RESUMO
As is the case for other achievement situations, people may approach negotiations emphasizing outcome and/or process goals. This paper examines the effects of process goal orientation (PGO) and outcome goal orientation (OGO) on individuals' fixed-pie perceptions and the negotiation of joint outcomes. Process and outcome goal orientations are associated with different personal beliefs about the world. We hypothesized that persons who are primarily oriented toward outcome goals, based on their fixed-entity perception of the world, would mainly concentrate on the final results or on the outcomes of the negotiation. They would tend to perceive negotiations as fixed, zero-sum, competitive situations, which have to be "won" by one of the parties at the expense of the other. On the other hand, we predicted that people who are strongly process-oriented, based on their malleable-entity perception of the world, would focus mainly on formulating and mastering the best strategies that lead to successful resolution of the negotiation. They would perceive positions to be "malleable" and, hence, would tend to perceive the negotiation as a non zero-sum situation. Additionally, the interaction between the two types of goal orientations and its effect on the parties' joint negotiation outcomes was examined. Results of two empirical studies indicated that OGO was significantly positively associated with fixed-pie bias (Study 1). The significant interaction between PGO and OGO (Study 2) demonstrated that a strong OGO combined with a strong PGO led to the best joint negotiation outcomes. Implications for goal orientation and negotiation theories are discussed.
