Who is cooperative in negotiations? The impact of political skill on cooperation, reputation and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to predict cooperation in negotiation through the lens of individual differences. Specifically, this paper examines how a social competence variable called “political skill” relates to cooperation and subsequent effects on negotiation process, outcomes and negotiator reputation. The authors demonstrate how political skill fits in the evolving literature focusing on individual differences in negotiation by comparing political skill to a wide range of other individual difference measures. Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted by assessing individual difference measures at the beginning of graduate-level negotiation courses and tracking negotiation behaviors and outcomes over several months. This approach was chosen to minimize the potential for short, time-limited interactions to mask existing relationships. It also allowed the authors to include multiple negotiation interactions, which takes a broader view of negotiation performance, and assess negotiator reputation by allowing it to emerge over time. Findings The results of this study show that political skill, self-rated at the beginning of this study, is significantly related to a negotiator’s overall use of cooperative behavior as rated by peers. Political skill also showed a significant relationship with reputation for cooperativeness and aggregate outcomes in negotiations. These results control for other individual difference measures such as personality, implicit negotiation beliefs, social value orientation and negotiation self-efficacy. Originality/value Using a method that allows the effects of an individual difference to materialize over time, this study empirically establishes the connection between political skill and negotiation reputation, process and outcomes. The methodological contributions of this study explore the relations between self-rated individual difference variables, peer-rated cooperative behaviors and objective coded negotiation outcomes in evaluating political skill in negotiation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".