Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Management article
-
Reference no. N0601A
Published by: Harvard Business Publishing
Published in: "Negotiation Newsletter", 2006

Abstract

Who should answer to whom, and for what? At a time when there are increasing demands for corporate accountability, it is no surprise that accountability is also a concern at negotiations. The expectation of having to provide justifications often leads to striking changes in our negotiation behavior. The benefits are obvious: knowing you''ll be accountable before a negotiation means better advance planning, more careful evaluation of the other side''s position and the effects of your own actions, and more realistic expectations. But establishing accountability systems also has its pitfalls, including contentiousness and partisan bias. The solution? An ideal accountability system that recognizes and addresses these dangers.

About

Abstract

Who should answer to whom, and for what? At a time when there are increasing demands for corporate accountability, it is no surprise that accountability is also a concern at negotiations. The expectation of having to provide justifications often leads to striking changes in our negotiation behavior. The benefits are obvious: knowing you''ll be accountable before a negotiation means better advance planning, more careful evaluation of the other side''s position and the effects of your own actions, and more realistic expectations. But establishing accountability systems also has its pitfalls, including contentiousness and partisan bias. The solution? An ideal accountability system that recognizes and addresses these dangers.

Related