팀협상에서 시간압력인지와 팀원들의 팀과업몰입이 협상성과와 시간에 미치는 영향

This study examines the effect of (1) perceived time pressure and (2) team commitment to a task on (1) negotiation outcome and (2) time to reach an agreement in a negotiation setting. In a dyadic negotiation (e.g., one on one), time pressure provides a constraint and leads negotiators to open the negotiation with an unambitious proposal and make concessions quickly resulting in a reduced negotiation time (Kwon and Weingart, 2004). However, this could be different in a team negotiation. Under time pressure, team members may experience difficulty in communicating for decision making and for problem solving with each other. Therefore, we propose that the total negotiation time for teams with high time pressure will be longer than teams with low time pressure (Hypothesis 1). More specifically, time pressure may affect team commitment to the task when team members discuss the issues before negotiation. De Dreu (2003) argued that when team members perceive time pressure to be high, they tend to decrease the extent to which they search for information and exchange it among themselves. As a result, team members in such a case cannot work effectively as a team (Morgan and Bowers, 1995). As a corollary, we propose that team members cannot be highly committed to the task when they discuss issues before the negotiation process (Hypothesis 2). When team members are committed to a task, such as a negotiation, they are expected to achieve high outcomes. The way to maximize the outcome for various issues can be different according to the type of issue. They can increase outcomes on distributive issues by team consensus and competing against the other team. For integrative issues, they can use mutual cooperation that results in finding integrative solutions. Therefore, we propose that the teams with a higher commitment to a task will obtain a higher level of outcomes than teams with lower commitment to a task (Hypothesis 3). Teams with high commitment to a task will share pertinent information for a negotiation and will make rational decisions. Team members may each have different information, and they should share information and integrate the perspectives to make the negotiation process smooth and reach an agreement quickly. Therefore, we propose that teams with a high commitment to the task will experience an efficient negotiation process and will use less time than teams with a low commitment to the task (Hypothesis 4). Time pressure is different from time constraint (Ordonez and Benson, 1997). Time pressure is the perception of time constraint. That is, people can experience different levels of time pressure even though they have the same time constraint. In this study, we manipulated time pressure by giving different instructions (“the 40 minutes provided for this negotiation is plenty of time for negotiation and agreement” (low time pressure) vs. “the 40 minutes given is an extremely short time for completing negotiations and agreement” (high time pressure)) even though the negotiation time was the same in reality (De Dreu, 2003). The negotiation exercise “Pelican Landing” was used in this study (Peterson and Thompson, 1997). The Pelican Landing case is about a real estate development project in an area of Springfield City called “Old Town”. In this study, 164 undergraduate and graduate students formed teams that were composed of 2 people and went through 41 team negotiation exercises. Two teams (i.e., Bender Corporation and the City of Springfield) negotiated over multiple issues. Each team had two representatives: a planning director and financial director. That is, two people formed a group to negotiate with another team that was also composed of two people. Bender Corporation and the City of Springfield negotiated 8 issues on the Old Town development. Four issues (i.e., the integrative issues) had integrative potentials in that they could increase joint outcomes by trading-off those issues. Bender Corporation was more interested in two issues (i.e., financing and the condo/apartment ratio). In contrast, Springfield City was more focused on providing a higher ratio of low- income housing and work opportunities for local subcontractors. Two issues (i.e., compatible issues) allowed for a cooperative outcome where both teams agreed on equal benefits without the need for competition. Two issues were distributive issues that were equally important to both parties. In addition, the two parties had a conflict of interest on those issues. The exercise took 90 minutes. Each team had approximately 20 minutes to read their role instructions individually. Then the team members had 10 minutes to discuss and exchange information to prepare for the team negotiation. Before and after the negotiation, the participants filled out a survey on task commitment. Perception of time pressure was measured immediately after the negotiations. Negotiation teams with high time pressure took longer to reach an agreement than teams with low time pressure. This process was mediated by the level of team commitment to the task before and during the negotiation. That is, team members with high time pressure were not able to exchange information freely with other team members before the negotiation. In turn, they were not committed to the task during the negotiation. Further, the effect of team commitment to the task during negotiation on actual performance and negotiation time was also examined. The low level of commitment to the task led negotiators to low quality negotiated outcomes. Analysis of performance includes examining the particular issues of the negotiation subject. Negotiators with a high commitment to the task achieved higher outcomes on distributive issues compared with negotiators with a low commitment to the task. In addition, the total negotiation time of the teams with a high commitment to the task was less than the teams with a low commitment to the task. When teams had time pressure, they took longer to reach agreements. This result was different from the effect of time pressure in dyadic negotiations in that time pressure reduced negotiation time in dyadic negotiations. Team members with time pressure might have experienced closing of mind (De Dreu, 2003) and were not committed to the task, resulting in less communication between team members. Closing of mind could be related to a fixed pie perception that led negotiators to perceive that they had a conflict of interest on all issues. As a result, they could not integrate issues to find integrative solutions. Instead, they discussed issues separately. This study revealed the process through which time pressure hinders a quick agreement in a team negotiation. The current study also confirmed the effect of team commitment to task on team negotiation outcomes (Thompson, Peterson, and Brodt, 1996; Peterson and Thompson, 1997). By analyzing the negotiation outcomes on specific issues, we found some interesting results. The teams with a high team commitment were more focused on the issues that were important to the focal team regardless of integrative or distributive issues. This research uncovers some practical implications for small- and medium-size companies. Teams in small- and medium- size companies often experience team negotiations under time pressure. Time pressure in team negotiations can lower the negotiated outcomes and elongate the negotiation time. Therefore, managers should make an effort to remove time constraints in team negotiations. At minimum, they should be aware of the negative impact of time pressure on team negotiation outcomes.