Do Managers Intend to Use the Same Negotiation Strategies as Partners?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Most auditor client management (ACM) negotiations occur between partners and client management; however, managers also attempt to resolve issues with client management. Given that ACM negotiation impacts the financial statements, an understanding of whether the intended negotiation strategies of partners and managers differ is important. A key feature of the ACM setting is that partners have more power/status and experience than managers. Prior research provides conflicting predictions about the use of integrative strategies based on experience or power/status. Our results, consistent with the power/status hypothesis, demonstrate managers are more likely than partners to intend to use integrative strategies. Conversely, research on distributive strategies provides similar predictions for partner/manager strategy usage for experience and power/status. We find partners are more likely to intend to use the contending strategy and managers are more likely to intend to use the compromising and concessionary strategies. However, these findings are dependent on accounting context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it