Abstract Negotiation theory and practice have long been guided by the assumption that negotiators should seek the best possible outcome, whether through value claiming, value creation, or long-term relational optimization. Yet negotiators often stop short of what they could attain. Such behavior is typically interpreted as the result of cognitive bias, inexperience, or strategic failure and therefore viewed as inefficient. We argue that negotiators may instead follow a logic of sufficiency rather than maximization, seeking outcomes that are good enough and ceasing further value pursuit once that threshold is reached. Drawing on philosophical debates about sufficientarianism, reasonable contentment, and the meaning of “enough,” we develop sufficiency as a distinct orientation in negotiation. We introduce the sufficiency point as a multidimensional stopping criterion and distinguish it from reservation and aspiration points. We further show how sufficiency can alter negotiation dynamics, stakeholder effects, and the evaluation of Pareto efficiency. From this perspective, value left on the table is not necessarily a sign of failure but may reflect a deliberate judgment that further gains are neither necessary nor worth pursuing. Finally, we argue that sufficiency invites a reconsideration of rationality in negotiation by showing that maximization within a given decision frame need not be pursued once an outcome is judged sufficient.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in negotiations. While its initial use was primarily as a support tool, offering strategic suggestions, analyzing data, or simulating scenarios, AI systems are beginning to conduct negotiations autonomously. This development introduces significant advantages, including cost savings, scalability, and entirely new forms of negotiation, such as replacing standardized tenders with individualized interactions. However, it also raises serious ethical concerns. Many negotiation outcomes can be improved through ethically ambiguous tactics that exploit cognitive biases, omit critical information, or manipulate trust, tactics that are ethically questionable. An AI negotiation agent programmed to maximize gains will, if left unconstrained, likely adopt such strategies. This paper offers conceptual groundwork for developing ethical guidelines tailored specifically to AI agents in negotiation contexts. Drawing on existing research in both AI ethics and negotiation ethics, as well as the authors’ experience in developing AI negotiation agents, we examine the potential risks of using AI for value claiming and value creation. Our contribution is a risk mapping, and a set of guidelines designed to address the challenges posed by AI agents across negotiation settings, considering their full lifecycle from design to development and deployment.

Research on negotiation ethics has often interpreted ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics (EANT) as the result of deliberate cost-benefit reasoning aimed at maximizing negotiators’ advantage. However, behavioral ethics research suggests that unethical behavior may also arise from nonrational processes. This study examines the role of such processes in the application of EANT. Drawing on survey data from 495 experienced practitioners, we combine the established SINS II scale with a newly developed measure capturing situational decision drivers associated with the use of ethically ambiguous tactics. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses reveal a three-factor structure reflecting a continuum of decision drivers: a rational endpoint characterized by deliberate cost-benefit considerations, a nonrational endpoint associated with emotional and reactive processes, and an intermediate region shaped by behavioral norms and social pressure. The results suggest that nonrational drivers are meaningfully associated with the application of EANT and that different groups of tactics appear to be linked to distinct constellations of decision drivers. While the measurement remains exploratory, the findings suggest that unethical negotiation behavior cannot be fully explained through rational cost-benefit reasoning alone. Instead, ethical decision-making in negotiations appears to emerge from interacting cognitive processes and situational dynamics.

Ethics remains a critical area of negotiation research, yet existing measurement tools in this field have unexamined limitations. This study critically analyzes the Self-reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies (SINS II) scale, as the most prominent instrument for assessing Ethical Ambiguous Negotiation Tactics (EANT). By examining 12,375 data points from 495 respondents, the research reveals significant challenges in the scale's application. While confirming the scale's statistical reliability, the study uncovers key methodological concerns, including content validity issues, potential social desirability bias, and the need to account for participants’ missing familiarity with specific tactics. The analysis explores how socio-demographic factors influence negotiation ethics, with notable findings on cultural differences, age effects, and the complex relationship between negotiation experience and ethical behavior. The research provides crucial insights for future negotiation ethics studies, highlighting the importance of nuanced, contextually sensitive approaches to measuring ethical decision-making in negotiations. These findings offer valuable implications for negotiation training, cross-cultural research, and understanding the subtle dynamics of ethical behavior in business interactions.

The concept of bounded ethicality, introduced by Chugh et al. (2005) , complements that of bounded rationality by examining how individuals' capacity to make ethical decisions is inherently constrained, leading to results systematically contradicting their own ethical standards. A key phenomenon that remains underexplored in this research is the tendency of individuals to underestimate the extent to which their own unethical behavior not only harms others but-more significantly-harms them. This blind spot reflects a form of myopia, as it pertains to the complex and far-reaching consequences of one's actions. This article aims to specify the nature of this phenomenon, offer preliminary explanations, and discuss its broader implications for ethical decision-making in negotiations. Our argument is grounded in a qualitative, theory-building historical case study: the conflict surrounding the Lex Agraria in the late Roman Republic. We argue that unethical myopia is highly relevant for understanding how short-term gains from unethical actions obscure their long-term detrimental effects, and ultimately, it explains why such behavior is irrational. This insight holds not only for high-stakes negotiations but also for everyday situations in which individuals attempt to outsmart others. We also look at how the discussion on unethicality contributes to the discourse on the neglect of stakeholder interests in negotiations.

PurposeThis study explores the negotiation behaviors and strategies employed by experienced entrepreneurs to secure venture capital (VC) funding.Design/methodology/approachUsing a qualitative approach, we conducted interviews with 32 accomplished founders with track records in securing VC funding. Our conceptual underpinning rests upon an existing negotiation competency model. This study employed a systematic and iterative data analysis method, following an inductive approach grounded in Gioia et al.’s (2013) methodology to conceptualize the unprocessed interview data.FindingsWe identified three dimensions characterizing entrepreneurial negotiation behavior in VC negotiations: negotiation competencies, power tactics, and negotiation style. Furthermore, we identified specific behaviors in these dimensions and explored how entrepreneurs apply these skills in the VC context.Research limitations/implicationsThis study contributes a nuanced understanding of entrepreneurs’ negotiation behaviors, opening avenues for further research on effective strategies in entrepreneurial finance.Practical implicationsEntrepreneurs can leverage the identified negotiation strategies to enhance their skills and navigate VC negotiations more effectively, potentially leading to better funding outcomes. Furthermore, training programs can be crafted to encourage the cultivation of these behaviors.Originality/valueThis study is the first to systematically examine the negotiation behaviors and strategies employed by experienced entrepreneurs in VC negotiations, revealing entrepreneurs’ specific behaviors and elucidating how these behaviors are employed within negotiations to provide practical insights.

Purpose This study aims to examine ethical behavior in negotiations, specifically focusing on the dynamics between cognitive processes and ethical conduct within negotiation contexts. While prior research has predominantly used rational frameworks to explain unethical behavior, emphasizing profit and self-interest, this work also considers nonrational influences, including intuitive and emotional factors. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual study uses dual process theory to explore the interaction between rational (System 2) and intuitive (System 1) thinking in relation to ethical conduct in negotiations. It introduces the cognition-conduct continuum and conceptualizes negotiation trajectories to describe and understand shifts in a negotiator’s ethical behavior. Findings Ethical negotiation conduct is influenced by both rational and non-rational factors that change over negotiation stages. The cognition-conduct continuum provides insight into how negotiators transition between ethical and unethical behaviors by following negotiation trajectories such as ethical fading or ethical resurgence. Research limitations/implications This study is purely conceptual; while the authors introduce negotiation trajectories as a tool, they do not establish a taxonomy or undertake an empirical analysis of individual trajectories. Practical implications The cognition-conduct continuum and the negotiation trajectory concept offer practical insights for negotiation training. By recognizing potential ethical shifts, negotiators can better manage the ethical complexities that arise during negotiations through targeted interventions, potentially enhancing long-term relational and economic outcomes. Originality/value This study systematically integrates nonrational factors into negotiation research and introduces the cognition-conduct continuum to capture negotiation dynamics. By conceptualizing trajectories, this study provides a focused framework for analyzing ethical shifts. In addition, this study introduces ethical resurgence as a counterpart to ethical fading, offering insights into what motivates individuals to return to ethical behavior.

Artificial intelligence (AI) will profoundly impact management studies. This has become apparent, especially post the ChatGPT hype. This influence expands beyond the domain of management itself, extending into the research process. What shape will this take? This essay aims to give an initial assessment. Building upon Savage's dichotomy of small worlds and the grand world, this essay evaluates which scientific insights necessitate genuine creativity, thereby surpassing the current capabilities of AI, and which do not demand such ingenuity. To accomplish this, an examination of prevalent research formats—quantitative and qualitative empirical research, literature reviews, and conceptual research—will be conducted. The findings suggest that as AI matures, it is expected to assume a substantial part of prior research. This prospective transformation holds the potential to elevate knowledge creation by enabling a deeper exploration of theory development and application—areas where human involvement remains indispensable. With significant changes in research structures likely, the challenge ahead is managing this transformation constructively.

Purpose Extensive empirical evidence suggests that procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) are key success factors for achieving durable peace negotiations. This paper aims to investigate how complexity affects these factors and the outcomes in negotiations. Design/methodology/approach The qualitative study is based on an examination of the peace negotiations that led to the 2016 agreement between the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo and the Colombian Government. Based on document analysis, the authors examined in detail how and where in the process the principles of PJ and DJ were applied. The authors then examined the implementation progress after 2016 and placed the peace process in the overall context of the Colombian conflict. Findings The authors found that the principles of PJ and DJ were present in both the negotiation process and the agreement. The negotiations were successful and satisfactory solutions could be found for all issues. The complexity of the conflict is reflected in the limited coverage of the peace negotiations. Not all groups, interests and subconflicts could be included in the negotiations. This limits their contribution to a durable peace in Colombia. Conflicts that remain unresolved also have a negative effect on the implementation of the agreement. Practical implications For conflict management, this implies that the negotiations should not be viewed as “one-and-done” but rather as a progressive, ongoing process. The agreement is only the nucleus for achieving total peace. It must be actively advanced and defended. Originality/value This study offers new qualitative insights into how PJ and DJ function in negotiations. It also establishes a systematic connection between PJ and DJ and complexity, introduces the notion of coverage and, thereby, opens a new perspective on the management of conflict complexity.

There are many good reasons for writing negotiation simulations, but designing and preparing simulations that generate desired pedagogical effects is a challenging process. Building on an earlier article in this journal that presented fundamental principles for the design of negotiation simulations, this article offers a practical guide that outlines in detail how negotiation simulations can be structured and what elements they should include. We offer blueprints for creating six types of simulations: short introductory, distributive, integrative, multi-issue, multiparty, and multiparty multi-issue. For each type of simulation, we suggest the pedagogical use, discuss the basics of the construction, and present the core elements schematically: parties, decision problem, interests, and options. Finally, we illustrate the different types of negotiation simulations with representative examples.

Purpose Negotiations with venture capitalists (VCs) play a crucial role in the entrepreneurial financing process. Habitual entrepreneurs are generally able to secure more venture capital funding and on better deal terms than novices. This study investigates the disparities in negotiation competencies between habitual and novice entrepreneurs during VC funding negotiations. Design/methodology/approach This study employed a qualitative approach to investigate the variation in negotiation competencies between habitual and novice entrepreneurs, utilizing the negotiation competency model (NCM). The data analysis and interpretation adopted an inductive concept development approach. A total of 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with seasoned VCs located in Europe, all of whom had actively engaged in funding negotiations with both habitual and novice entrepreneurs. Findings The findings revealed substantial disparities between novice and habitual entrepreneurs in VC negotiations. Although not all competencies of the NCM exhibited variances, the results indicate three primary dimensions contributing to these differences: expertise, reputation, and negotiation competence. Originality/value This study is groundbreaking as it represents one of the earliest empirical investigations into the entrepreneurial negotiation competencies within VC negotiations. The findings endeavor to narrow the gap between novice and habitual entrepreneurs in VC negotiations by pinpointing the distinct variations between these two groups, which hold significant practical implications. Furthermore, this study expands the conceptual framework of the NCM by identifying supplementary competencies within the realm of VC negotiations.

There is a wide consensus that first offers have a significant impact on negotiation outcomes by causing an anchoring effect. Many aspects of first offers have been analyzed, including factors that lead to making the first offer and characteristics that strengthen the impact of first offers. However, a holistic view of the process of first offers in negotiations remains missing, and significant research gaps must be filled to fully understand the mechanisms of first offers. Furthermore, while extant research contains anecdotal advice for negotiators, no holistic overview of research findings has been presented to date. This study conducted a structured review of 119 journal articles published since 1967, contributing to the field in four main ways: (a) proposing a definition of first offers, (b) integrating previous findings into a process model of first offers in negotiation, (c) summarizing the results to date in a structured literature review, and (d) identifying crucial research gaps that must be addressed. Future research should conduct systematic investigations of the influence of first offers on negotiation outcomes, employing a "negotiation lens " to emphasize the dyadic and interactive character of negotiations.