Negotiation scholars have attributed practitioner-researcher and researcher-researcher divides to a closed system paradigm embedded in the literature. This paradigm remains embedded despite calls to adopt an open system paradigm. However, presently there are no open system frameworks precise or prescriptive enough to facilitate the needed research. This dissertation addresses this research need in three sections. First, the theoretical foundations section expands upon existing theory on conflict management in teams and negotiations to define key dimensions of an open system. The first dimension focuses on Time and organizes the flow of the negotiation process. The second dimension focuses on Levels and articulates how the negotiation process unfolds across strata of social structures. The resulting theoretical framework comprises a novel contribution to the negotiation literature and greatly expands the traditional scope of negotiation research. Second, the systematic review section utilizes this theoretical framework to organize and critically evaluate recent publications in top negotiation outlets. Beyond synthesizing existing findings, this systematic review identifies numerous areas of the open system framework that are considerably understudied as well as areas of the open system framework where conventional wisdom is unlikely to hold true. Third, the empirical section examines one such area. Specifically, conventional wisdom holds that integrative strategies will outperform distributive strategies is optimizing joint outcomes. However, when challenges during agreement implementation necessitate a return to the bargaining table, integrative strategies can underperform distributive strategies. This study marks the first empirical examination of a multi-episodic negotiation involving the same partners working on the same task. The implications of the specific findings and the general framework of this dissertation to both practitioners and researchers are discussed.
Read
