한국인의 협상 전략과 전술에 관한 연구 -협력전략, 경쟁전략, 예속전략의 선택을 중심으로-
A Study on the Negotiation Strategy & Tactics of Korean Businessmen
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구에서는 한국 기업인들이나 비즈니스맨들이 비즈니스 협상을 진행하는 과정을 4단계(1단계: 협상범위 탐색 및 의제형성 단계, 2단계: 요구조건 및 제안사항 제시단계, 3단계: 의견차이 좁히기 단계, 4단계: 최종교섭단계)로 나누어 각각의 단계에서 어떠한 협상 전략-전술을 사용할 때 협상 과정 및 결과 만족도가 큰가를 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 본 연구에서는 244명의 CEO들로부터 설문지를 수집하였고, ‘협상결과에 대한 만족도(Y1)’ 및 ‘협상과정에 대한 만족도(Y2)’를 종속변수로 하고 협상의 4단계별로 경쟁전략, 협력전략, 예속전략 등 3개 협상전략을 구성하는 하위 전술들의 측정치 평균을 독립변수로 하는 다중 회귀분석을 통하여 가설검정을 실시하였고 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 협상의 제1단계인 협상범위의 탐색 및 의제 형성 단계에서는 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과에 대한 만족도가 커지는 것으로 볼 수 있으며, 예속전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 결과 만족도가 낮아지는 것으로 검정되었다. 둘째, 협상의 제2단계인 요구조건 및 제안사항 제시단계 및 협상의 제3단계인 의견차이 좁히기 단계에서는 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과 및 협상과정에 대한 만족도가 커지는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 협상의 제4단계인 최종교섭단계에서는 경쟁전략-전술 및 협력전략-전술의 사용정도가 높을수록 협상결과 및 과정 만족도가 높아지는 것으로 나타났으나, 경쟁전략-전술을 사용하면 결과 만족도가 더 커지는 효과가 있었으며, 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 경우 협상과정 만족도가 더 커지는 것으로 분석되었다. 이상과 같은 가설검정의 결과로부터 얻을 수 있는 시사점은 협상의 모든 단계에서 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과에 대한 만족도가 커진다는 것이다. 따라서 비즈니스 협상에 임하는 경영자들은 협상행위를 서로 대립적인 이해관계 구조 속에서 발생하는 싸움이라고 간주하지 말고, 협상상대를 나의 비즈니스 파트너로 간주하고 호혜적인 협상을 할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 최종교섭단계에서 만약 실질적 이해관계가 중요하고 관계가 중요치 않는 경우에 경영자는 단호한 경쟁전략을 고려해야 한다. 그러나 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상과정 만족도가 더 높아진다는 검정결과를 고려할 필요가 있다.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to derive the successful negotiation strategy and tactics for business negotiations of Korean businessmen. We divided the negotiation process to four phases(The first phase: The Search for an Arena Formulation, the second phase: The Stating of Demands and Offers, the third phase: Narrowing of Differences, the fourth phase: Final Bargaining), and tried to find out which strategy and tactics have positive effect on the level of satisfaction from negotiation results and process. And we divided the negotiation strategy to three kinds as ‘Competition Strategy’, ‘Collaborate Strategy’, and ‘Subordinate Strategy’, according to Savage(1989). ‘Competition Strategy’ could be considered if substantive interests are important but the relationship is not. This situation often occurs when managers have little trust for the other party ir the relationship is not good to begin with. In such situation they may want to exert their power to gain substantive outcomes. To enact this competitive strategy they may also become highly aggressive, bluffing, threatening the other party, or otherwise misrepresenting their intentions. ‘Collaborate Strategy’ is consdered by managers if both relationship and substantive outcome are important to the orgarnization. The hallmark of this strategy is openness on the part of both parties. By encouraging cooperation as positions are asserted, the executive should be able to achieve important relationship and substantive outcomes. The executive seeks a win-win outcome both to achieve substantive goals and maintain a positive relationship. Trustingly collaborative strategies generally are easiest to use and most effective when the manager`s organization and the other party are interdependent and mutually supportive. ‘Subordinate Strategy’ is consdered if managers are more concerned with establishing a positive relationship with another party than obtaining substantive outcomes. An openly subordinate strategy is a yield-win strategy that usually provide desired substantive outcomes to the other party but rarely to the manager. A subordinate strategy may used regardless of whether the manager exercises more, less, or equalpower relative to the other party. The main question that I tried to answer in this study was "Which strategy, among ‘Competition Strategy’, ‘Collaborate Strategy’, ‘Subordinate Strategy’ is significantly related with the level of satisfaction from negotiation results and process, according to negotiation phases?To answer this question, I tried to test the hypotheses through multiple regression methodology using the data collected by questionnaire survey from 244 CEO respondents. The main findings of my empirical tests are as follows;First, in the first phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. However, the higher the level of using subordinate strategy, the lower the satisfaction level from negotiation results. Second, in the second & third phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. Third, in the fourth phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy & competition strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results & process. However, the degree of result satisfaction was the higher than the degree of process satisfaction when they used competition strategy. And the degree of process satisfaction was the higher than the degree of result satisfaction when they used collaborate strategy. In summary, in all of the negotiation phases, the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. We could get some implications as follows; we should consider negotiation partner not as confronting partner but as cooperative partner, so win-win style negotiation could be possible. In the final bargaining phase, if actual result is more important than relationship, CEOs should consider firmly competitive strategy. However, when the actual result and relationship is equally important, CEOs should consider collaborate strategy.
참고문헌 (43)
- 김기홍, "한국인은 왜 항상 협상에서 지는가", 경영계, pp.52~55 (2003), 한국경영자총협회
- 김병국, "상대를 내 편으로 만드는 협상기술" (2002), 더난출판사
- 김용흔, "직장-가정 갈등의 영향요인과 생활만족간의 관계", 기업경영연구, 18(3), pp.101~117 (2011), 한국기업경영학회
- 박헌준, "협상 연구의 이론적 과제와 전망", 연세경영연구, 44(2), pp.181~211 (2007), 경영연구소
- 박헌준, "정보스키마와 정보선호유형이 통합적 협상 성과에 미치는 영향", 인사조직연구, 14(3), pp.71~105 (2006), 한국인사조직학회
- 성민, "환경의 동태성이 네트워크 차원과 관계특성을 매개로 갈등에 미치는 영향", 기업경영연구, 16(3), pp.163~186 (2009), 한국기업경영학회
- 이영자, "한국인의 일상문화" (1996), 한울
- 이종건, "한국인의 협상전술에 관한 탐색적 연구", 협상연구, 10(1), pp.37~69 (2004), 한국협상협회
- 장대환, "국제기업협상" (1992), 김영사
- 천만봉, "국제기업의 조직 갈등이 조직 유효성에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구", 기업경영연구, 16(4), pp.97~121 (2009), 한국기업경영학회
- 황상민, "한국인의 협상 마인드", 한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제, 2(1), pp.155~175 (1995), 한국심리학회
- 황재영, "바람직한 협상문화 정착을 위한 시론", 한국인간관계학보, 4(1), pp.163~177 (1999), 한국인간관계학회
- 허영도, "對 中國 비즈니스 協商成果의 決定要因에 關한 探索的 硏究？접수일자", 대한경영학회지, 19(5), pp.1617~1643 (2006), 대한경영학회
- 허영도, "한국인의 협상문화와 협상성과에 관한 연구", 경영연구, 28(2), pp.1~28 (2013), 한국산업경영학회
- Allred, K. G., "The Influence of Anger and Compassion on Negotiation Performance", Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), pp.175~187 (1997)
- Bazerman, M. H., "Judgment in Managerial Decision Making" (1998), Wiley
- Bazerman, M. H., "Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences", Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp.225~541 (1998)
- Blake, R. R., "The Fifth Achievement", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(4), pp.413~426 (1970)
- Deutsch, M., "The Resolution of Conflict" (1973), Yale University Press
- Fisher, R., "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In" (1991), Houghton Mifflin
- Forgas, J. P., "On Feeling Good and Getting Your Way: Mood Effects on Nogotiator Cognition and Bargaining Strategies", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), pp.565~577 (1998)
- George, J. M., "The Role of Affect in Cross-Cultural Negotiations", Journal of International Business Studies, 29, pp.749~772 (1998)
- Hall, "Conflict Management Survey: A Survey of One's Characteristic Reaction to and Handling of Coflicts Between Himself and Others" (1986), Telecometrics
- Kumar, R. M., "The Role of Affect in Negotiations", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(1), pp.84~100 (1997)
- Lewicki, R. J., "Think Before You Speak: Complete Guide to Strategic Negotiation", pp.49~50 (1996), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Lewicki, R. J., "Negotiation" (1985), Irwin
- Lewicki, R. J., "What is Ethically Appropriate in Negotiations: An Empirical Examination of Bargaining Tactics", Social Justice Research, 9(1), pp.69~95 (1996)
- Lewicki, R. J., "Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tacties: An Empirical Study", Journal of Business Ethics, 17, pp.665~683 (1998)
- Lewicki, R. J., "Negotiation" (1999), Irwin
- Lewicki, R. J., "Lying and Deception: A Behavioral Model" (1983), Negotiating in Organizations
- Park, H., "Asian Manager’Schema about Unethical Bargaining Tactics", Paper Presented at the Academy of Management Conference (2003)
- Pruitt, D. G., "Negotiation Behavior" (1981), Academic Press
- Pruitt, D. G., "Strategic Choice in Negotiation", Amercian Behavioral Scientist, 27(2), pp.167~194 (1983)
- Pruitt, D. G., "Development of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, pp.621~633 (1975)
- Putnam, L. L., "Reciprocity in Negotiations: An Analysis of Bargaining Interaction", Communication Monographs, 49, pp.171~191 (1982)
- Putnam, L. L., "Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach" (1989), Praeger
- Savage, G. T., "Consider both Relationships and Substance when Negotiating Strategically", The Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), pp.37~48 (1989)
- Savage, G. T., "What is Ethically Appropriate in Negotiations : An Empirical Examination of Bargaining Tactics", Social Justice Research, 9(1), pp.69~95 (1996)
- Shell, G. R., "Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People" (1999), Viking
- Thomas, K. W., "Interpersonal Conflict Handling Behavior as Reflections of Jungian Personality Dimensions", Psychological Report, 37, pp.971~980 (1975)
- Tung, R. L, "Handshake across the Sea : Cross Cultural Negotiating for Business Success", Organizational Dynamics, 19, pp.30~40 (1991)
- Walton, R. E., "A Behavioral theory of Labor Negotiation Analysis of a Social Interaction System" (1965), McGraw-Hill
- Wilson, S. R., "Communication Yearbook, 13", pp.374~406 (1990), Sage