CMRAI-C8: Negotiation §

Class: IS404 Created Time: December 14, 2021 10:15 AM Database: Class Notes Database Last Edited Time: January 25, 2022 11:42 PM Type: Reading Notes

• Content
  • Steps to initiating negotiation
  • the process of reaching an agreement
  • the implementation
  • Factors behind why negotiations fail or succeed
• Negotiation: a procss to resolve differences in a goal that arises from dissimilar interests and perspectives.
  • Faire and efficient outcomes come from the exchange of concessions in a search for creative solutions

Means of Negotiation §

• Persuasion: a form of social influence to change adversary’s perception
• Accommodation: the recognition of the legitimacy of each other’s claims to reach a successful settlement
• Force may be applied if other party doesn’t budge from unilateral position

Bargaining Situation §

• Purpose of negotiating is because both parties want to change the status quo

• Each party is tempted or give as little as possible

  • The party with more options has more bargaining power

• If one party is satisfied with the status quo: the opposing party could increase the cost of nonengagement

  💡 Ex: North Korea wants its nuclear program unchecked, but Europe and US threatens military strikes if not negotiate.

Negotiation Relationship §

• The existence of respect and trust facilitates willingness to listen, disclose information, and commitment to a win-win outcome.
  • When there’s trust relationship: common interests and values → less likely a manipulative tactic
• A lack of credibility originating from past behavior creates mistrust in the other party’s perception

Negotiation Process §

1. Initial planning & fact-finding
2. Development of negotiating positions & exchange of information
   • Information sharing
   • Clarification of issues
   • Examination of all possible alternatives
3. Informal pre-negotiation discussions
   • information sharing
4. exploration of each party’s needs
   • Identification of common interest
   • Exploration of mutual gain
5. Direct bargaining to settle differences (proposal stage)
   • Exchange of info: interest, differences, needs, clarification of issues
   • Possible compromise or concessions: to balance interest of parties to create solution
6. Final Stage: Tie up loose ends, confirm and summarize agreed upon points and disagreed points

• Tumultuous bargaining: parties grudgingly make concessions before compromises
• Mid course corrections are needed when situations changes
• Fact-based approach: such as compensation for damage and harm settlement must use objective criteria instead of expression of emotions in solving the problem

Preparation Stage §

• Each party determines their level of commitment to negotiation
• Gather information about what issues are negotiable and how far?
• Assessment & prioritization of issues
• Common interests/differences in goals
• Define minimally acceptable agreement

Negotiation Setting §

• What is on and off the table for discussion
• venue, time, structure of meeting space
  • Positions of chairs (status) could make a meeting awkward (NK giving US lower chairs than it)
• Agreement must be met according to the frequency and length of the meeting, and facilities for caucus or private discussions
• Size and composition of negotiating teams
• Protocol, agenda setting, selection of participants, decision making procedures, proposal making mechanisms must be discussed and agreed upon
• Unorganized groups (Ex: civil war): can be divided into plenary sessions and committees to reach agreement on specific issues by themselves

Formal Bargaining §

• Bargaining starts with the clarification of assumptions: the exchange of each other’s list of priorities and bottom lines.
• After identifying problems, parties may propose and evaluate options in an attempt to select the best ones.
• The exchange of proposals moves along with demands, offers, bids, compromises, and concessions.
• Once serious bargaining starts: opening offers lead to counteroffers and a series of concessions that typically get smaller prior to getting to the no compromise zone.
  • The initial offers need to be something for the other side to entertain and consider worth time and effort to discuss.
  • An opening offer, far lower than the other’s expectations, sets a negative tone.
  • Unrealistic offers damage progress, since the other side would not even be willing to consider any suggestion or proposal which appears to be remote from their expectations.
• Tips and Nature of negotiating parties
  • An adversarial atmosphere can be created by attacking each other’s positions.
  • Slow and reluctant concessions may come while each side overstates the values of their claims and treats an opponent’s concessions as trivial.
  • As a stalemate may arrive from rigid, inflexible positions, each side is unwilling to listen reasonably to the other.
  • An impasse can stem from an unexpected or intentional standoff as well as a loss of interest in negotiation itself.
  • In addition, resistance can also be created by unmet vital interests and needs.

Bargaining Strategies §

• A bargaining atmosphere is formed in the process of testing each other’s flexibility on different issues and calculating the other’s feelings.
• As negotiation gets tougher, it is important to “deduce [an] opponent’s true position and inner limits from the size and order of its concessions” (Lynch, 2005, p. 391).
• In addition, external influence such as ally pressure or domestic political necessity can either increase or decrease the expectations about desirable outcomes.
• Memories and feelings about past experiences and outcomes can be linked to shaping negotiating positions through their cumulative effects.

Breaking an Impasse (Deadlock) §

• In breaking a deadlock, an impasse in one area can be bypassed by moving on to other matters or focusing on the underlying concerns.
• The possession of similar information (as well as clarity about each other’s bargaining leverages, capability, and motivation) leads to clearing ambiguity and uncertainty.
• The possibility of gain encourages the efforts to prevent impasse (less willing to take the risk).
• Persuasion can focus on an emphasis on the benefit of concessions and their inevitability.
• In heated negotiations with strong emotions running high, unresolved anger leads to rigid positions.
  • A more serious impasse may be overcome by having “cooling off ” periods to develop better insight and maintain control over the process.
  • It is crucial to step back away from emotional entrenchment.
• A win–win outcome can be achieved when parties have flexibility to explore what is feasible with an orientation toward seeking mutual advantages.
  • If both sides recognize that an impasse is costly, they will be willing to set up rules to avoid arguing.
• Redirection of negotiation through reframing the situation is effective in countering the other’s challenges.

Bargaining Styles: Collaborative vs Contentious §

• In a Contentious negotiation, information serves as a defense against attack or a leverage over adversaries.
  • Power tactics such as bluff and threat are frequently adopted to coerce opposition to make concession
  • Techniques are comprised of a
    • high initial demand
    • limited disclosure of information: regarding facts and one’s own preferences.
  • competitive bargainers do whatever is necessary to obtain the deal they want by adopting such tactics as bluffing, accusing, intimidating, creating false issues, even cheating and lying.
  • A self-centered temperament and stubborn personality is likely to favor tougher negotiating styles.
  • Easy emotional arousal of anger by a self-centered negotiator is a barrier to collaborative bargaining, causing difficulties in the facilitation of discussion.
• Collaborative Negotiator: or Amicable negotiators, who develop empathy with others, are willing to seek joint outcomes, feeling a greater need for harmony.
  • Even collaborative bargainers still try maximize own interest and can adopt contentious tactics
    • but are far more willing to look for an opportunity to seek mutual gains instead of seeking unilateral solutions.
  • Those who tend to be more empathetic pay more attention to the feelings of others and have better listening skills.
  • They are contextually better adapted, relationship oriented rather than being merely oriented toward instrumental goals.
  • Those who are less contentious make fewer degrading arguments, fewer degrading comments and fewer threats than those who adopt confrontational techniques.

Overcoming Debacles §

• Low-cost trade-offs and concessions can serve as a motivator to break a stalemate.
  • The admission of wrong or the offer of apology can become a “commodity to be traded for relationship” (Isenhart and Spangle, 2000, p. 86).
• In moving away from frozen positions, concessions can be made by one of the parties in a step-by-step manner to draw reciprocal treatment.
  • Gradual concession-making approaches can be taken in a deadlocked situation.
  • Progress may come with few concessions until every side is exhausted.
• The change in the position came about after many years of diplomatic and economic sanctions coordinated by neighboring countries.

Barriers to Collaborative Bargaining §

• Incompatible values and unreasonable beliefs as well as unrealistic expectations can hinder forging a compromise.
• Obstacles to constructive discussion include emotional rage and cognitive rigidity, limiting the ability and willingness to listen to new evidence and jointly consider options.
• Reaching an agreement can be difficult if internal politics or external pressure weigh heavily in developing compromise.
• A deadlock can be created when one or both sides adopt a “take-it-or-leave-it” position.
  • Refusal to move from original positions endangers an ongoing relationship while each side tries, through sheer willpower, to force the other to change its stance.
• If threats and coercive statements prevail, parties harden their positions with closure to new information for the exploration of solution.
• Power imbalance between parties leaves fewer options for a weaker party.

Manipulative Tactics §

• A more powerful party may try to exert control over an adversary’s confidence level by attacking their competence and creating doubt about their ability to protect their interests (e.g., Chinese tactics against the Tibetans).
• One manipulative tactic is to elude to the main topics by concentrating on the accusation of the other side for something which is different from what should have been the main subject matter for negotiation.
• As part of the pressure tactics to accept an unfair deal, a sense of urgency is deliberately created with an artificial deadline along with the deprivation of information needed to make judgments as well as denial of an opportunity for consultation with other people.

Face Saving §

• Image protecting behavior hinders a person’s ability to make concessions in the process of reaching a final agreement, displaying their need to reconcile with the previous stand (principles, deeds, and words).
• An image of the deal can be related to avoiding the loss of face which makes one of the parties look bad.
• When parties stick with their positions to avoid looking bad, minor concessions as well as carefully crafted statements can be used to promote the qualities the negotiators want to present to others.
• In order to save face, motivations or intentions can be framed in a positive manner to provide a way out with the recognition of the value in the other’s perspective.

Effective Negotiation §

• Effective negotiators consider bargaining not for domination but in the spirit of mutual respect needed to reach an agreeable outcome.
• A commitment to a positive, mutually beneficial solution is necessary to uncover underlying issues, and identify areas of common ground.
• Effective negotiators select the right starting point of bargaining with the establishment of clear communication for better understanding of each other’s positions.
• A certain amount of flexibility is the key to successful negotiation.
• Negotiators should have skills of advocating their own interests facing a contentious bargainer who makes an unreasonable demand.
• The reciprocation of care along with candid discussion about all the issues creates a constructive atmosphere for reaching an agreement.

Communication Skills §

• The articulation of ideas and listening to underlying messages are the most basic form of communication competence in negotiation.
• Framing and active listening are key for successful exchange of information regarding the awareness of each other’s priorities (needed for integrative solutions).
  • Active listening involves the acknowledgment of feelings as well as asking questions and paraphrasing.
    • Paraphrasing the other’s statements, clarification, and further discussion are needed for checking the right message is sent out and received.
• Showing respect for the other’s point of view by acknowledging the values of their story is a precondition for the revelation of a more complex account.
• Inquiry can be used to develop mutual engagement beyond “trying to solicit useful information about the other party’s interests or bottom line” (Kolb and Williams, 2003, p. 280).

Bargaining Methods §

• In integrative bargaining, the harmonization of incompatible goals as well as divided interests can be an overarching strategy of negotiation.
• Through negotiation, common values or objectives (for example, a safer environment) can be created for the benefit of all parties.
• Even though an integrative solution increases the benefit of the settlement to all the parties, competitive situations can be created by an attempt to have a larger portion in joint gains.
• In order to overcome fixed-pie orientations, negotiators may start with information sharing to learn each other’s preferences and goals.
• In log-rolling, mutual concessions on different issues are made in the way to increase a gain on one set of issues in exchange for yielding on another which is more highly valued by an opponent.

“Ideally, both are conceding points in areas that have little personal cost or importance and are gaining concessions in areas that are highly important, creating a mutually beneficial arrangement” (McCorkle and Reese, 2005, p. 149).

Motivation for Reaching Agreement §

• Making concessions should not be seen as damaging to one’s reputation or humiliating even if they sacrifice original aspirations.
• In order to change the adversary’s views of the situation, one party may promise rewards for concessions (e.g., the European offer of aid to Iranians for giving up nuclear programs) or reward positive actions for further concessions (economic assistance and diplomatic exchanges in return for Libya’s abandonment of its nuclear programs).
• In power asymmetry, hints at threats and actual exercise of power might force an adversary to give up their preferences.

Bargaining Range §

• There is a different range of deals between what one absolutely wants and the best one can get.
• Negotiations are successful when both sides find a compatible range of points that they are willing to agree on through compromise.
• Bargainers have their own order of priorities originating from perceptual reference points which indicate the desirability and acceptability of certain solutions.
• Whereas deals must be worth meeting the bottom lines, the initial bargaining position can be developed from “the most desirable outcome that could be imagined.”
• A party’s opening offer and the other side’s counteroffer can start from the most desirable and eventually settle somewhere before the least desirable.

Ending Strategies §

• Mutual gains (associated with win–win outcomes) can arise from accommodation of each other’s essential needs.
• In most non-coercive negotiation settings, mixed outcomes are common; each party wins some issues, but makes concessions on other issues.
• In fact, a long, protracted negotiation is shaped by a shift in thinking about issues and relationships.
• Under certain circumstances (such as battlefield loss or the emergence of a new leadership with different priorities), negotiators may lower their aspirations to find an exit from long protracted bargaining.
• The longer the negotiation lasts, the more likely each party seeks some kind of settlement presuming that they desire to see the fruit of invested time and efforts devoted to bargaining.
• Overall, the outcome must be agreeable and acceptable even if it is not fully satisfactory since it can generate long-term implications for one’s well-being.
• Settlement of a specific issue may bring about a series of future changes in expectations, roles, and authority relationships.

Constituent Satisfaction §

• Negotiations between collective entities require approval or consultation involving groups or government agencies.
• A negotiator in a representative capacity often does not have full capacity to make the decision final.
• The outcome has to be acceptable to higher authorities and the public at home; in order to satisfy constituents, negotiators attempt to leave an impression which can appeal to different audience groups by negotiating in the middle.
• In order to minimize the resistance of those who have stood to gain by the arms race and hardline politicians, US–USSR arms control negotiations focused on incremental implementation (Singer, 1990).

Distributive Bargaining §

• In distributive bargaining, each side concentrates on getting the best deal for themselves giving a more visible role to tactics to promote one’s own interests.
• In particular, negotiators who adopt more competitive orientations pursue unfair advantage with little reluctance to create impasse.
• In order to satisfy self-interests, contentious bargainers may get engaged in such tactics as bluff and intimidation, devaluing others and information hiding.
• As trust is lacking, each party demands the other’s unilateral concessions and digs in rigid positions.
• Threats can be combined with tactics of manipulation by misleading an opponent regarding a settling point and withholding critical information and facts.
• In addition, losing in a struggle for power implies loss of “face.”

Integrative Bargaining §

• Integrative bargaining offers strategies for the greatest pay- offs in mixed-motive settings in which cooperation produces bigger gains for every bargainer than distributive bargaining.
• In a successful integrative negotiation, the parties must understand each other’s true needs and objectives by creating a free flow of information and open exchanges of ideas.
• A high level of power sharing in negotiation leads to joint strategies to pursue integrative outcomes (such as cost sharing).
• Mutually beneficial solutions stem from information sharing, nurturing trust, and trade-off of interests.
• In contrast with the process of distributive bargaining, integrative negotiation develops a bargaining structure which allows all sides to maximize and achieve their objectives in a collaborative manner. From Adversarial to Collaborative Negotiating Styles
• In fact, cooperative and competitive bargaining styles tend to be differently applied in a wide range of settings.
• Intense competition for one’s own favorable outcome creates low levels of mutual trust and induces an attempt to dominate each other, while withholding information may generate suspicious and hostile attitudes.
• In general, adversarial bargaining is characterized by a lack of sensitivity to the other party’s interests and the use of threats in tandem with seeking power over others.
• The transition from distributive to integrative bargaining is likely to emerge from enhanced relationships; the establishment of at least a minimum level of trust and cooperation is needed for progress toward agreement.

From Adversarial to Collaborative Negotiating Styles §

• In a collaborative process, the parties must understand each other’s genuine needs and objectives by creating a free flow of information and open exchanges of ideas focusing on their similarities in objectives.
• Trusting attitudes result from a high concern for welfare of self and others as well as the readiness to resolve differences in a cooperative manner.
• Revealing motivations and goals can reduce the other side’s fears and clear up misperceptions.