Editing Negotiation (section)

== Group composition ==
=== Multi-party ===
While negotiations involving more than two parties are less often researched, some results from two-party negotiations still apply to more than two parties. One such result is that in negotiations it is common to see language similarity arise between the two negotiating parties. In three-party negotiations, language similarity still arose, and results were particularly efficient when the party with the most to gain from the negotiation adopted language similarities from the other parties.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sagi|first1=Eyal|last2=Diermeier|first2=Daniel|date=2015-12-01|title=Language Use and Coalition Formation in Multiparty Negotiations|journal=Cognitive Science|language=en|pages=259–271|doi=10.1111/cogs.12325|pmid=26671166|issn=1551-6709|volume=41|issue=1|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Team ===
[[File:Warsaw Negotiation Round Senate of Poland 2014 01.JPG|thumb|250px|Students from [[University of Tromsø|the University of Tromsø]] and [[University of Toronto|the University of Toronto]] during the 5th International Negotiation Tournament – Warsaw Negotiation Round in the [[Polish Senate]] (2014)]]

Due to globalization and growing business trends, negotiation in the form of teams is becoming widely adopted. Teams can effectively collaborate to break down a complex negotiation. There is more knowledge and wisdom dispersed in a team than in a single mind. Writing, listening, and talking, are specific roles team members must satisfy. The capacity base of a team reduces the number of blunders and increases familiarity in a negotiation.<ref>Sparks, D. B. (1993). ''The Dynamics of Effective Negotiation'' (second edition). Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.</ref>

However, unless a team can appropriately utilize the full capacity of its potential, effectiveness can suffer. One factor in the effectiveness of team negotiation is a problem that occurs through solidarity behavior. Solidarity behavior occurs when one team member reduces his or her utility (benefit) to increase the benefits of other team members. This behavior is likely to occur when interest conflicts rise. When the utility/needs of the negotiation opponent do not align with every team member's interests, team members begin to make concessions and balance the benefits gained among the team.<ref>{{cite conference | last1=Wang | first1=Jian | last2=Gong | first2=Jingqiu | title=Team negotiation based on solidarity behavior: A concession strategy in the team |conference=17th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing | publisher=IEEE | year=2016 | doi=10.1109/snpd.2016.7515883| s2cid = 14385529}}</ref>

Intuitively, this may feel like a cooperative approach. However, though a team may aim to negotiate in a cooperative or collaborative nature, the outcome may be less successful than is possible, especially when integration is possible. The integrative potential is possible when different negotiation issues are of different importance to each team member. The integrative potential is often missed due to the lack of awareness of each member's interests and preferences. Ultimately, this leads to a poorer negotiation result.

Thus, a team can perform more effectively if each member discloses his or her preferences before the negotiation. This step will allow the team to recognize and organize the team's joint priorities, which they can take into consideration when engaging with the opposing negotiation party. Because a team is more likely to discuss shared information and common interests, teams must make an active effort to foster and incorporate unique viewpoints from experts from different fields. Research by Daniel Thiemann, which largely focused on computer-supported collaborative tasks, found that the Preference Awareness method is an effective tool for fostering knowledge about joint priorities and further helps the team judge which negotiation issues were of the highest importance.<ref>Thiemann, D., & Hesse, F. W. (2015). Learning about Team Members' Preferences: Computer-Supported Preference Awareness in the Negotiation Preparation of Teams.</ref>

=== Women ===
Women often excel in collaborative and integrative negotiations, where they can leverage their strong communication skills and empathy to find mutually beneficial solutions. However, they may face challenges in competitive or distributive negotiations, where a more assertive and confrontational approach is typically required. Many of the implications of these findings have strong financial impacts in addition to the social backlash faced by self-advocating women in negotiations, as compared to other advocating women, self-advocating men, and other advocating men. Research in this area has been studied across platforms, in addition to more specific areas like women as physician assistants.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Brianne|first1=Hall|last2=Tracy|first2=Hoelting|date=2015-04-24|title=Influence of negotiation and practice setting on salary disparities between male and female physician assistants|url=http://soar.wichita.edu/handle/10057/11423|language=en-US}}</ref> The backlash associated with this type of behavior is attributed to the fact that to be self-advocated is considered masculine, whereas the alternative, being accommodating, is considered more feminine.<ref name="Gladstone 18–25">{{Cite journal|last1=Gladstone|first1=Eric|last2=O'Connor|first2=Kathleen M.|date=2014-09-01|title=A counterpart's feminine face signals cooperativeness and encourages negotiators to compete|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|volume=125|issue=1|pages=18–25|doi=10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.05.001}}</ref> Males, however, do not appear to face any type of backlash for not being self-advocating.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Amanatullah|first1=Emily T.|last2=Tinsley|first2=Catherine H.|date=2013-01-01|title=Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|volume=120|issue=1|pages=110–122|doi=10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006|s2cid=14837583 }}</ref>

This research has been supported by multiple studies, including one which evaluated candidates participating in a negotiation regarding compensation. This study showed that women who initiated negotiations were evaluated more poorly than men who initiated negotiations. In another variation of this particular setup, men and women evaluated videos of men and women either accepting a compensation package or initiating negotiations. Men evaluated women more poorly for initiating negotiations, while women evaluated both men and women more poorly for initiating negotiations. In this particular experiment, women were less likely to initiate a negotiation with a male, citing nervousness, but there was no variation with the negotiation initiated with another female.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bowles|first1=Hannah|last2=Babcock|first2=Linda|last3=Lai|first3=Lei|year=2006|title=Social incentives for gender diVerences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask|url=https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf|journal= Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|volume=103|pages=84–103|doi=10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001|s2cid=18202551 }}</ref>

Research also supports the notion that the way individuals respond in a negotiation varies depending on the gender of the opposite party. In all-male groups, the use of deception showed no variation in the level of trust between negotiating parties, however in mixed-sex groups, there was an increase in deceptive tactics when it was perceived that the opposite party was using an accommodating strategy. In all-female groups, there were many shifts in when individuals did and did not employ deception in their negotiation tactics.<ref name="Gladstone 18–25" />

=== Academic negotiation ===
The academic world contains a unique management system, wherein faculty members, some of whom have tenure, reside in academic units (e.g. departments), and are overseen by chairs, or heads. These chairs/heads are in turn supervised by deans of the college where their academic unit resides. Negotiation is an area where faculties, chairs/heads, and their deans have little preparation; their doctoral degrees are typically in a highly specialized area according to their academic expertise. However, the academic environment frequently presents situations where negotiation takes place. For example, many faculties are hired with the expectation that they will conduct research and publish scholarly works. For these faculties, where their research requires equipment, space, and/or funding, negotiation of a "start-up" package is critical for their success and future promotion.<ref name="Callahan 25571">{{Cite journal |last1=Callahan |first1=J|last2=Besterfield-Sacre|first2=M.E. |last3=Carpenter|first3=J.P.|last4=Needy|first4=K.L.|last5=Schrader|first5=C.B. |date=2016 |title=Listening and Negotiation|url=https://peer.asee.org/25571|journal=2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana |doi=10.18260/p.25571 |doi-access=free|isbn=978-0-692-68565-5}}</ref><ref name="Amekudzi-Kennedy 28631">{{Cite journal|last1=Amekudzi-Kennedy|first1=A.A.|last2=Hall|first2=K.D. |last3=Harding |first3=T.S.|last4=Moll|first4=A.J.|last5=Callahan|first5=J.|date=2017|title=Listening and Negotiation II|url=https://peer.asee.org/28631 |journal=2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio|doi=10.18260/1-2--28631|doi-access=free}}</ref> Also, department chairs often find themselves in situations, typically involving resource redistribution where they must negotiate with their dean, on behalf of their unit. And deans oversee colleges where they must optimize limited resources, such as research space or operating funds while at the same time creating an environment that fosters student success, research accomplishments, and more.<ref name="Callahan 25571" /><ref name="Amekudzi-Kennedy 28631"/><ref name="McKersie 475-488">{{Cite journal |last=McKersie|first=R.B.|date=2012|title=The Day-to-Day Life of a Dean: Engaging in Negotiations and negotiations|journal=Negotiation Journal 475–488 |volume=28|issue=4|pages=475–488|doi=10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00352.x}}</ref>

[[Integrative negotiation]] is the type predominately found in academic negotiation – where trust and long-term relationships between personnel are valued. Techniques found to be particularly useful in academic settings include:<ref name="Callahan 25571" /><ref name="Amekudzi-Kennedy 28631"/> 
#doing your homework – grounding your request in facts
#knowing your value
#listening actively and acknowledging what is being said
#putting yourself in their shoes
#asking – negotiation begins with an ask
#not committing immediately
#managing [[emotion]]
*keeping in mind the principle of a "wise agreement",<ref name="Fisher Ury Patton">{{Cite book |last1=Fisher|first1=R.|last2=Ury|first2=W.|last3=Patton |first3=B. |date=2012|title=Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in|publisher= Penguin: New York}}</ref> with its associated emphasis on meeting the interests of both parties to the extent possible as a key working point.