한국인의 협상 전략과 전술에 관한 연구 -협력전략, 경쟁전략, 예속전략의 선택을 중심으로- (A Study on the Negotiation Strategy & Tactics of Korean Businessmen)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기업경영학회
· 수록지 정보 : 기업경영연구 / 21권 / 6호 / 205 ~ 227페이지
· 저자명 : 허영도

초록

본 연구에서는 한국 기업인들이나 비즈니스맨들이 비즈니스 협상을 진행하는 과정을 4단계(1단계: 협상범위 탐색 및 의제형성 단계, 2단계: 요구조건 및 제안사항 제시단계, 3단계: 의견차이 좁히기 단계, 4단계: 최종교섭단계)로 나누어 각각의 단계에서 어떠한 협상 전략-전술을 사용할 때 협상 과정 및 결과 만족도가 큰가를 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 본 연구에서는 244명의 CEO들로부터 설문지를 수집하였고, ‘협상결과에 대한 만족도(Y1)’ 및 ‘협상과정에 대한 만족도(Y2)’를 종속변수로 하고 협상의 4단계별로 경쟁전략, 협력전략, 예속전략 등 3개 협상전략을 구성하는 하위 전술들의 측정치 평균을 독립변수로 하는 다중 회귀분석을 통하여 가설검정을 실시하였고 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 협상의 제1단계인 협상범위의 탐색 및 의제 형성 단계에서는 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과에 대한 만족도가 커지는 것으로 볼 수 있으며, 예속전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 결과 만족도가 낮아지는 것으로 검정되었다. 둘째, 협상의 제2단계인 요구조건 및 제안사항 제시단계 및 협상의 제3단계인 의견차이 좁히기 단계에서는 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과 및 협상과정에 대한 만족도가 커지는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 협상의 제4단계인 최종교섭단계에서는 경쟁전략-전술 및 협력전략-전술의 사용정도가 높을수록 협상결과 및 과정 만족도가 높아지는 것으로 나타났으나, 경쟁전략-전술을 사용하면 결과 만족도가 더 커지는 효과가 있었으며, 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 경우 협상과정 만족도가 더 커지는 것으로 분석되었다. 이상과 같은 가설검정의 결과로부터 얻을 수 있는 시사점은 협상의 모든 단계에서 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상결과에 대한 만족도가 커진다는 것이다. 따라서 비즈니스 협상에 임하는 경영자들은 협상행위를 서로 대립적인 이해관계 구조 속에서 발생하는 싸움이라고 간주하지 말고, 협상상대를 나의 비즈니스 파트너로 간주하고 호혜적인 협상을 할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 최종교섭단계에서 만약 실질적 이해관계가 중요하고 관계가 중요치 않는 경우에 경영자는 단호한 경쟁전략을 고려해야 한다. 그러나 협력전략-전술을 사용하는 정도가 높을수록 협상과정 만족도가 더 높아진다는 검정결과를 고려할 필요가 있다.

영어초록

The objective of this study is to derive the successful negotiation strategy and tactics for business negotiations of Korean businessmen. We divided the negotiation process to four phases(The first phase: The Search for an Arena Formulation, the second phase: The Stating of Demands and Offers, the third phase: Narrowing of Differences, the fourth phase: Final Bargaining), and tried to find out which strategy and tactics have positive effect on the level of satisfaction from negotiation results and process. And we divided the negotiation strategy to three kinds as ‘Competition Strategy’, ‘Collaborate Strategy’, and ‘Subordinate Strategy’, according to Savage(1989). ‘Competition Strategy’ could be considered if substantive interests are important but the relationship is not. This situation often occurs when managers have little trust for the other party ir the relationship is not good to begin with. In such situation they may want to exert their power to gain substantive outcomes. To enact this competitive strategy they may also become highly aggressive, bluffing, threatening the other party, or otherwise misrepresenting their intentions. ‘Collaborate Strategy’ is consdered by managers if both relationship and substantive outcome are important to the orgarnization. The hallmark of this strategy is openness on the part of both parties. By encouraging cooperation as positions are asserted, the executive should be able to achieve important relationship and substantive outcomes. The executive seeks a win-win outcome both to achieve substantive goals and maintain a positive relationship. Trustingly collaborative strategies generally are easiest to use and most effective when the manager`s organization and the other party are interdependent and mutually supportive. ‘Subordinate Strategy’ is consdered if managers are more concerned with establishing a positive relationship with another party than obtaining substantive outcomes. An openly subordinate strategy is a yield-win strategy that usually provide desired substantive outcomes to the other party but rarely to the manager. A subordinate strategy may used regardless of whether the manager exercises more, less, or equalpower relative to the other party. The main question that I tried to answer in this study was "Which strategy, among ‘Competition Strategy’, ‘Collaborate Strategy’, ‘Subordinate Strategy’ is significantly related with the level of satisfaction from negotiation results and process, according to negotiation phases?To answer this question, I tried to test the hypotheses through multiple regression methodology using the data collected by questionnaire survey from 244 CEO respondents. The main findings of my empirical tests are as follows;First, in the first phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. However, the higher the level of using subordinate strategy, the lower the satisfaction level from negotiation results. Second, in the second & third phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. Third, in the fourth phase of negotiation, I found the higher the level of using collaborate strategy & competition strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results & process. However, the degree of result satisfaction was the higher than the degree of process satisfaction when they used competition strategy. And the degree of process satisfaction was the higher than the degree of result satisfaction when they used collaborate strategy.
In summary, in all of the negotiation phases, the higher the level of using collaborate strategy, the higher the satisfaction level from negotiation results. We could get some implications as follows; we should consider negotiation partner not as confronting partner but as cooperative partner, so win-win style negotiation could be possible. In the final bargaining phase, if actual result is more important than relationship, CEOs should consider firmly competitive strategy. However, when the actual result and relationship is equally important, CEOs should consider collaborate strategy.

참고자료

· 없음