Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 193–209 | Cite as

Communication Quality in Business Negotiations



The quality of a business negotiation process is usually assessed by its economic outcome, e.g. in terms of Pareto efficiency or distance to Nash equilibrium. We argue that this assessment method is insufficient in that it fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of business negotiations. Negotiators engage in highly complex communication tasks, and these communication processes should be analysed along with the outcome in the overall evaluation of a business negotiation. To this end, we will introduce Communication Quality as a new construct for analyzing the negotiation process. Furthermore, it will be argued that Communication Quality itself can affect economic negotiation outcomes both short- and long-term. We will present relevant aspects of Communication Quality, outline a scheme for its operationalisation and measurement, and discuss its probable impacts on business negotiations.


Negotiation Negotiation evaluation Negotiation process Communication process Communication Quality Pragmatics Coherence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev 27(1): 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnevale PJ, De Dreu CKW (2004) Methods of negotiation research: introduction. Int Negotiat 9: 341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter C, Kaufmann L (2007) The impact of electronic reverse auctions on supplier performance: the mediating role of relationship variables. J Supply Chain Manage 43(1): 16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Q 11(3): 355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Moor A, Weigand H (2002) Towards a semiotic communications quality model. In: (eds) Organisational semiotics: evolving a science of information systems. Kluwer, Boston, pp, pp 275–285Google Scholar
  6. Emmers-Sommer TM (2004) The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J Soc Personal Relationships 21(3): 399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksson O (2002) Communication quality in the context of information systems and business processes. In: Liu K, Clarke RJ, Andersen PB, Stamper RK(eds) Coordination and communication using signs: studies in organisational semiotics 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 115–128Google Scholar
  8. Firth A (1995) Introduction and overview. In: Firth A(eds) The discourse of negotiation. Studies of language in the workplace. Pergamon Press, London, pp 3–40Google Scholar
  9. Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (2004) Das Harvard-Konzept—Der Klassiker der Verhandlungstechnik, vol 22. Campus, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  10. Fortgang RS, Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2003) Negotiating the spirit of the deal. Harv Bus Rev 81: 66–75Google Scholar
  11. Frommeyer A (2005) Kommunikationsqualität in persönlichen Kundenbeziehungen. Konzeptualisierung und empirische Prüfung. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia SM (2002) Power and the illusion of transparency in negotiations. J Bus Psychol 17(1): 133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelfand M, Smith Major V, Raver J, Nishi L, O’Brien K (2006) Negotiating relationally—the dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Acad Manage Rev 31: 427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibb J (1961) Defensive communication. J Commun 11: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handels, 2 vols. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  16. Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 3: 63–73Google Scholar
  17. Holzinger K (2001) Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42: 414–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber GP, Lewis K (2004) Cross understanding in decision groups: analysis and support. In: Paper presented at the 3rd international conference entitled Decision support in an uncertain and complex world: the IFIP TC8/WG8, 2004, pp 381–391Google Scholar
  19. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Org Sci Special issue: Commun Proc Virtual Org (Nov–Dec 1999) 10(6): 791–815Google Scholar
  20. Johlke MC, Duhan DF (2001) Testing competing models of sales force communication. J Personal Sell Sales Manage 21(4): 265–277Google Scholar
  21. Köhne F, Schoop M, Staskiewicz D (2005) Use patterns in different negotiation media. In: Proceedings of group decision and negotiation, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd SA (1987) Conflict in premarital relationships: differential perceptions of males and females. Family Relations 36(3): 290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohr JJ, Sohi RS (1995) Communication flows in distribution channels: impact on assessments of communication quality and satisfaction. J Retailing 71(4): 393–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montgomery BM (1981) The form and function of quality communication in marriage. Family Relations 30(1): 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Montgomery BM (1988) Quality communication in personal relationships. In: Druck SW, Hay DF, Hobfoll SE, Ickes W, Montgomery B(eds) Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 343–359Google Scholar
  26. Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Neurath O(eds) International encyclopedia of unified science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Mulder I (1999) Understanding technology mediated interaction processes—a theoretical context. GigaCSCW. Telematica Instituut, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller H (2004) Arguing, bargaining and all that: communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness. Eur J Int Relations 10(3): 395–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller H (2007) Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. In: Niesen P, Herborth B (eds) Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit—Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., pp 199–223Google Scholar
  30. Orpen C (1997) The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. J Psychol 131(5):519–522Google Scholar
  31. Pavitt C, Johnson KK (1999) An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Commun Res 26(3): 303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pesendorfer E-M, Köszegi S (2005) The effects of communication mode in e-negotiations. In: Workshop on formal and informal information exchange during negotiationsGoogle Scholar
  33. Pesendorfer EM, Köszegi S (2006) Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: the impact of communication mode. Group Decis Negotiat 15(2): 141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peters R (2000) Elektronische Märkte und automatisierte Verhandlungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5): 413–421Google Scholar
  35. Putnam LL, Roloff ME (1992) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  36. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Robert LP, Dennis AR (2005) Paradox of richness: a cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(1): 10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson M (1991) Double-level languages and co-operative working. AI Soc 5: 34–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoop M (2001) An introduction to the language-action perspective. SIGGROUP Bull 22(2): 3–8Google Scholar
  40. Schoop M (2002) Business communication in electronic commerce. Habilitation thesis, Aachen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Schoop M (2004) The worlds of negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modeling,, 18 May 2006
  42. Schoop M (2005) A language-action approach to electronic negotiations. J Syst Signs Action 1(1): 62–79Google Scholar
  43. Schoop M, Köhne F, Staskiewicz D (2004) An integrated decision and communication perspective on electronic negotiation support systems: challenges and solutions. Decis Syst 13(4): 375–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shakun M (2003) Right problem solving: doing the right thing right. J Group Decis Negotiat 12(6): 463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  46. Shelby AN (1998) Communication quality revisited. Exploring the link with persuasive effects. J Bus Commun 35(3): 387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith JB, Barclay DW (1997) The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. J Marketing 61: 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spörndli M (2003) Discourse quality and political decisions: an empirical analysis of debates in the German conference committee. Discussion paper, Social Science Research Center, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  49. Swaab R, Postmes T, van Best I, Spears R (2007) Shared cognition as a product of and a precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality Soc Psychol Bull 33(2): 187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valley K L, Keros AT (2001) It takes two: social distance and improvisations in negotiations. In: Proceedings of E.M. Mindich conference on experimental methods 2002,, 18 May 2006
  51. Van Boven L, Thompson L (2003) A look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models in negotiation. Group Process Intergroup Relations 6(4): 387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watzlawick P (2000) Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Verlag Hans Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  53. Weigand H, Schoop M, de Moor A, Dignum F (2003) B2B negotiation support: the need for a communication perspective. Group Decis Negotiat 12(1): 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems IUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations