SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Journal Article 1: Huffmeier, J., Zerres, A., Freund, P. A., Backhaus, K., Trotschel, R., & Hertel, G. (2018). Strong or weak synergy? Revising the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. Journal of Management. doi: 0149206318770245.
Abstract: When negotiations are complex and consequential, organizations usually send teams rather than individuals to the negotiation table because teams are expected to provide additional beneficial negotiation processes and, thus, generate superior outcomes. Similarly, theoretical accounts of integrative negotiations assume higher outcomes for teams than for individual negotiators as a consequence of team-related advantages (e.g., increased information processing and problem-solving capabilities). In this study, we challenge this established assumption and across three negotiations and various empirical tests, we show that the advantages of teams are merely the result of individual-level processes (i.e., one person asking interest-related questions). Moreover, Bayesian estimation supported our claim and rejected the extant account: The probability of the teams achieving better outcomes than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups (i.e., strong synergy) was up to four times smaller than the probability of the teams not achieving better results than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups. Finally, in the majority of our analyses, individual negotiators generated better relationship outcomes than teams even though the economic outcomes were comparable. On the basis of these results, we revise the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. We discuss the implications of our results for future negotiation research and for the practical assignment of teams or individuals to negotiations.
Abstract: Effects of diversity in team members’ rational and intuitive cognitive styles on team outcomes were investigated in a moderated-mediation model, exploring conflict management as a moderator and cohesion as a mediator. The negative effects of diversity on cohesion were moderated by conflict management, such that diversity harmed cohesion when conflict management was low but had no effect when conflict management was high. Cohesion mediated the relationship between the interaction of cognitive diversity and conflict management on team viability but not task performance. Implications for practice include promoting cognitive diversity and conflict management training in diverse teams. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample and utilizing causal research designs.