Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation ☆

By C. Tinsley, Kathleen M. O'connor, B. Sullivan. 2002

217 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. (2008, background): “As a result, expecting one’s opponent to be competitive leads to less investment in relationship building (Tinsley et al., 2002), more strategic misrepresentation and less trust (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004), and greater conflict (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970).”
The Objective Value of Subjective Value: A Multi-round Negotiation Study (2010, unknown): “Through halo effects, impressions formed in one domain of negotiation transfer to other domains when judging a counterpart—for OBJECTIVE VALUE OF SUBJECTIVE VALUE 693 better and for worse (Tinsley et al., 2002).”
Personal reputation in organizations: Two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and consequences (2012, background): “, with most concentrating on positive personal reputation), limited work has been done on negative reputation (e.g., Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006; Tinsley et al., 2002).”
Status Conflict in Groups (2012, background): “This observation is consistent with research on negotiations, which finds that disputants are more competitive and less likely to share information in distributive negotiations than in integrative negotiations (Thompson 1991, Tinsley et al. 2002).”