the militants and intermediaries Sarahand I then discussed the effects of increased complexity (a likely consequenceif she were to intervene) the full scope of her interim and ultimate interestsand ways to add pressure to reach an agreement For one of her interests onecourse of action which Sarah took was initiating communication and infor-mation-sharing between the hostagesrsquo families After our talk she satisfiedseveral other interests as well The effects of her actions and inaction on thehostage negotiations cannot be gauged here At least Sarahrsquos actions did notprevent her fatherrsquos return he was released unharmed

My recommendations did not noticeably draw on particular studies in IBresearch (In retrospect I could have consulted International Negotiationrsquos(2003) issue on negotiating with terrorists) But my thoughts were influencedI am sure by my knowledge of IB research and teaching experiences

Some readers may question the use of a hostage negotiation in reflectionson the practical value of IB research or note more pointedly that there isinsufficient information to see any links between my advice and the negotia-tion outcome I selected this case primarily as a real example of the new typesof negotiations that companies face in a globalizing world but could have usedany number of other test cases or problems from a simple importexport trans-action to how to counter obsolescence in company bargaining power ordevelop better relationship fit in MampA negotiations10 In any event I know ofno empirical investigations into the effects of research on practice for IBnegotiations of any type and of only one study on the effects of advice on IBnegotiator behavior (Eliashberg et al 1992) IB research shares this lack ofhard evidence on transfer and training effectiveness with the general field ofnegotiation (Deutsch 2000583)

Nevertheless let me suggest some reasons to be optimistic about thebenefits of IB research for practitioners There is a growing body of thought-ful research translations and research-based books for practitioners (Salacuse2003 Sebenius 2002 Usunier amp Ghauri 1996) In business albeit non-IBnegotiation research studies have substantiated the positive effects for nego-tiators of knowledge about negotiation (eg Weingart Hyder amp Prietula

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304


1996) In IR problem-solving workshops (aka ldquointeractive conflict resolu-tionrdquo) whose design expressly includes introducing research to practitionershave been supported by various groups for 40 years (see InternationalNegotiation 1997 2(3)) Further a recent study of Dutch peacekeepers(Ramarajan et al 2004) reported statistically significant positive effects ofnegotiation training IB researchers still have much to do to demonstrate howand how much research contributes to practice but they have some examplesto use in charting their course11

Future Research

The trajectories for future IB negotiation research extend from each of the two existing paradigms ndash macro-strategic micro-behavioral ndash and more specifically from the two streams within each of them (international business-government relations interfirm relationships comparative studies intercul-tural research) Within each paradigm researchers will probably continue tofine-tune methods and attempt to explain more of the variation in currentlystudied variables Some cross-paradigm (multi-level) and multi-perspectivework will also likely continue albeit to the same limited extent

Without wanting to launch a full-scale debate here on how scienceadvances I think one can ask whether such compartmentalization is desirableBesides where research is headed should it head in these directions In aprovocative spirit I would say ldquoNo at least not solelyrdquo There is limited valuefor international business negotiation in continuing to pursue comparativerather than intercultural studies Further if we are to understand IB negotia-tion as a whole as complex as it often is we need synthesis ndash assimilation ndashof the perspectives and insights offered by both paradigms For the same reason IB researchers should pay more attention to IR research on negotiationand to the larger field of international negotiation

Three core questions about negotiation can and should continue to motivatefuture IB research how do parties negotiate (descriptions of process) why dothey reach non-agreements or agreements of different kinds (explanations ofoutcomes) and how should parties negotiate (prescriptions for behavior)For IB researchers in particular there is arguably a fourth question the waysand degree to which answers to the preceding questions for IB negotiation aredistinct from other types of negotiation Let me suggest a few specific ideasfor future research along three lines topics methods and perspectives

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics

Not long ago in a different review (Weiss 2004) I listed six topics for researchnegotiation preparation intergroup negotiation cross-level relationships (egindividual to counterpart team) negotiation stages multilateral negotiationand no-agreement outcomes While there has been some progress (eg Adairamp Brett 2005 on stages) all of these topics which are gaps apparent in a com-prehensive view of IB negotiation deserve more attention They are as rele-vant one might add for IR as for IB research (cf International Negotiation(2003) on multilateral negotiation)

Based on the review in this article we can add a few more deserving top-ics for future IB research One given its prevalence in a globalizing world andpaucity in research literature is international MampA negotiation especially itsprocess The variety of environmental conditions (eg political economic)that affect negotiator behavior and negotiation outcomes also merit greaterscrutiny for macro-strategic IB and IR research both indicate that the negoti-ation contexts typical of micro-behavioral studies while useful for experi-mental control are a far cry from the contexts of the real negotiations they areintended to explain Moreover there are new challenges for companies (andgovernments) today the involvement of diverse stakeholders and rapid diffu-sion of information as well as nontraditional counterparts and new forms ofinteraction (eg electronic communication) In the same vein as noted in ldquoACritiquerdquo above we need to learn about the interactions of individuals and ofgroups as representatives not just as principals Since IB negotiators bydefinition use multiple knowledge bases and skill sets their relative impacton negotiation effectiveness could also be explored In other words what hasmore impact on reaching a satisfactory outcome an IB negotiatorrsquos cos-mopolitanism or business acumen12 Perhaps the answer will vary by cultureor counterpart since some seem to emphasize relationship factors while others pay more attention to the task Lastly for IB researchers to enhancepractice credibly they need to allocate more effort to testing practical impli-cations and prescriptions from their research

Methods and Data

To resolve contradictions in findings to date clarify what we do know andgenerally enrich our understanding of IB negotiation we would be wellserved it seems by wider use of multiple methods in the future (in additionto the replication studies recommended earlier) Diverse methods and datasources (eg archival analysis in IR experiments in IB) could also be used to test the robustness of results and build generalizability across subfields AsDe Dreu and Carnevale (2005) have previously suggested in this journal

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306


these efforts could be facilitated by common focal points such as reciprocityor framing

I would also argue that IB researchers should be more persistent in their pursuit of data from real IB negotiations We need to get closer to the real phe-nomenon Granted many negotiators consider their efforts and accomplish-ments too consequential to disclose but there are a number of examples in theliterature where access was granted Similar hurdles exist for IR researchersyet IR has produced work such as Zartman and Bermanrsquos (1982) synthesis ofinterviews with 84 US and UN representatives There is no equivalent in IBAt the same time this is not only a matter of IB researchers negotiating moreeffectively with practitioners but of their willingness to grapple with messydata (see Matz 2004) (For arguments in support of more case study researchsee Druckman (2002) and Zartman (2005))

Perspectives

Broad conceptual suggestions have been saved for last mention because theycould call for the most dramatic or difficult change from existing research AsReynolds Simintiras and Vlachou (2003) have concluded we need a validldquoall-encompassingrdquo model of IB not just of intercultural negotiation Someconceptual and grounded models already exist (eg Weiss 1993) and theycould be consulted more regularly to situate empirical studies and themselvesbe put through rigorous testing and validation Researchers could considerstrategic aspects at a micro-analytic level and behavioral aspects at a macrolevel or combine the two existing paradigms via bridge topics such as deter-minants of IB negotiation outcomes

Beyond the concern for a comprehensive model we might significantlyadvance our understanding of international and IB negotiations by reconcep-tualizing process and outcome Instead of looking for a single pattern or set of stages however general across countries or cultures (eg Adair ampBrett 2005 Graham Mintu amp Rodgers 1994) should researchers think of IB negotiation as a set of processes Similarly treating a negotiation outcomeonly as a result at the very end of the process (even if measured in multipleways such as individual profit joint gain and partner satisfaction) is a some-what misleading view of negotiation Agreements of various kinds ndash or moreprecisely ldquoresultsrdquo ndash are often reached throughout a negotiation In large scale negotiations process and outcome are intertwined and recurring not single iterations Complicated arrangements between real parties require con-tinuous negotiation

Development along lines different from past research requires among otherefforts an explication and discriminating awareness of typically implicitassumptions that guide research (see Lewicki Weiss amp Lewin 1992) Many of

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS

them are culturally bound not just by the nationalities of the researchers(Brett amp Gelfand 2006) but also by their research cultures More systematiccommunication between IB researchers and practitioners will advance IBresearch

Conclusion

These reflections constitute in many ways a call for continuing yet greaterinvestment in research on IB negotiation Business actors in a globalizingworld will increasingly engage in negotiation ndash in its various forms and arenas ndash and depend on its capacity to bring about important results Researchhas a role to play in these developments It also has a vital role to play inknowledge-building In both respects IB research is bound to continue con-tributing to and benefiting from work in the field of international negotiationMuch has been accomplished since Kapoorrsquos (1970) International BusinessNegotiations but there is even more to do

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the editor an anonymous reviewer and David Feldman for theircomments on previous versions of this paper

Notes

1 Criteria include place of legal establishment (incorporation) location of corporate head-quarters or a particular unit or subsidiary and nationality of majority shareholders ManyMNEs obfuscate their ownership for marketing and other purposes

2 International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database September 2000 andApril 2005 at httpwwwimforgexternalpubsftweo200501data (accessed on April 82006)

3 International Telecommunication Union at httpwwwituintITU-Dictpublicationswtdr_06indexhtml (accessed on April 8 2006) The ldquodigital dividerdquo between developed anddeveloping countries has decreased dramatically but total Internet usage is still low in Asia-Pacific Arab states and Africa In-person connections not just virtual ones have also con-tinued to rise Total annual airline passengers worldwide (all types of travel) increased 33from 1994 to 2004 (Donoghue 2004)

4 Some authors (eg Rugman amp Hodgetts 2003) argue that most international business is notglobal but interregional (specifically between the triad zones of the US Japan and EU)

5 In February 2006 an ABI Inform search for ldquointernational business negotiardquo in a title orabstract since 1970 yielded 3902 references Limiting that list to scholarly journal articles

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308


led to a subset of 749 references On the US Library of Congress website an on-line searchfor ldquointernational business negotiationrdquo literature produced over 10000 references(although a quick examination spotted the inclusion of non-business citations) Theseresults could be expanded by extending the search beyond English language sources

6 Some of the research cited below is not explicitly business-based (eg Gelfand et al2001) but it is included because it appears often in IB negotiation researchersrsquo literaturereviews

7 For other examples of contradictory findings see Gelfand and Dyer (2000) and Weiss(2004459) For information about Chinese negotiators see Cai and Waks (2002)

8 Nicolson (19734) defined diplomacy as ldquothe management of international relations bynegotiationrdquo

9 This relates to the question earlier in this article about differences between international anddomestic MampA negotiations Connections made between IB and IR to date include a fewcompilations of work from both subfields (eg Kremenyuk 2002) individual scholarsrsquocross-overs into the other subfield (eg Pye 1992) and IB-IR collaborations (eg Crumpamp Zartman 2003)

10 Practicing negotiators have their own ideas for how to improve their effectiveness A USdiplomat a veteran of hundreds of international negotiations told me that a culturalbriefing on his counterparts should tell him everything they would do from the time hestepped off the airplane at their airport (pers comm)

11 Such work should also delve into how practitioners define ldquosuccessrdquo (see drsquoEstree et al2001 and International Negotiation 2002 7(3))

12 This would go a long ways toward answering the question about non-superficial similari-ties and differences between international MampA negotiation and international sales anddomestic MampA negotiations (Recall Endnote 9)

References (see the appendix as well)

Adler Nancy J amp Graham John L (1989) ldquoCross-Cultural Interaction The InternationalComparison Fallacyrdquo Journal of International Business Studies 20 3 515ndash537

Al-Ghamdi Salem M (1999) ldquoSuccess and Failure in Saudi-American Negotiations AmericanViewsrdquo International Negotiation 4 1 23ndash36

Arino Africa de la Torre Jose amp Ring Peter Smith (2005) ldquoRelational Quality andInterpersonal Trust in Strategic Alliancesrdquo European Management Review 21 15ndash27

Bartlett David amp Seleny Anna (1998) ldquoThe Political Enforcement of Liberalism BargainingInstitutions and Auto Multinationals in Hungaryrdquo International Studies Quarterly 42319ndash338

Bennett Douglas amp Sharpe Kenneth (1979) ldquoAgenda Setting and Bargaining Power TheMexican State vs Transnational Automobile Corporationrdquo World Politics 32 1 57ndash89

Black Stewart J amp Mendenhall Mark (1993) ldquoResolving Conflicts with the JapaneseMission Impossiblerdquo Sloan Management Review Spring 49ndash59

Blaydes Lisa (2004) ldquoRewarding Impatience A Bargaining and Enforcement Model ofOPECrdquo International Organization 58 2 213ndash238

Bonham G Matthew Sergeev Victor M amp Parshin Pavel B (1997) ldquoThe Limited Test-BanAgreement Emergence of New Knowledge Structures in International NegotiationrdquoInternational Studies Quarterly 41 215ndash240

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS

Brett Jeanne M amp Gelfand Michele J (2006) ldquoA Cultural Analysis of the UnderlyingAssumptions of Negotiation Theoryrdquo in Leigh Thompson editor Negotiation Theory andResearch East Sussex UK Psychology Press

Buckley Peter J amp Ghauri Pervez N (2002) International Mergers amp Acquisitions AReader Singapore Thomson Business Press

Cai Deborah A amp Waks Leah (2002) ldquoWhat We Still Need to Know About ChineseNegotiationrdquo in Wenshan Jia Xing Lu amp D Ray Heisey editors Chinese CommunicationTheory and Research Westport CT Ablex Pub Co

Chen SFS amp Hennart Jean-Francois (2004) ldquoA Hostage Theory of Joint Ventures Why DoJapanese Investors Choose Partial Over Full Acquisitions to Enter the United StatesrdquoJournal of Business Research 57 10 1126ndash1134

Cho Yung-Ho amp Cho Yoon-Hyung (2001) ldquoDual Orientations of Individualism-Collectivismand Conflict Resolution Modes in a Collectivist Countryrdquo Presented at the InternationalAssociation for Conflict Management Annual Meeting Paris June

Contractor Farok J amp Lorange Peter (editors) (2002) Cooperative Strategies and AlliancesAmsterdam Pergamon

Crump Larry amp Zartman I William (2003) ldquoMultilateral Negotiation and the Managementof Complexityrdquo International Negotiation 8 1 1ndash5

de Beaufort Viviane amp Lempereur Alain (1996) ldquoPreparing Mergers amp Acquisitions in theEuropean Union The Asset of Cooperative Negotiationrdquo in Pervez N Ghauri amp Jean-Claude Usunier editors International Business Negotiations London Pergamon

De Dreu Carsten KW amp Carnevale Peter J (2005) ldquoDisparate Methods and CommonFindings in the Study of Negotiationrdquo International Negotiation 108 1 193ndash203

de Mattos Claudio Sanderson Stuart amp Ghauri Pervez (2002) ldquoNegotiating Alliances inEmerging Markets ndash Do Partnersrsquo Contributions Matterrdquo Thunderbird InternationalBusiness Review 44 6 701ndash728

drsquo Estree Tamra Pearson et al (2001) ldquoChanging the Debate About lsquoSuccessrsquo in ConflictResolution Effortsrdquo Negotiation Journal 17 2 101ndash113

Deutsch Morton (2000) ldquoA Framework for Thinking About Research on Conflict ResolutionTrainingrdquo in Morton Deutsch amp PT Coleman editors The Handbook of Conflict ResolutionSan Francisco Jossey-Bass

Dobrynin Anatoly (1995) In Confidence New York Times BooksDonoghue JA (2004) ldquoRecovery 2004 Gaining Strengthrdquo Air Transport World 41 1 28ndash34Druckman Daniel (2002) ldquoCase-Based Research on International Negotiation Approaches and

Data Setsrdquo International Negotiation 7 1 17ndash37Duffy Gavan Frederking Brian K amp Tucker Seth A (1998) ldquoLanguage Games Dialogical

Analysis of INF Negotiationsrdquo International Studies Quarterly 42 271ndash294Dussauge Pierre amp Garrette Bernard (1999) Cooperative Strategy Competing Successfully

Through Strategic Alliances Chichester England WileyEden Lorraine amp Lenway Stefanie (2001) ldquoIntroduction to the Symposium ndash Multinationals

The Janus Face of Globalizationrdquo Journal of International Business Studies 32 3383ndash400Eden Lorraine Lenway Stefanie amp Schuler Douglas A (2005) ldquoFrom the Obsolescing

Bargain to the Political Bargaining Modelrdquo in Robert Grosse editor International Businessand Government Relations in the 21st Century Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Eliashberg Jehoshua et al (1992) ldquoAn Experimental Study of Alternative Preparation Aids forInternational Negotiationsrdquo Group Decision and Negotiation 1243ndash267

Eliashberg Jehoshua Lilien Gary amp Kim Nam (1995) ldquoSearching for Generalizations inBusiness Marketing Negotiationsrdquo Marketing Science 14 3 G47ndashG60

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310


Fang Tony Fridh Camilla amp Schultzberg Sara (2004) ldquoWhy Did the Telia-Telenor MergerFailrdquo International Business Review 13 573ndash594

Faure Guy Olivier (2000) ldquoNegotiations to Set up Joint Ventures in Chinardquo InternationalNegotiation 5 157ndash189

Fearon James D (1998) ldquoBargaining Enforcement and International CooperationrdquoInternational Organization 52 2 269ndash305

Forde Steven (2004) ldquoThucydides on Ripeness and Conflict Resolutionrdquo International StudiesQuarterly 48 1 177ndash196

Friedheim Robert L amp Durch William J (1977) ldquoThe International Seabed ResourcesAgency Negotiations and the New International Economic Orderrdquo InternationalOrganization 31 2 343ndash384

Gelfand Michele J amp Brett Jeanne (editors) (2004) The Handbook of Negotiation andCulture Stanford CA Stanford University Press

Gelfand Michele J amp Christakopoulou Sophia (1999) ldquoCulture and Negotiator CognitionJudgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic CulturesrdquoOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79 3 248ndash269

Gelfand Michele J amp Dyer Naomi (2000) ldquoA Cultural Perspective on Negotiation ProgressPitfalls and Prospects Applied Psychology An International Review 49 62ndash99

Geringer J Michael (1991) ldquoStrategic Determinants of Partner Selection Criteria in Inter-national Joint Venturesrdquo Journal of International Business Studies 22 1 41ndash62

Graham John L (1993) ldquoThe Japanese Negotiation Style Characteristics of a DistinctApproachrdquo Negotiation Journal April 123ndash140

Grosse Robert (editor) (2005) International Business and Government Relations in the 21stCentury Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Harnett DL amp Cummings Larry L (1980) Bargaining Behavior An International StudyHouston Dame

Hill Charles WL (2002) International Business Competing in the Global Marketplace-Postscript 2002 3rd edition Boston McGraw-Hill Irwin

Hofstede Geert (1984) Culturersquos Consequences Beverly Hills CA SageIkle Fred C (1976) How Nations Negotiate Millwood NY Kraus ReprintInkpen Andrew C amp Beamish Paul W (1997) ldquoKnowledge Bargaining Power and the

Instability of International Joint Venturesrdquo Academy of Management Review 22 1 177ndash202Inoguchi Takashi amp Miyatake Nobuharu (1979) ldquoNegotiation as Quasi-Budgeting The

Salmon Catch Negotiations Between Two World Fishery Powersrdquo InternationalOrganization 33 2 233ndash256

Jemison David B amp Sitkin Sim B (1986) ldquoCorporate Acquisitions A Process PerspectiverdquoAcademy of Management Review 11 1 145ndash163

Kaufmann Johan (1989) ldquoToward an Integral Analysis of International Negotiationsrdquo inFrances Mautner-Markhof editor Processes of International Negotiation Boulder COWestview

Kapoor Ashok (1970) International Business Negotiations A Study in India New York NewYork University Press

Kersten Gregory E amp Noronha S (1999) ldquoWWW-Based Negotiation Support DesignImplementation and Userdquo Decision Support Systems 25 135ndash154

Killing J Peter (1982) ldquoHow to Make a Global Joint Venture Workrdquo Harvard BusinessReview May-June 120ndash127

Kobayashi Noritake (1988) ldquoStrategic Alliances with Japanese Firmsrdquo Long Range Planning21 29ndash34

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS

Kobrin Stephen J (2005) ldquoMultinational Corporations and Human Rights Does ldquoPrivaterdquoPolitical Authority Imply Public Liabilityrdquo AIB Insights 5 4 3ndash7

Korine Harry Asakawa Kazuhiro amp Gomez Pierre-Yves (2002) ldquoPartnering with theUnfamiliar Lessons from the Case of Renault and Nissanrdquo Business Strategy Review 13 241ndash50

Kremenyuk Victor A (editor) (2002) International Negotiation Analysis Approaches Issues2nd edition San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Lee Kam-Hon amp Lo Thamis Wing-Chun (1988) ldquoAmerican Business Peoplersquos Perceptionsof Marketing and Negotiating in the Peoplersquos Republic of Chinardquo International MarketingReview 5 2 41ndash51

Lewicki Roy J Weiss Stephen E amp Lewin David (1992) ldquoModels of Conflict Negotiationand Third Party Intervention A Review and Synthesisrdquo Journal of Organizational Behavior13 209ndash252

Lin Xiaohua amp Miller Stephen J (2003) ldquoNegotiation Approaches Direct and IndirectEffect of National Culturerdquo International Marketing Review 20 3 286ndash303

Liu Leigh Anne (2004) Shared Mental Models in Negotiation PhD dissertation VanderbiltUniversity

Liu Leigh Anne Friedman Raymond A amp Chi Shu-cheng (2005) ldquolsquoRen Qingrsquo Versus thelsquoBig Fiversquo The Role of Culturally Sensitive Measures of Individual Difference in Distri-butive Negotiationsrdquo Management and Organization Review 1 2 225ndash247

Ma Zhenzhong et al (2002) ldquoIndividual Perception Bargaining Behavior and NegotiationOutcomesrdquo International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 2 2 171ndash184

Matz David (2004) ldquoHow Much Do We Know About Real Negotiations Problems inConstructing Case Studiesrdquo International Negotiation 9 3359ndash374

McCall JB (1996) ldquoNegotiating Sales Export Transactions and Agency Agreementsrdquo inPervez N Ghauri amp Jean Claude Usunier editors International Business NegotiationsLondon Pergamon

Meunier Sophie (2000) ldquoWhat Single Voice European Institutions and EU-US TradeNegotiationsrdquo International Organization 54 1 103ndash135

Miles Michael (2003) ldquoNegotiating with the Chineserdquo Journal of Applied Behavioral Science39 4 453ndash472

Money R Bruce (1998) ldquoInternational Multilateral Negotiations and Social NetworksrdquoJournal of International Business Studies 29 4 695ndash710

Morosini Piero (1998) Managing Cultural Differences Oxford UK PergamonNair Ajit S amp Stafford Edwin R (1998) ldquoStrategic Alliances in China Negotiating the

Barriersrdquo Long Range Planning 31 1 139ndash146Nicolson Harold (1973) Diplomacy London Oxford University PressOdell John S (1980) ldquoLatin American Trade Negotiations with the United Statesrdquo

International Organization 34 2 207ndash228Pahre Robert (2001) ldquoMost-Favored Nation Clauses and Clustered Negotiationsrdquo

International Organization 55 4 859ndash890Pye Lucian W (1992) Chinese Negotiating Style Commercial Approaches and Cultural

Principles New York QuoromRamarajan Lakshmi et al (2004) ldquoRelationship Between Peacekeepers and NGO Workers

The Role of Training and Conflict Management Styles in International PeacekeepingrdquoInternational Journal of Conflict Management 15 2 167ndash191

Reynolds Nina Simintiras Antonis amp Vlachou Efi (2003) ldquoInternational Business Negotia-tions Present Knowledge and Direction for Future Researchrdquo International MarketingReview 20 3 236ndash261

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312


Roemer Christina et al (1999) ldquoA Comparison of American and Russian Patterns of Behaviorin Buyer-Seller Negotiations Using Observational Measuresrdquo International Negotiation 437ndash61

Rondinelli DA (1993) ldquoResolving US-China Trade Conflicts Conditions for Trade andInvestment in the 1990srdquo Columbia Journal of World Business 28 2 66ndash81

Rugman Alan M amp Hodgetts Richard M (2003) International Business 3rd ed EssexEngland FT Prentice Hall

Salacuse Jeswald W (2003) The Global Negotiator New York Palgrave MacmillanSalk Jane E (2005) ldquoOften Called for But Rarely Chosen Alliance Research That Directly

Studies Processrdquo European Management Review 29 117ndash122Schoppa Leonard J (1993) ldquoTwo-Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes Why Gaiatsu

Succeeds in Japan in Some Cases but Not Othersrdquo International Organization 47 3353ndash386

Sebenius James K (1998) ldquoNegotiating Cross-Border Acquisitionsrdquo Sloan ManagementReview 39 2 27ndash41

mdashmdash (2002) ldquoCaveats for Cross-Border Negotiatorsrdquo Negotiation Journal 18 24 121ndash133Shi Xinping (2001) ldquoAntecedent Factors of International Business Negotiations in the China

Contextrdquo Management International Review 41 24 163ndash187Shi Xinping amp Wright Philip C (2001) ldquoDeveloping and Validating an International Business

Negotiatorrsquos Profile The China Contextrdquo Journal of Managerial Psychology 16 56364ndash399

Stasavage David (2004) ldquoOpen-Door or Closed-Door Transparency in Domestic andInternational Bargainingrdquo International Organization 58 4 667ndash704

Teegen Hildy J amp Doh Jonathan P (2002) ldquoUS-Mexican Alliance Negotiations Impact ofCulture on Authority Trust and Performancerdquo Thunderbird International Business Review44 6 749ndash775

Tinsley Catherine H amp Pillutla Madan M (1998) ldquoNegotiating in the United States and HongKongrdquo Journal of International Business Studies 29 4 711ndash728

Trautwein Friedrich (1990) ldquoMerger Motives and Merger Prescriptionsrdquo Strategic Man-agement Journal 11 4 283ndash295

Tse David K Frances June amp Walls Jan (1994) ldquoCultural Differences in Conducting Intra-and Inter-Cultural Negotiations A Sino-Canadian Comparisonrdquo Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies Summer 537ndash552

UNCTAD-United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2004) World InvestmentReport 2004 The Shift Towards Services New York United Nations

Urban Sabine (1996) ldquoNegotiating International Joint Venturesrdquo in Pervez Ghauri amp Jean-Claude Usunier editors International Business Negotiations London Pergamon

Usunier Jean-Claude amp Ghauri Pervez (1996) ldquoSome General Guidelines for NegotiatingInternational Businessrdquo in Pervez Ghauri amp Jean-Claude Usunier editors InternationalBusiness Negotiations London Pergamon

Vernon Raymond (1968) ldquoConflict and Resolution Between Foreign Director Investors andLess Developed Countriesrdquo Public Policy 17 333ndash351

Volkema Roger J amp Fleury Maria Tereza Leme (2002) ldquoAlternative Negotiating Conditionsand the Choice of Negotiation Tactics A Cross-Cultural Comparisonrdquo Journal of BusinessEthics 36 4 381

Weingart LR Hyder EB amp Prietula MJ (1996) ldquoKnowledge Matters The Effect ofTactical Descriptions on Negotiation Behavior and Outcomerdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 70 6 1205ndash1217

Weiss Stephen E (1997) ldquoExplaining Outcomes of Negotiation Toward a Grounded Model

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS

for Negotiations Between Organizationsrdquo in Roy J Lewicki Robert J Bies amp Blair HSheppard editors Research on Negotiation in Organizations Greenwich CN JAI Press

mdashmdash (2000) ldquoKnowledge of International Negotiation 25 Years of Research in Business andPoliticsrdquo paper presented at HEC School of Management (Paris)

mdashmdash (2004) ldquoInternational Business Negotiations Research Revisiting lsquoBricks Mortar andProspectsrsquordquo in Betty Jane Punnett amp Oded Shenkar editors Handbook for InternationalManagement Research Ann Arbor MI University of Michigan Press

Xin Katherine R amp Pearce Jone L (1996) ldquoGuanxi Connections as Substitutes for FormalInstitutional Supportrdquo Academy of Management Journal 39 6 1641ndash1658

Zagare F amp Kilgour M (2003) ldquoAlignment Patterns Crisis Bargaining and ExtendedDeterrence A Game-Theoretic Analysisrdquo International Studies Quarterly 47 4 587ndash616

Zartman I William (editor) (1976) The 50 Solution Garden City NY AnchorZartman I William (2005) ldquoComparative Case Studiesrdquo International Negotiation 10 1 3ndash15Zartman I William amp Berman Maureen (1982) The Practical Negotiator New Haven CN

Yale University Press

Appendix

Noteworthy Journal Articles on International Business Negotiation A Sample from the Period 1970ndash2005 (English language only)

1970ndash79Brunner amp Taoka 1977 Marketing and negotiating in the Peoplersquos Republic of China

Journal of International Business Studies 8(2)69ndash82Stoever 1979 Renegotiations the cutting edge of relations between MNCs and LDCs

Columbia Journal of World Business 14(1)5ndash14Van Zandt 1970 How to negotiate in Japan

Harvard Business Review November-December45ndash56

1980ndash89Contractor 1985 A generalized theorem for joint-venture and licensing negotiations

Journal of International Business Studies 16(2)23ndash50de la Torre 1981 Foreign investment and economic development conflict and negotiation

Journal of International Business Studies 12(2)9ndash32Encarnation amp Wells 1985 Sovereignty en garde negotiating with foreign investors

International Organization 39(1)47ndash78Fagre amp Wells 1982 Bargaining power of multinationals and host governments

Journal of International Business Studies 13(2)9ndash23Graham 1983 Brazilian Japanese and American business negotiations

Journal of International Business Studies 14(1)81ndash96Kobrin 1987 Testing the bargaining hypothesis manufacturing in developing countries

International Organization 41(4)609ndash638Lecraw 1984 Bargaining power transnational corporations in developing countries

Journal of International Business Studies 15(1)27ndash44Stewart amp Keown 1989 Talking with the dragon negotiating in China

Columbia Journal of World Business 24(3)68ndash72

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314


Tung 1982 US-China trade negotiations practices procedures and outcomesJournal of International Business Studies 13(2)25ndash38

Weiss 1987 Creating the GM-Toyota joint venture a case in complex negotiationColumbia Journal of World Business 22(2)23ndash38

1990ndash99Brett amp Okumura 1998 Inter- and intracultural negotiation US and Japanese negotiators

Academy of Management Journal 41(5)495ndash510Brouthers amp Bamossy 1997 The role of key stakeholders in IJV negotiations E Europe

Journal of International Business Studies 23285ndash308Francis 1991 When in Rome cultural adaptation on intercultural business negotiations

Journal of International Business Studies 22(3)403ndash428George Jones amp Gonzalez 1998 The role of affect in cross-cultural negotiations

Journal of International Business Studies 29(4)749ndash772Gomes-Casseres 1990 Firm ownership preferences and host government restrictions

Journal of International Business Studies 21(1)1ndash22Graham Mintu amp Rodgers 1994 Explorations of negotiation behavior in ten countries

Management Science 40(1)72ndash95Kashlak Chandran amp Di Benedetto 1998 Reciprocity in telecommunications contracts

Journal of International Business Studies 29(2)281ndash304Luo Yadong 1999 Toward a conceptual framework of international joint venture negotiations

Journal of International Management 5141ndash165Morris et al 1998 Conflict management style accounting for cross-national differences

Journal of International Business Studies 29(4)729ndash748Rao amp Schmidt 1998 A behavioral perspective on negotiating international alliances

Journal of International Business Studies 29(4)665ndash694Tinsley Curhan amp Kwak 1999 Adopting a dual lens for the dilemma of differences

International Negotiation 4(1)5ndash22Vachani 1995 Enhancing the obsolescing bargain theory A longitudinal study

Journal of International Business Studies 26(1)159ndash180Weiss 1993 Analysis of complex negotiations in international business the RBC perspective

Organization Science 4(2)269ndash300Weiss 1994 Negotiating with lsquoRomansrsquo

Sloan Management Review 35(2)51ndash61Yan amp Gray 1994 ldquoBargaining power in United States-China joint ventures rdquo

Academy of Management Journal 37(6)1478ndash1517

2000ndash05Adair amp Brett 2004 The negotiation dance time culture and behavioral sequences

Organization Science 16(1)33ndash51Brannen amp Salk 2000 Partnering across borders culture in a German-Japanese joint

ventureHuman Relations 53(4)451ndash487

Cai amp Fink 2002 Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivistsCommunication Monographs 69(1)67ndash87

Doh amp Teegen 2002 Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors International Business Review 11665ndash684

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS

Gelfand et al 2001 Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict US JapanJournal of Applied Psychology 86(6)1059ndash1074

Kumar amp Worm 2004 Institutional dynamics and the negotiation process India and ChinaInternational Journal of Conflict Management 15(3)304ndash334

Ramamurti 2001 The obsolescing lsquobargaining modelrsquo revisitedJournal of International Business Studies 3223ndash39

Saner Yiu amp Sondergaard 2000 Business diplomacy management A core competency Academy of Management Executive 14(1)80ndash92

Tinsley 2001 How negotiators get to yes constellation of strategies used across cul-tures Journal of Applied Psychology 86(4)583ndash593

not specific to business

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

288 STEPHEN E WEISS

of the twists and turns of the process or the terms of final outcomes For thatmatter what besides the obvious cases above actually qualifies as IB nego-tiation Is international merger amp acquisition (MampA) negotiation more simi-lar to international sales negotiation than it is to domestic MampA negotiationAnd if IB negotiation is viewed as a subfield of international negotiation ndash thesubject of this journal ndash how can the subfield significantly advance the fieldThen again given developments in the world economy have the nature andcourse of IB negotiation changed so much that findings of studies from dif-ferent decades cannot simply be pooled Such questions have been answeredonly partially in literature to date or not addressed at all Within the space ofthis article I cannot cover all of these questions fully either but I trust thatoffering some thoughts and asking provocative questions as the editor hasasked will be of some value

This article is organized in five major sections After defining IB negotia-tion and its changing context the text summarizes research within two majorparadigms the macro-strategic and micro-behavioral My goal is not to pro-vide a comprehensive review (for that see Weiss 2004) Subsequent sectionsconsider contributions to international negotiation research contributions topractice and future research A young field ndash far younger than internationalbusiness or international relations let alone political science or economics ndashIB negotiation has made a lot of progress as we will see but there is much yet to do

The Phenomenon

To be able to identify examples of IB negotiation in the headlines and else-where we need a good operational definition One of the few previously pub-lished definitions states that international business (IB) negotiation is thedeliberate interaction of two or more parties (at least one of them a businessentity) originating from different nations who are attempting to define orredefine the terms of their interdependence in a business matter (Weiss1993270) Notice the emphasis on the type of actor and subject of negotiationThis understanding includes negotiations between multinational enterprises(MNEs) and host governments over foreign direct investment At the sametime it differs from ndash in fact subsumes ndash much ldquocross-cultural negotiationrdquoa term that is confusingly often treated as a synonym in research as well aspractitioner works

Todayrsquos negotiations are not always easily classified however even by thisdefinition Consider the talks in 2006 between representatives of four kid-napped foreign oil workers and their Nigerian captors Is that IB negotiation

INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM 88







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 289

290 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 290











INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 291

292 STEPHEN E WEISS








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 289

290 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 290











INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 291

292 STEPHEN E WEISS








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM 00






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

290 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 290











INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 291

292 STEPHEN E WEISS








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316











INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 291

292 STEPHEN E WEISS








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

292 STEPHEN E WEISS








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 292






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 293

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

294 STEPHEN E WEISS






Comparative studies


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 294






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 295

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

296 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 296







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 297

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

298 STEPHEN E WEISS









INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 298








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316








INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 299

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

300 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 300






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316






Added Value from IB



INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 301

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

302 STEPHEN E WEISS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



Labor Commons Other


(n=136 art ic les)

Figure 1






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 302







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 303

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

304 STEPHEN E WEISS






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 304



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316



Future Research




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 305

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

306 STEPHEN E WEISS

Topics



Methods and Data


INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 306




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316




Perspectives




INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 307

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

308 STEPHEN E WEISS


Conclusion


Acknowledgements


Notes






INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 308



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316



















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 309

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

310 STEPHEN E WEISS





















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 310
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 311

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

312 STEPHEN E WEISS






















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 312
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316
























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 313

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

314 STEPHEN E WEISS








Appendix















INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 314

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

























INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 315

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

316 STEPHEN E WEISS







INER 112_f6_287-316I 11706 848 AM Page 316

International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World...

Documents

Transcript of International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World...