What are frames? How do they work in negotiations?
So, you’ve offered what you think is a great deal, but your counterpart doesn’t seem to agree. What’s the problem? The offer may be excellent—it’s how you’ve approached framing in negotiation that’s holding you back. The concept of framing in negotiation describes the fact that the way we describe our offers strongly affects how others view them. For example, research by Max Bazerman, Margaret Neale, and Tom Magliozzi finds that people tend to resist compromises—and to declare impasse—that are framed as losses rather than gains.
The foregoing is argued to beget mistrust between the two parties, particularly from the shareholders (employers). Consequently, the mistrust increases the inclination of enhanced monitoring of the agents’ (directors and managers) activities. Upon the foregoing principle lies the foundation of auditing profession (Millichamp & Taylor, 2008). The theory further expounds on the principle agent problem, that is, agency dilemma. The dilemma is said to be occasioned by the inclination of the agent’s inclination to act in his own best interest rather than those of the principal. There is a likelihood of moral hazard and conflict of interest arising in the corporate scene.
It is exemplified that, the principal (shareholders) may be sufficiently concerned that at the likelihood of being exploited by the agent (directors and managers) that a dilemma may arise in hiring the right agents. The foregoing is necessitated by the desire to minimize or get rid of agency costs (Bebchuk & Fried, 2004). According to Adams (1994), the agency theory can provide for richer and more meaningful research in the internal audit discipline. Agency theory contends that internal auditing, in common with other intervention mechanisms like financial reporting and external audit, helps to maintain cost-efficient contracting between owners and managers.