Search

To hedge unforeseen risk, investors may prioritize male-led ventures that they anticipate most other investors will prefer, arriving at decisions that are biased against women. Yet, little is known about how investors infer such gendered preferences and when they are particularly likely to do so. Integrating insights from third-party bias research with social role theory, we posit that when women propose novel ventures, investors are more apt to make unpromising social approval forecasting—an anticipation of the extent to which other investors will endorse these ventures—and thus withhold funding support. This is because the intensified gender role violations due to women being entrepreneurial in tandem with being novel lead investors to impose harsher judgments that these ventures violate normative business practices. Our hypotheses receive support from results of three methodologically complementary studies, including an archival study of Shark Tank (2009–2019) coupled with preregistered online and field experiments. By casting light on how venture novelty, a key determining factor of entrepreneurial success, makes third-party bias against women particularly salient, our work identifies a less overt "entrepreneurial gender dilemma" and derives new insights into policy-making designed to help women entrepreneurs surmount financial and social barriers in the innovation-based economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to test negotiation outcomes when bilinguals negotiate in a foreign rather than their native language. Decision research on the foreign language effect indicates that bilingual individuals may be less susceptible to framing bias when using a foreign language because they make less emotional and biased choices. With increasing international business activity, there is a pressing need to examine the effect of language on bilingual negotiators. Design/methodology/approach: The authors tested the hypotheses using a two (task frame: gain vs loss) × 2 (language: foreign vs native) factorial design recruiting 246 Korean–English bilinguals. A negotiation simulation with three issues was used, and participants exchanged offers with a preprogrammed computer they believed to be a real counterpart. Findings: There was no significant interaction effect between framing and language on the offers made, but the framing effect was mitigated and nonsignificant for negotiators who used their foreign language. The interaction between framing and language conditions significantly affected negotiators' positive emotions and satisfaction with the negotiation. Originality/value: The uniqueness of this paper is related to its effort to investigate the effect of negotiation language on a negotiator's decision-making. Considering globalization and the increasing prevalence of international negotiations, this paper has implications for researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A group process model for team building was tested using a management simulation game with 144 business students. Compared to controls, participants who experienced the team-building process reported significantly higher satisfaction, trust, openness, and social support. (SK)

Presenting programmed angry messages to a negotiator has increased concession rates in a series of recent experiments. But observing responses to a computer or confederate counterpart cannot yield insight into the perceptions, reactions, and negotiation outcomes experienced by those who actually deploy anger as a tactic. We report five studies examining the anger expression decision using a range of different methods. In the fully interactive two‐person integrative negotiation in Study 1, expressed anger generally degraded trust while damaging implementation of deals. That ultimately diminished value actually claimed by anger expressers. In the discrete choice experiment of Study 2, sending angry messages proved costly for expressers, who registered very high levels of measured disutility from using this tactic. In Study 3, survey respondents reported widespread unwillingness to misrepresent anger during negotiation. Recalling a past negotiation, anger correlated negatively with experienced success, indicating that disutility from expressing anger generalizes widely across different contexts. Study 4 revealed that negotiators generally consider the tactic to be unethical. More than just specific beliefs about the lack of efficacy, Study 5 revealed that the source of tactical disutility lies in generalized discomfort with the misrepresentation of anger. Implications for research, practice, and training are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational scholars have systematically studied the negotiation process to guide the development of general descriptive and prescriptive theory. Descriptive research conducted by scholars from anthropology, law, and international relations converge on the features required for a general theory. This includes a multiphase process comprising planning, bargaining, and implementation, as well as multiparty process between actors organized within a multilevel structure. We examine to what extent negotiation scholars in management have incorporated such complexities into their empirical work. In a survey of empirical studies, we observe concentrated efforts to model and measure dyadic interactions in just one phase-bargaining-and the near exclusive use of experimental methods. By contrast, we survey prescriptive theory generated by specialized experts from various negotiation contexts and find that they place greater focus on the preparation and implementation phases. From this review, we recommend that scholars (a) theorize and measure negotiation as a multiphase process with possibilities for recursion, (b) incorporate a multiparty and multilevel structure in which actors beyond negotiating parties can influence the process, and (c) consider agreements as action commitments separate from actually realizing outcomes. In doing so, we discuss the value of integrating analogous work to furnish negotiation theory. We also provide recommendations for novel empirical approaches that move beyond experimental designs of multi-issue bargaining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]