Team Negotiation Success: Comparing Additive, Extreme-Member, and Configurational Composition Models

Abstract: Organizations routinely rely on teams rather than individuals for consequential negotiations, yet guidance on effective negotiation team composition remains limited. Drawing on organizational team theory, this research compares competing composition models—extreme-member, additive, and configurational approaches—to explain outcomes of team-on-team negotiations. We analyze data from an international negotiation competition with multiple rounds comprising 220 teams in 712 distributive and integrative negotiations. Negotiation success is operationalized along three outcomes: individual team gains, joint outcomes, and subjective/relational value. Cluster analyses reveal distinct outcome patterns that illuminate underlying team-level success factors. Further regression-based analyses utilize team averages and extrema of individual differences (e.g., Big-Five traits, social value orientation), within-team diversity indices (dispersion, categorical diversity, faultlines), and structural team features as predictors for negotiation success. By juxtaposing different composition models in an ecologically valid setting, this study advances theory on team composition and diversity and informs evidence-based staffing of negotiation teams.

Keywords: negotiation, team composition, team diversity, subjective value, personality