Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Textbooks
  4. Content Listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

38649 results in Cambridge Textbooks

Page 1433 of 1933

  • 11 - Multilateral negotiation

  • from PART III - Extensions and variants
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 219-237

  • Summary

    If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

    African proverb

    RECOGNIZING the necessity for global action in many arenas, multilateral conferences have produced important treaties on rules of free trade, protection of the ozone layer, the Antarctic, preservation of endangered species, management of mineral resources in deep sea beds, nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and so forth. Multiple issues to be resolved by a large number of concerned parties create procedural challenges very different from bilateral negotiations. Decision-making among some 100 to 150 participating governments through a universally inclusive process is not only time-consuming but also proving to be inefficient. The complexity is cut down by deliberations among two or more coalitions based on similar preferences. As will be seen later in this chapter, coalition formation is indispensable for meaningful bargaining in that it permits efforts to maximize a number of tradeoffs on many dispersed issues, interests and positions.

    Interactions in multilateral negotiation are shaped by institutional rules and procedures of decision-making. The variations in a negotiation's institutional setting are thus crucial in understanding the effectiveness of strategies used by states and coalitions. The participants are far less able to exert influence on the negotiation process and its exogenous context than in bilateral interactions or with mediation. Negotiators may have to take the institutional and coalitional aspects of bargaining as given. In this chapter, various outcomes of multilateral negotiations are explained by the nature of issues and coalitional dynamics as well as institutional context that shapes the process.

    Bargaining structures

    Given that many international agreements are not easily coerced, they need to be built upon consensus that emerges from a procedure that allows a participating state to reject any part of the negotiated outcomes unfavorable to them. Indeed, binding legislation through a unanimous decision can be blocked in the absence of a Pareto improving outcome for all. Making such an agreement should be individually rational, providing natural incentives to adhere to it, and thus self-enforcing. As illustrated in a cooperative game, a binding agreement cannot be imposed without ensuring some value to all parties.

  • 1 - Negotiation: an overall framework

  • from Introduction
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 3-18

  • Summary

    NEGOTIATION is involved, either at personal, group or international levels, in managing almost every arena of human affairs. In particular, joint solutions are required in many public spheres, both domestic and international, sometimes with grave consequences to the welfare of larger collective communities. Many international actors argue over the terms of settling territorial boundaries, arms control, termination of long-term hostilities, reduced pollution, protection of endangered species, free trade, monetary systems or other shared problems. When more than one solution exists, actors may have different preferences for types of mutually desirable agreements. This produces dilemmas for negotiation.

    Negotiation is a unique set of social interactions in which negotiators differ but have complementary needs or desires. Facing one of the largest threats to the future of humanity, for instance, every reasonable person would accept the necessity for collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the irrevocable damage to the global atmosphere, but it has proven difficult for governments to agree to measures to be taken to obtain the objective. Though it has now become part of history (from the 1950s to the early 1990s), the United States and the Soviet Union kept increasing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons the use of which would have left neither side with any chance of survival. Although both sides realized the need to control the arms race through negotiation, they still competed to gain military superiority. It took more than two decades and cost approximately one million lives to end the civil war between the Sudanese government and the south's ‘liberation forces’ prior to the conclusion of a peaceful settlement in 2005. In all these incidents, any one actor's security and welfare cannot be achieved alone, requiring mutually agreed actions.

    In entering negotiation, each party has certain expectations, but one's objectives cannot be realized without joint solutions to the shared problems. In negotiation settings, a mutually acceptable solution is sought by two or more parties, who have differing preferences over feasible outcomes. Even if the attainment of one party's goals is in fundamental conflict with those of the other parties, negotiation still takes place due to converging interests as well as opposing ones. Incompatible preferences can be resolved through the recognition of the interdependence in which cooperation becomes an inevitable part.

  • 2 - Game theory: basics and perspectives

  • from Part I - Strategic analysis
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 21-42

  • Summary

    If you must be selfish, then be wise and not narrow-minded in your selfishness.

    Dalai Lama, 2002

    NEGOTIATION is often characterized as interdependent actions involving a set of two or more decision-making units which have different preferences over the possible outcomes. By considering a negotiation process as a strategic interaction, we can shed light on interactive decision-making among actors who have a set of actions to choose from. In an interactive process, the actual or likely decisions by one agent have an impact on the other's choice of actions. Viewing this decision-making process within the structure of a game helps us explore different possibilities for solutions to conflicting preferences. In fact, game-theoretic analysis assists in uncovering order in seemingly chaotic interactions among negotiators. This chapter introduces a game-theoretic perspective in building a foundation for understanding structural conditions embedded in many conflict settings. It starts with theoretical assumptions about interactive decision-making and moves on to basic concepts involving the Prisoner's Dilemma and minimax. By introducing these and other concepts such as a dominant strategy and an equilibrium, the chapter lays the groundwork for further discussion about the dynamics of cooperation and conflict that will come later.

    Strategic interaction in negotiation

    In strategic situations where the outcome for each participant relies on mutual decisions, an individual's success depends on the choices of others. For instance, when one country concedes part of a disputed territory, they would want to have measures taken to ensure the territory is prevented from being used to attack. Not only one's own choices but also those of other actors drive the allocation of values. In other words, an ability to realize one's own desires hinges on what the other does (Schelling 1960). Thus the outcome derives from mutual influence of each other's actions and strategies, reflecting the decisions of all the concerned parties who have different interests.

    In general, negotiation has long been defined such that “choices of the actors will determine the allocation of some values,” and “the outcome for each participant is a function of the behavior of the other” (O. Young 1975, 5). More specifically, bargaining takes place because each actor's welfare is affected by the other's decisions.

  • 4 - Sequential games and strategic moves

  • from Part I - Strategic analysis
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 68-88

  • Summary

    Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.

    Søren Kierkegaard, 1843

    IN MANY interactive situations, the main concern is for each player to figure out how others will respond to one's own moves and anticipate where their decisions will eventually lead. The games introduced so far have not been adequate at elucidating how a series of moves by each player produces an outcome, as players move at the same time. In a game where players make their decisions simultaneously without knowing the other player's decision, it is interactive only with their current thinking about the other's present move and vice versa. If actions are arranged in a determined temporal order, the sequence of play can be represented in an extensive form displaying a choice at every decision point. It is an important departure from simultaneous games represented in the form of a payoff matrix. In general, a strategy in an extensive form game is constituted by a sequence of actions referred to as moves.

    In this chapter our main focus is on sequential games that allow the players to move one after another. In tacit bargaining, nonverbal cooperation on a particular solution can arise from a process based on a move and a countermove. The choices of later players are contingent upon the moves made earlier by the other player. This time difference in actions has a strategic effect, as illustrated in the extensive form of a game of Chicken and Battle of the Sexes. At the same time, a player may devise a move outside the defined actions of a given game to gain a strategic advantage. As revealed in the chapter's last section, a chance element needs to be incorporated in the event that players are not able to see all the prior moves made by other players.

    Sequential games

    In a sequential-move game, each player sees what their opponent has done before choosing their next action. Having the knowledge of the other players' previous move makes all the difference in a strategic interaction. The order of moves is encapsulated in a decision tree which represents how a game is to be played out over the course of a particular event (O'Neill 1999). A game tree reveals who moves when, and which sequences of actions result in what kind of outcomes.

  • 10 - Mediation

  • from PART III - Extensions and variants
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 199-218

  • Summary

    One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears – by listening to them.

    Dean Rusk

    MEDIATION is largely known as an assisted or managed form of negotiation. A negotiating process can be modified or extended by the interference of a third party whose primary interest lies in facilitating an agreement. Intermediary participation is designed to create dynamics necessary to overcome or remove obstacles in the structure of interaction. It would improve efficiency in a situation in which a reluctance to expose preferences produces Pareto inferior solutions. When direct negotiations face stalemate, mediation can be introduced to bring about a settlement that could not otherwise have been achievable – such incidents include peace accords in ending brutal civil wars and other protracted violent conflicts (e.g., Burundi, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, etc. in the mid 1990s and early 2000s) as well as long-simmering interstate conflicts (e.g., the 1978 Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel; the settlement of territorial disputes between Argentina and Chile in 1984).

    A mediator has diverse degrees of interest in the conflict and its outcome, but is, in general, endowed with an ability to shape both the context and substance of negotiation through process control, although a final decision on acceptance or rejection of the outcome is left with disputants. This chapter reviews various roles of mediators in controlling negotiators’ interactions and, by doing so, the outcome as well. It examines change in bargaining dynamics through assistance in communication, along with restructuring the agendas and drafting proposals. Our main focus will be on the way changes in the number of parties as well as the control of information flows bring about structural alterations in direct interactions between negotiators. As interference in communication channels forms the core of the mediation dynamics, we will also investigate its impact on strategic games played by both a mediator and disputants.

    Intermediary functions

    Missed opportunities for agreement might be ascribed to communication links fraught with misunderstanding and misperception. The supply of alternative and additional information would be effective in overcoming cognitive limitations such as discounting an opponent's conciliatory moves, reduction in each disputant's fear, prejudices and stereotypes. By keeping the communication flow balanced and productive, negotiation becomes viable in situations where there would otherwise be an impasse.

  • 7 - Negotiation process and activities

  • from Part II - Negotiation process, behavior and context
  • Ho-Won Jeong, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    International Negotiation
    Published online:
    30 January 2019
    Print publication:
    07 April 2016, pp 126-151

  • Summary

    Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent.

    Jimmy Carter, 2002

    AS PROGRESS may not necessarily be linear, the potential for negotiations evolves along vastly different trajectories. Nonetheless, the participants should have an overall, even if vague, notion of how the process is likely to proceed. The whole sequence of negotiations can be envisaged as a developmental process of testing the ground, agenda formulation, proposal making, bargaining and closure. In illuminating the main characteristics of different negotiation stages, this chapter looks at specific negotiating activities that encompass proposal exchange, issue redefinition and conceptualization, exploration of an overall structure of the deal, and a search for implementing details.

    The nature of the dispute is initially defined through issue clarification at the agenda phase. Once having voiced a commitment to key issues, each side has to turn their attention to narrowing the differences before any prospect for settlement emerges. This transition serves as a preliminary to final bargaining. More specifically, these preliminaries constitute a search for a viable range of alternative settlements through a serious study of trading possibilities, and honing a bargaining formula. Jostling for position may precede the eventual ironing out of differences. The points of difference may be narrowed by concession-making. Thus a shared sense of the approximate range of possible terms is essential to deal structuring and detailed bargaining. As vividly illustrated, for instance, in Greek debt talks with Eurozone countries and the US–Iranian nuclear deal-making attempt in 2015, the whole process does not stop at the conclusion of an agreement, spilling over into implementation, demanding either associated negotiation or renegotiation for new or improved terms.

    Prenegotiation stage

    As part of prenegotiation dynamics, each side measures the other's capabilities and desires. Then the first step is a decision as to whether or not to negotiate at all. In general, each party should feel compelled to see the need for negotiation; it can be created by various events and other circumstances. The example of Panama's negotiation with the United States below demonstrates how a weaker party can take advantage of a catalytic event to force a much stronger party to see the need to redress their grievances.

  • 4 - Diversification

  • from PART II - Decisions about portfolio Composition: increasing the scope of the corporation
  • Phanish Puranam, Bart Vanneste, University College London
  • Book:
    Corporate Strategy
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp 85-99

  • Summary

    This chapter provides a framework to analyze the corporate diversification decision: a firm trying to enter a new business starting from an existing one. “New” here means new to the firm, not necessarily new to the world. For example, a company that only made footballs may diversify and start producing and selling footwear (see Figure 4.1 for the value chains before and after diversification). In Chapter 1 we defined a business in terms of the “who” (customer), “what” (product or service), and “how” (value chain). Two businesses are different if they differ on at least one of these dimensions. Therefore, diversification implies a new choice on at least one of these dimensions. For example, a bank that traditionally only provided services to businesses starts targeting consumers (who), an accountancy that begins to offer consultancy advice to existing clients (what), or a university that starts selling courses online (how) are all diversifying. Internationalization – a company that begins selling in another country – is an instance of diversification in terms of the “who,” e.g., a French champagne producer exporting to Russian clients.

    “Entering” a business implies owning at least some of the resources and capabilities in the value chain underlying the new business, and accessing the rest, possibly through partners. It thus entails the process by which a firm accesses the resources and capabilities necessary to operate in a new business, through ownership and/or partnerships.

    Choosing between modes of diversification

    The basic modes available for a company to expand into a new business are captured in what we call the “Growth tree” (see Figure 4.2). At the first branch of the growth tree lies the choice between internal and external development. This has also been referred to as organic vs. inorganic growth. Organic growth is the process by which a company enters a new business on its own, including hiring, creation of a new project or business unit, or repurposing an existing business unit. If we think of the new business as possessing its own value chain, the goal of organic growth is to build up the resources and capabilities that this value chain entails on its own, without recourse to other firms.

    Under inorganic growth we distinguish among three broad categories: non-equity alliances, equity alliances, and mergers and acquisitions (M&As).

  • Introduction: what this book is about and how to use it

  • Phanish Puranam, Bart Vanneste, University College London
  • Book:
    Corporate Strategy
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp xiv-xxii

  • Summary

    We wrote this book to help you make good corporate strategy decisions and perform sound analysis of the corporate strategy decisions of others, on the basis of knowledge obtained from research. Since this is the goal of the book, it is useful to be clear about the key terms in the statement above.

    Corporate strategy refers to the strategy that multi-business corporations use to compete as a collection of multiple businesses. These businesses may each constitute a division within the corporation (or be bundled together with very similar businesses into a division), or may each be a legally distinct company, whose shares are held by a parent company. This book and its contents are applicable to all of these types of firms.

    By good decisions we mean something quite specific. In the world of management, it is tempting but incorrect to define good decisions solely in terms of good outcomes. Because decisions are made with limited information and are not easy to reverse even after better information comes along, it is better to think about good decisions as those that (1) are the best given current information (and also feature a recognition that current information may not be complete), and (2) can be explained and defended to others. The first criterion is a straightforward one and requires little explanation. The second comes from the organizational context in which corporate strategy decisions are made. They must ultimately be evaluated and implemented by others who must be convinced and motivated by them.

    Relatedly, this book is about decisions, not topics. It is written to provide an active guide for decision-making. This goes beyond a passive understanding of what corporate strategy is (which is the focus of a typical textbook). Rather, our goal is to help a reader with limited prior knowledge to (a) make a good decision on a concrete corporate strategy issue (e.g., should we pursue organic or inorganic growth, should we acquire or ally with this firm, or should we keep or divest this business) and (b) offer a well-reasoned justification for this decision, that is rigorous and clear. Thus, the emphasis is on concepts and how to use them to reach a decision, not on description.

  • 11 - Recognition

  • Arnold Lewis Glass, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book:
    Cognition
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp 286-311

  • Summary

    Ever since Superman first appeared in 1938, a running joke in the comic has been that, when he puts on a pair of glasses and a hat, he is no longer recognizable as Superman. However, as will be discussed below, a hat and glasses together do reduce recognition. The disguise posited in Action Comics #1 was not silly, therefore, but prescient. The human recognition ability is more than adequate for its primary task, to recognize kin and friends. However, outside its central social role, recognition is much less robust.

    As described in Chapter 7, the match between the perceptual target representation and an episode in semantic memory produces a semantic response. In other words, if the perceptual representation of a face on which you fixate matches the representation of your best friend's face, then it activates everything you know about your friend. The semantic response has three parts. The last time you saw your friend it was at a particular place and time. His or her representation was encoded as part of an episode describing that event; saying good night after going to the movies. If any part of that episode is activated by seeing the face again, this contextual information about when and where you saw him or her becomes part of the recollection. Furthermore, you have had many experiences with your friend, which have resulted in many episodes containing his or her face. Collectively, these episodes determine his or her familiarity. If you have just seen the same face moments before in the hall it will appear recent when you see it again in the classroom. As mentioned in Chapter 10, the short-term perceptual representation of the instrumental system is experienced as a feeling of recency.

    Thus, recognition occurs when a perceptual target is compared with semantic memory and matched with one or more episodes.

  • 7 - Semantic memory and language

  • Arnold Lewis Glass, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book:
    Cognition
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp 160-200

  • Summary

    Some 60,000 years ago, at the end of an ice age, there were humans over much of the world. They all encoded their world into episodes and used tools to act upon it. After the ice age ended, the descendants of one family who lived in east central Africa began to migrate north, and then west into Europe and east into Asia. Wherever they went, the people who already lived there went extinct (there was a small amount of interbreeding in Europe). Everyone in the world today is therefore descended from this one family. Clearly, this family had some enormous advantage that allowed them to conquer the world. One likely possibility is the invention of human language.

    The fundamental unit of memory is the episode, in which a voluntary action to a target in a specific context, and its result, are encoded. This is a polymodal representation involving more than one sensory modality and more than one representation. So, when a visual target is matched to a representation in memory, the response is the activation of an entire episode that includes a previous action to the target in a specific context and its consequence. This knowledge of the previous encounter with the target may be used to guide behavior during the current event. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this kind of knowledge is called declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge is of two kinds: semantic knowledge and episodic knowledge. Semantic knowledge is knowledge of what something is, and episodic knowledge is knowledge of when it has been encountered previously. Episodic knowledge will be discussed in Chapter 12. We begin the discussion of semantic knowledge here. The representation of semantic knowledge is commonly called semantic memory.

    The components of an episode – the target, the action, etc. – are associated with verbal and written labels called words. When a visual target is matched to a representation in memory, the response to it includes the word naming it as well as the episode. Conversely, when a word is heard, the episode whose component it names is activated. Consequently, when people encounter or hear about a target, everything they know about it immediately becomes available to guide their action.

    Essential as they are, individual words are limited in how much information they communicate. To let someone know what you wish to do or what you have done, entire sentences are necessary.

  • 6 - Vision

  • Arnold Lewis Glass, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book:
    Cognition
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp 122-159

  • Summary

    In November 1966 a twenty-five-year-old soldier who was home on leave accidentally suffered carbon monoxide poisoning from leaking gas fumes. This accident was a serious one, since exposure to carbon monoxide can cause brain damage and death. Following resuscitation, the soldier was able at first to converse with relatives. But the next day he lapsed into a coma, from which he recovered only slowly. In a month he was alert and talkative again. However, he experienced severe visual problems.

    Seven months after the accident the soldier was admitted to Boston Veterans Administration Hospital for extensive tests. Most of his cognitive abilities, such as language use and memory, appeared normal. Most of his perceptual system was also intact. He could readily identify and name things through their feel, smell, or sound. In addition, his most elementary visual abilities were also preserved. He was able to identify colors, discriminate between lights of different intensities, and tell in what direction an object was moving. Nevertheless, the soldier's visual perception was severely impaired. He was unable to recognize objects, letters, or people when he saw them. His impairment was so severe that on one occasion he identified his own reflection in a mirror as the face of his doctor!

    A common factor in these recognition failures appeared to be the inability to identify any visual shape or form. To test this hypothesis, two neurologists, Benson and Greenberg (1969), gave the soldier a variety of tests in which he had to verbally identify a pattern, copy a pattern, select which two of several patterns were the same, or simply say whether two patterns were the same or different. The results of a typical task are shown in Figure 6.1. In this task the soldier had to mark which one of four comparison patterns was the same as a standard pattern on the left. He was unable to match any of them correctly. All the results from this and similar tests were equally dismal. The soldier was simply unable to distinguish visual shapes from one another. He could not even tell a circle from a square.

    The soldier's disorder dramatically demonstrates that pattern perception requires much more than the eye's ability to detect a beam of light.

  • 5 - Serial learning, perceptual skills, and talent

  • Arnold Lewis Glass, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book:
    Cognition
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    21 March 2016, pp 100-121

  • Summary

    Once upon a time I was a projectionist for a college film club. Each movie reel was a half-hour long and each projection booth had two projectors. About five seconds before the end of a reel a large colored splotch appeared in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, as a signal to the projectionist to be ready to turn on the second projector. This is easy to do, so the audience never notices that the reel has changed. Nor does the audience notice the splotch in the corner of the screen. However, for some years afterwards, whenever I sat in the audience, as a former projectionist I always noticed the splotch in the corner. There are two morals to this story. The first is that no one sees everything. The second is that sometimes it is a disadvantage to see too much, and an advantage to see only what is necessary.

    The tendency to notice the splotch in the upper right-hand corner was the result of a visual scanning strategy encoded by the habit system. The habit system does not just encode actions. The habit system encodes sequences of actions, such as the sequence of actions to traverse a maze (Chapter 2). Performing a sequence of actions in the correct order is essential for performing the routine tasks that are part of daily life. The encoding of sequences of actions by the habit system makes possible such mundane skills as washing, dressing, and cooking. These are not merely motor skills, as described in Chapter 3, but perceptual–motor skills, requiring the identification of a sequence of targets. The age of the cellphone has increased the importance of order, as this is what defines phone numbers, passwords, etc. Therefore, the ability of the habit system to encode target sequences is an essential twenty-first-century cognitive ability.

    The ability to encode a sequence of actions is called serial learning. In this chapter we will see the following.

  • • Serial learning is performed by the habit system, yet involves the encoding of the spatial location of responses.

  • • Serial learning is the basis of the encoding of the predictable spatial locations of the targets that make possible the rapid encoding of targets in familiar visual tasks such as reading. It is essential for the skillful navigation of daily life. […]

Page 1433 of 1933