Over the last years the number of business partnerships has increased significantly (e.g., Eden
and Huxham, 2001; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Teegen and Doh, 2002). There are various
drivers for this kind of strategic re-orientation among companies. Whereas companies have
previously relied on profitability of protected home markets, the changed economic climate1
has fostered collaboration between them (Bleeke and Ernst, 1993). Firms collaborate to master
the challenges caused by these changes. At the same time they benefit from better access
to new markets, pooling or swapping technology, sharing of risks, larger economies of scale
in joint research and/or production, and economies of scope (e.g., Contractor and Lorange,
1988; Lorange and Roos, 1991).
Business partnerships can be defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent
firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and acknowledge a high level of
mutual interdependency (Mohr and Spekman, 1994, p. 135). Examples of organizational
forms which support this kind of cooperation are strategic alliances, joint ventures, licence
agreements, research and development (R&D) partnerships, and franchising (e.g., Borys and
Jemison, 1989; Ring and Van de Ven, 1992).
Ring and Van de Ven (1994) explain that business partnerships emerge, evolve and dissolve
over time. In spite of the benefits which business partnerships can contribute to a company's
success, reported failure rates range between 30 and 70 percent (e.g., Bleeke and Ernst, 1993;
Das and Teng, 2000; Visioni, 2002).
Differences between collaborating companies in terms of aims, cultures, structures, procedures,
languages, power, and accountabilities are said to make the effective management of
business partnerships not easy and are admittedly unerringly negative influencing factors on
their success (e.g., Eden and Huxham 2001). [...]
1 e.g., emergence of intense global competition, economic integration among countries, formation of regional
markets, technological innovation, and shortening of product life cycles (cf. Olson and Singsuwan, 1997).
2 Partnerships attributes are, for example, trust, interdependency, commitment, culture, cooperation, and
coordination.
3 Communication behaviour: quality, participation, and information sharing.
4 Conflict Resolution techniques: joint problem solving, persuasion, domination, and harsh words.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1. Relevance to Business Practice
- 1.2. Academic Relevance
- 1.3. Theoretical Contribution of this Thesis
- 1.4. Thesis Structure
- 2. Literature Review - Negotiation Style Scoring Instruments
- 2.1. Psychometric Properties – An Overview
- 2.1.1. Reliability Indexes
- 2.1.2. Validity Indexes
- 2.2. Historical Development of Approaches to Measure Negotiation Behaviour
- 2.3. The Managerial Grid
- 2.4. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument
- 2.4.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
- 2.4.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
- 2.5. The Conflict Management Message Style Instrument
- 2.5.1. Critical Assessment of Theoretical Foundation
- 2.5.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
- 2.6. The Hall Conflict Management Survey
- 2.6.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
- 2.6.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
- 2.7. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II
- 2.7.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
- 2.7.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
- 2.8. The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument
- 2.8.1. Critical Assessment of the Theoretical Foundation
- 2.8.2. Critical Analysis of the Psychometric Properties
- 2.9. Conclusion
- 3. Discussion of an Integrated Theoretical Foundation
- 3.1. Attitude-Behaviour Theorising
- 3.1.1. The Theory of Reasoned Action
- 3.1.2. Critical Assessment of the TRA
- 3.2. Developing a New Model for the Explanation of an Individual's Behaviour
- 3.2.1. Predispositions
- 3.2.2. Strategy
- 3.2.3. Tactics
- 3.2.4. Relational Influencing Factors
- 3.2.5. Situational Influencing Factors
- 3.3. A Model for the Classification of Negotiation Styles
- 4. Development of the Negotiation Styles Scoring Instrument
- 4.1. Construct Definition
- 4.2. Object Classification
- 4.3. Attribute Classification
- 4.4. Rater Identification
- 4.5. Scale formation
- 4.6. Enumeration
- 4.7. Designing Scenarios to Define Different Negotiation Situations
- 5. Empirical Validation of the Proposed Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument
- 5.1. Methodology
- 5.1.1. Participants
- 5.1.2. Procedure and Results
- 5.2. Discussion of the Results
- 6. Suggestion of a New Negotiation Style Scoring Instrument
- 7. Summary and Conclusions
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This thesis aims to develop a validated scoring instrument for businesses to measure negotiation styles in business partnerships. This instrument aims to provide a reliable and valid method for identifying different negotiation styles, thereby aiding companies in selecting suitable partners and fostering effective communication in business relationships.
- Psychometric properties of negotiation style scoring instruments
- Historical development of approaches to measure negotiation behaviour
- Development of an integrated theoretical foundation for understanding negotiation styles
- Empirical validation of a new negotiation style scoring instrument
- Suggestion of a new negotiation style scoring instrument
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Chapter 1 introduces the thesis, outlining its relevance to both business practice and academic research. It also details the theoretical contribution of the work and provides a comprehensive overview of the thesis structure.
Chapter 2 presents a detailed literature review of existing negotiation style scoring instruments, examining their psychometric properties and historical development. It critically assesses the theoretical foundations and psychometric properties of various instruments, including the Managerial Grid, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument, the Conflict Management Message Style Instrument, the Hall Conflict Management Survey, the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II, and the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument.
Chapter 3 delves into the discussion of an integrated theoretical foundation for understanding negotiation styles. It examines the theory of reasoned action and its limitations, before proposing a new model that considers predispositions, strategy, tactics, relational influencing factors, and situational influencing factors. This chapter concludes with a model for the classification of negotiation styles.
Chapter 4 focuses on the development of the negotiation styles scoring instrument. It outlines the construct definition, object classification, attribute classification, rater identification, scale formation, enumeration, and the design of scenarios to define different negotiation situations.
Chapter 5 details the empirical validation of the proposed negotiation style scoring instrument. It describes the methodology used, including the participants, procedures, and results of the study. Finally, it discusses the results of the reliability and factor analysis.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This thesis focuses on the development and validation of a new negotiation style scoring instrument. It examines various existing instruments, their psychometric properties, and theoretical foundations. Key concepts include negotiation style, psychometric properties, reliability, validity, conflict management, attitude-behaviour theorising, and empirical validation.
- Citar trabajo
- Christian Wurm (Autor), 2003, Development of a Validated Scoring Instrument for Businesses to Help Measure Negotiation Styles in Business Partnerships, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/24588
