Unformatted Attachment Preview
Exercise 23
SALARY NEGOTIATIONS
NEGOTIATION 7e
LEWICKI ▪ BARRY ▪ SAUNDERS
Confidential Role Information for Employee Position 3B
You are the Director of Mail Order Sales for the Rapid Golf Equipment Company, and have
held that job for two years. On the whole, you believe that you have done a satisfactory job. When
you took the job of Director, you had several talks with your boss (the Marketing Vice President).
The two of you were able to work out an informal set of job objectives for the coming year, and
have been able to produce a good record against each of these criteria -‐ with one exception. The
exception is a major one, and it looms as the biggest stumbling block to your raise.
The projects that you have been working on have been Slingshot, Fireball, and
Thunderhead—all different lines of golf balls, gloves, golf bags and other equipment. These
projects have been excellent successes and have exceeded their projected growth targets. However,
one of your other objectives was to develop a new approach for selling Rapid's Phoenix line (the
company's most expensive line of golf equipment). Phoenix has never been done successfully in the
past, so you pretty much had to start over from scratch. You have worked hard on ways to improve
sales in the Phoenix line: you experimented with different mailing lists, tried discount coupons, free
shipping, promotional contests that featured trips to Rapid's manufacturing plants, golf package
weekends, and still the results were relatively insignificant. In the past months you have been
working very hard on Phoenix. One particular new appeal, using demonstrations at the nation’s top
golf courses, has produced better results than most. It's too early to come to a definite conclusion
about the real impact on Phoenix sales; further testing will be required, but the signs are good
enough to be optimistic.
You know your boss is a hard negotiator at raise time. You also know that failure to achieve
a breakthrough on Phoenix will make it easy for your boss to deny you anything but the most
nominal raise. But you have not told your boss of the recent results with the new list; you plan to
use the result of the new promotion to counter any argument raised about your lack of
performance in the Phoenix line.
You plan on asking for a $10,000 raise (normally, your raises have been 5 -‐ 8 percent). Your
current compensation has a base salary of $75,000
Take a few minutes to review these facts and then devise a strategy to approach your boss
for this raise.
Exercise 23
SALARY NEGOTIATIONS
NEGOTIATION 7e
LEWICKI ▪ BARRY ▪ SAUNDERS
Confidential Role Information for Employer Position 3A
You are the Marketing Vice President of the Rapid Golf Equipment Company, and have held this
position for the past four years. One of the people working for you is the Director of Mail Order
Sales. This person has been in the position for the past two years, and over that time, the Director
has done an excellent job. This is indicated by the improved response in the campaigns of the
Slingshot, Fireball and Thunderhead lines of golf balls, golf gloves, golf bags and other equipment.
The Director designed and executed several new marketing/sales campaigns that have done well.
You are quite pleased with the progress on these lines.
There has been one problem area. One of the objectives for this past year was to get more
action in the Phoenix line (Rapid's most expensive line of golf equipment). The sales units on this
year's Phoenix line have been quite poor—but then again, Phoenix has never been a really
successful line. The current director has been unable to change the sales performance results of
this line in the past few quarters, and you have no indication that anything in the program has
changed.
It is currently salary review time, and while the Director has had excellent results in the
other lower priced lines, the failure to get Phoenix moving is the reason you expect to give only a
nominal raise for this year. If new achievements in the Phoenix line can be shown, then you could
see your way clear to a larger raise. The director's current salary is $75,000 base pay. You feel that
a raise of $4,000 (just over 5 percent) is a fair raise for this year's efforts (normal raises are usually
in the 6 -‐ 8 percent range). You are not constrained in granting a raise of more than $4,000, but you
want some justifiable evidence why the Director should get more. You consider yourself a firm but
fair negotiator.
Take a few minutes to review these facts and devise discussion with your Director about a
pay raise.
SIXTH EDITION
Essentials of
NEGOTIATION
R OY J . L E W I C K I
B R U C E B A R RY
DAV I D M . S A U N D E RS
Essentials of
Negotiation
Sixth edition
Roy J. Lewicki
The Ohio State University
Bruce Barry
Vanderbilt University
David M. Saunders
Queen’s University
ESSENTIALS OF NEGOTIATION: SIXTH EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2016 by
McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions
© 2011, 2007, 2004, and 2001. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form
or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGrawHill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or
broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the
United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/DOC 1 0 9 8 7 6 5
ISBN 978-0-07-7862466
MHID 0-07-7862465
Senior Vice President, Products & Markets: Kurt L. Strand
Vice President, General Manager, Products & Markets: Michael Ryan
Vice President, Content Design & Delivery: Kimberly Meriwether David
Director of Management & Organizational Behavior: Michael Ablassmeir
Director, Product Development: Meghan Campbell
Lead Product Developer: Laura Hurst Spell
Senior Product Developer: Laura Griffin
Marketing Manager: Elizabeth Trepkowski
Executive Program Manager: Faye M. Herrig
Marketing Specialist: Liz Steiner
Director, Content Design & Delivery: Terri Schiesl
Content Project Managers: Jessica Portz, Danielle Clement, and Judi David
Buyer: Jennifer Pickel
Design: Base Art, Studio Montage
Content Licensing Specialist: DeAnna Dausener
Compositor: MPS Limited
Printer: R. R. Donnelley
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright
page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lewicki, Roy J.
Essentials of negotiation / Roy J. Lewicki, The Ohio State University,
Bruce Barry, Vanderbilt University David M. Saunders, Queen’s University. —
Sixth Edition.
pages cm
ISBN 978-0-07-786246-6 (alk. paper)
1. Negotiation in business. 2. Negotiation. I. Barry, Bruce, 1958- II.
Saunders, David M. III. Title.
HD58.6.L487 2015
658.4’052—dc2
2014041287
The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website
does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education
does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.
www.mhhe.com
Dedication
We dedicate this book to all negotiation, mediation, and dispute
resolution professionals who try to make the world a more peaceful
and prosperous place.
And to John W. Minton (1946–2007): friend, colleague, and co-author.
iii
iv
Contents
About the Authors
Roy J. Lewicki is the Irving Abramowitz Memorial Professor of Business Ethics Emeritus and Professor of Management and Human Resources Emeritus at the Max M. Fisher
College of Business, The Ohio State University. He has authored or edited 36 books, as
well as numerous research articles and book chapters. Professor Lewicki has served as the
president of the International Association for Conflict Management, and he received its
Lifetime Achievement Award in 2013. He received the Academy of Management’s Distinguished Educator Award in 2005 and was recognized as a Fellow of the Organizational
Behavior Teaching Society for his contributions to the field of teaching in negotiation and
dispute resolution.
Bruce Barry is the Brownlee O. Currey Jr. Professor of Management at the Owen
Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University. His research on negotiation,
ethics, power, influence, and justice has appeared in numerous scholarly journals and
volumes. Professor Barry is a past president of the International Association for Conflict
Management and a past chair of the Academy of Management Conflict Management
Division. He is associate editor of the scholarly journal Business Ethics Quarterly and
sits on the editorial boards of several others.
David M. Saunders has served as Dean of Queen’s School of Business (QSB) since
July 2003. Under Professor Saunders’s strategic leadership, the School has experienced
dramatic growth, including the addition of new and innovative MBA, professional masters, and executive education programs. To keep pace with this growth, he oversaw a significant expansion to Goodes Hall, the home of the School of Business, which opened in
2012. In support of QSB’s mission to develop outstanding leaders with a global perspective, Professor Saunders has internationalized the School, adding 80 strategic partnerships
with business schools around the globe. Professor Saunders is Chair of the EQUIS Awarding Body, the accreditation arm of the European Foundation for Management Development, and sits on the board of CEIBS, the China Europe International Business School.
iv
Preface
Contents
v
Welcome to the sixth edition of Essentials of Negotiation! Again, this book represents our
response to many faculty who wanted a brief version of the longer text. Negotiation (Seventh
Edition). The objective of this shorter version is to provide the reader with the core concepts
of negotiation in a more succinct presentation. Many faculty requested such a book for use in
shorter academic course, executive education programs, or as a companion to other resource
materials. It is suitable for courses in negotiation, labor relations, conflict management, human
resource management, and the like.
Overview of This Book
The organization of this volume generally follows the more complete Seventh Edition of
Negotiation. The fundamental difference between this and the Seventh Edition text is that this
book contains only 12 chapters, while the complete Seventh Edition contains 20 chapters. The
first four chapters have only been minimally shortened for this volume, because we believe
that the content is essential to any negotiation course. (The shortening process includes editing out some of the more research-oriented references and descriptions, deleting many of the
boxes and sidebars, and occasionally some secondary sections.) Similarly, the last chapter
is reproduced in full. The other seven chapters from Negotiation, have been included, but
shortened by 25–50 percent each.
For the instructor who is not familiar with Essentials (the first five editions) or Negotiation (Seventh or earlier editions), a brief overview is in order. The first five chapters introduce
the reader to “Negotiation Fundamentals.” The first chapter introduces the field of negotiation
and conflict management, describes the basic problem of interdependence with other people,
and briefly explores the challenges of managing that interdependence. Chapters 2 and 3 then
present the two core strategic approaches to negotiation: the basic dynamics of competitive
(win-lose) bargaining (Chapter 2) and the basic dynamics of integrative (win-win) negotiation (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 describes the fundamental prework that negotiators must do to
get ready for a negotiation: selecting the strategy, framing the issues, defining negotiation
objectives, and planning the steps one will pursue to achieve those objectives. In Chapter 5, we
examine the ethical standards and criteria that surround negotiation. The effective negotiator
must recognize when ethical questions are relevant and what factors must be considered to
address them effectively.
The next three chapters describe the fundamental psychological subprocesses of negotiation: perception, cognition, and emotion; communication; and power. In Chapter 6, we review
the basic processes of perception, cognition, and emotion in negotiation, we specifically examine common cognitive and judgment biases made by negotiators, and how emotion can
affect negotiations. In Chapter 7, we examine communication dynamics. We look at the ways
that negotiators communicate their interests, positions and goals, and how this information is
communicated to the other. Chapter 8 focuses on power. We look at the capabilities negotiators can muster power to pressure the other side, so as to change his or her perspective or give
in to our arguments.
v
vi
Preface
The next two chapters examine the social contexts in which these negotiations occur, and
which also therefore influence how they evolve. In Chapter 9, we examine how the negotiation
process changes when the parties have an established relationship with each other, and how
the type of relationship affects the negotiation process. We also examine the key roles played
by trust, justice and negotiator reputation in shaping negotiations. In Chapter 10, we look at
multiparty negotiations, when multiple individuals must work together as a group, team or
task force to solve a complex problem or make a decision.
In Chapter 11, we attempt to clarify how international and cross-cultural differences can
shape the diverse ways that parties approach negotiations.
Finally, in Chapter 12, we present a new concluding chapter, summarizing the book’s
content and offering ten “best practices” principles for all negotiators.
Comparison of This Book to the Fifth Edition of Essentials
•
•
•
•
•
•
All of this book has been revised and updated. The authors reviewed every chapter, utilizing extensive feedback from faculty who have used the book in previous
editions. The content in some of the chapters has been reorganized to present the
material more effectively.
The Ethics chapter was moved into the “fundamentals” section as Chapter 5.
We have further improved the graphics format and page layout of the book to make it
visually more interesting and readable.
We have added learning objectives to the beginning of each chapter.
The new structure of this book will be paralleled by a major revision to our readings
and classroom activities book. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases, Seventh
Edition, edited by Roy Lewicki, Bruce Barry, and David Saunders to appear in 2015.
This text and reader can be used together or separately. We encourage instructors to
contact their local McGraw-Hill/Irwin representative for an examination copy (or call
800-634-3963, or visit the Web site at www.mhhe.com).
Instructional resources, including a test bank, chapter outlines, PowerPoint slides,
and extensive assistance on ways that new instructors can improve their teaching of
negotiation skills, are available to accompany this volume. Instructors should contact
their McGraw-Hill/Irwin representative.
Connect Plus Management
Less Managing. More Teaching. Greater Learning.
Connect® Management is McGraw-Hill’s web-based assignment and assessment platform that
connects you and your students to the coursework. Students apply what they’ve learned and
receive immediate feedback. Instructors can customize these activities and monitor student
progress. Connect Management for Essentials of Negotiation includes:
Preface
Simple Assignment Management and Grading
With Connect Management, creating assignments is easier than ever, so you can spend more
time teaching and less time managing. The assignment management function enables you to:
•
•
•
Create and deliver assignments easily with selectable Test Bank items.
Streamline lesson planning, student progress reporting, and assignment grading to
make classroom management more efficient than ever.
Go paperless with the eBook and online submission and grading of student
assignments.
New! LearnSmart and SmartBookTM
LearnSmart is an adaptive study tool proven to strengthen memory recall, increase class retention, and boost grades. Students are able to study more efficiently because they are made
aware of what they know and don’t know. Real-time reports quickly identify the concepts that
require more attention from individual students—or the entire class. SmartBook is the first
and only adaptive reading experience designed to change the way students read and learn.
It creates a personalized reading experience by highlighting the most impactful concepts a
student needs to learn at that moment in time. As a student engages with SmartBook, the reading experience continuously adapts by highlighting content based on what the student knows
and doesn’t know. This ensures that the focus is on the content he or she needs to learn, while
simultaneously promoting long-term retention of material. Use SmartBook’s real-time reports
to quickly identify the concepts that require more attention from individual students—or the
entire class. The end result? Students are more engaged with course content, can better prioritize their time, and come to class ready to participate.
Instructor Library
The Connect Management Instructor Library is your repository for additional resources to improve student engagement in and out of class. You can select and use any asset that enhances
your lecture. The Connect Management Instructor Library includes:
•
•
•
•
The Instructor’s Manual: Each chapter includes an overview, learning objectives,
chapter outline, and summary.
Test Bank: Includes more than 700 questions and consists of fill in the blank, true/
false, multiple choice, and short-answer questions.
PowerPoint: Contains figures and tables from the text plus additional graphic
material.
Web Links: Offers additional links for more information on negotiation.
Support Materials
Instructional resources—including a test bank, chapter outlines, PowerPoint slides, and extensive resource materials on teaching negotiation skills for new instructors—are available
to accompany this volume on the text-specific website, www.mhhe.com/lewickinegotiation
vii
viii
Preface
Using Create, McGraw-Hill’s custom publishing service, instructors can build a text tailored to individual course needs incorporating materials from the three
texts in this series. Create allows instructors to customize teaching resources to match the
way they teach! With McGraw-Hill Create, www.mcgrawhillcreate.com, you can easily rearrange chapters; combine material from other content sources; and quickly upload content
you have written, like your course syllabus or teaching notes. Find the content you need in
Create by searching through thousands of leading McGraw-Hill textbooks. Arrange your book
to fit your teaching style. Create even allows you to personalize your book’s appearance by
selecting the cover and adding your name, school, and course information. Order a Create
book and you’ll receive a complimentary print review copy in three to five business days or
a complimentary electronic review copy (eComp) via e-mail in about one hour. Go to www.
mcgrawhillcreate.com today and register. Experience how McGraw-Hill Create empowers
you to teach your students your way.
Introducing McGraw-Hill CreateTM ExpressBooks! ExpressBooks contain a combination
of preselected chapters, articles, cases, or readings that serve as a starting point to help you
quickly and easily build your own text through McGraw-Hill’s self-service custom publishing
website, Create. These helpful templates are built using content available on Create and organized in ways that match various course outlines across all disciplines. We understand that you
have a unique perspective. Use McGraw-Hill Create ExpressBooks to build the book you’ve
only imagined! www.mcgrawhillcreate.com
Instructors should also note that the authors and McGraw-Hill have partnered with
ExpertNegotiator.com. ExpertNegotiator is a set of online tools that serve both student and
instructor. Students are provided with a structured negotiation preparation template, keyed
to the terminology used in the Lewicki et al. texts, to more thoroughly prepare for negotiation simulations. Instructors can use the software as a course management system to pair
students for role-plays (including all role-plays in the companion volume, Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases, 7th Edition), collect and distribute role information, and provide
students with feedback on their negotiation plans. Students access the software by purchasing it as a package price with any of the Lewicki et al. texts. For more information, contact
the local McGraw-Hill Education representative, and explore the power of the software at
www.ExpertNegotiator.com.
Appreciation
Once again, this book could not have been completed without the assistance of numerous
people. We especially thank
•
•
•
Many of our colleagues in the negotiation and dispute resolution field, whose
research efforts have made the growth of this field possible and who have
given us helpful feedback about earlier editions to improve the content of this
edition.
The following individuals who reviewed the text and offered their helpful feedback.
The work of John Minton, who helped shape the second, third, and fourth editions of
this book and passed away in the Fall of 2007.
Preface
•
•
•
The excellent editorial assistance of Steve Stenner, specifically for his help on copyediting, permissions, and bibliography and for refining the test bank and PowerPoint
slides.
The Staff of McGraw-Hill/Education, especially lead product developer Laura Spell,
senior product developer Laura Griffin, and product developer Heather Darr; director
of management and organizational behavior Michael Ablassmeir; and marketing staff
Elizabeth Trepkowski and Liz Steiner.
Our families, who continue to provide us with the time, inspiration, and opportunities
for continued learning about effective negotiation and the personal support required
to sustain this project.
Roy J. Lewicki
Bruce Barry
David M. Saunders
ix
x
Contents
Contents in Brief
1.
The Nature of Negotiation
1
2.
Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining
28
3.
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
60
4.
Negotiation: Strategy and Planning
5.
Ethics in Negotiation
6.
Perception, Cognition, and Emotion
7.
Communication
8.
Finding and Using Negotiation Power
9.
Relationships in Negotiation
89
114
139
165
182
203
10. Multiple Parties, Groups, and Teams in Negotiation
11. International and Cross-Cultural Negotiation
12. Best Practices in Negotiations
Bibliography 283
Index 307
x
273
242
220
Contents
Contents
Chapter 1
The Nature of Negotiation 1
Assess the Other Party’s Target, Resistance
Point, and Costs of Terminating
Negotiations 36
A Few Words about Our Style and Approach 3
Manage the Other Party’s Impressions 38
Joe and Sue Carter 4
Modify the Other Party’s Perceptions 40
Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation 6
Interdependence 10
Types of Interdependence Affect Outcomes 10
Alternatives Shape Interdependence 12
Mutual Adjustment 12
Mutual Adjustment and Concession
Making 14
Two Dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment 14
Manipulate the Actual Costs of Delay or
Termination 41
Positions Taken during Negotiation 42
Opening Offers 43
Opening Stance 44
Initial Concessions 44
Role of Concessions 45
Value Claiming and Value Creation 15
Pattern of Concession Making 47
Conflict 18
Final Offers 48
Definitions 18
Closing the Deal 49
Levels of Conflict 19
Provide Alternatives 49
Functions and Dysfunctions of Conflict 19
Assume the Close 49
Factors That Make Conflict Easy
or Difficult to Manage 21
Split the Difference 49
Effective Conflict Management 21
Overview of the Chapters in This Book 25
Endnotes 27
xi
Exploding Offers 50
Sweeteners 50
Hardball Tactics 50
Dealing with Typical Hardball Tactics 51
Chapter 2
Strategy and Tactics of Distributive
Bargaining 28
Typical Hardball Tactics 52
Chapter Summary 58
Endnotes 58
The Distributive Bargaining Situation 29
Settlement Point 33
Chapter 3
Strategy and Tactics of Integrative
Negotiation 60
Discovering the Other Party’s Resistance
Point 33
An Overview of the Integrative Negotiation
Process 60
The Role of Alternatives to a Negotiated
Agreement 32
Influencing the Other Party’s Resistance
Point 34
Tactical Tasks 36
Creating a Free Flow of Information 61
Attempting to Understand the Other
Negotiator’s Real Needs and Objectives 62
xi
xii
Contents
Emphasizing the Commonalities between the
Parties and Minimizing the Differences 62
Searching for Solutions That Meet the Needs
and Objectives of Both Sides 63
Key Steps in the Integrative Negotiation
Process 63
Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem 64
Step 2: Surface Interests and Needs 67
Step 3: Generate Alternative Solutions 70
Step 4: Evaluate and Select Alternatives 76
Factors That Facilitate Successful Integrative
Negotiation 80
Some Common Objective or Goal 81
Faith in One’s Problem-Solving
Ability 81
A Belief in the Validity of One’s Own
Position and the Other’s Perspective 82
The Motivation and Commitment
to Work Together 82
Trust
83
Clear and Accurate Communication 85
An Understanding of the Dynamics of
Integrative Negotiation 86
Chapter Summary 86
Getting Ready to Implement the Strategy:
The Planning Process 93
1. Defining the Negotiating
Goal 97
2. Defining the Major Issue Related to
Achieving the Goal 97
3. Assembling the Issues, Ranking Their
Importance, and Defining the Bargaining
Mix 99
4. Defining the Interests 100
5. Knowing Your Alternatives
(BATNAs) 101
6. Knowing Your Limits, Including a
Resistance Point 101
7. Analyzing and Understanding the Other
Party’s Goals, Issues, and Resistance
Points 102
8. Setting One’s Own Targets and Opening
Bids 104
9. Assessing the Social Context of
Negotiation 106
10. Presenting the Issues to the Other Party:
Substance and Process 110
Chapter Summary 113
Endnotes 113
Endnotes 87
Chapter 4
Negotiation: Strategy
and Planning 89
Chapter 5
Ethics in Negotiation 114
Goals—The Focus That Drives a Negotiation
Strategy 90
What Do We Mean by “Ethics,” and Why Do
They Matter in Negotiation? 116
Direct Effects of Goals on Choice of
Strategy 90
Indirect Effects of Goals on Choice of
Strategy 91
Strategy versus Tactics 92
Accommodation, Competition, and
Collaboration 92
A Sampling of Ethical Quandaries 114
Ethics Defined 116
Applying Ethical Reasoning to
Negotiation 117
Ethics versus Prudence versus Practicality
versus Legality 117
What Questions of Ethical Conduct Arise in
Negotiation? 119
Contents
Ethically Ambiguous Tactics: It’s (Mostly)
All about the Truth 120
4. Issue Framing and Risk 152
Identifying Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics and Attitudes toward Their Use 122
6. The Winner’s Curse 153
Deception by Omission versus
Commission 125
8. The Law of Small Numbers 154
The Decision to Use Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics: A Model 126
Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and
Consequences 126
The Power Motive 126
Other Motives to Behave Unethically 128
5. Availability of Information 153
7. Overconfidence 153
9. Self-Serving Biases 154
10. Endowment Effect 155
11. Ignoring Others’ Cognitions 156
12. Reactive Devaluation 156
Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases
in Negotiation 156
The Consequences of Unethical
Conduct 129
Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation 157
Explanations and Justifications 131
Endnotes 163
How Can Negotiators Deal with the Other
Party’s Use of Deception? 133
Chapter Summary 137
Endnotes 137
Chapter 6
Perception, Cognition,
and Emotion 139
Perception 140
xiii
Chapter Summary 163
Chapter 7
Communication 165
What Is Communicated during
Negotiation? 165
1. Offers, Counteroffers, and Motives 166
2. Information about Alternatives 166
3. Information about Outcomes 167
4. Social Accounts 167
Perception Defined 140
5. Communication about Process 167
Perceptual Distortion 140
Are Negotiators Consistent or Adaptive? 168
Framing 142
Types of Frames 143
How Frames Work in Negotiation 144
Another Approach to Frames: Interests,
Rights, and Power 145
The Frame of an Issue Changes as the
Negotiation Evolves 147
Cognitive Biases in Negotiation 150
1. Irrational Escalation of
Commitment 151
Does It Matter What Is Said Early
in the Negotiation? 168
Is More Information Always Better? 168
How People Communicate in Negotiation 169
Characteristics of Language 169
Use of Nonverbal Communication 170
Selection of a Communication Channel 172
How to Improve Communication in
Negotiation 174
The Use of Questions 174
2. Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs 151
Listening 176
3. Anchoring and Adjustment 152
Role Reversal 178
xiv
Contents
Special Communication Considerations
at the Close of Negotiations 179
Avoiding Fatal Mistakes 179
Achieving Closure 179
Chapter Summary 180
Relationships among Reputation, Trust,
and Justice 217
Repairing a Relationship 217
Chapter Summary 218
Endnotes 218
Endnotes 180
Chapter 8
Finding and Using Negotiation
Power 182
Chapter 10
Multiple Parties, Groups, and Teams
in Negotiation 220
The Nature of Multiparty Negotiations 220
Why Is Power Important to Negotiators? 182
A Definition of Power 183
Differences between Two-Party Negotiations
and Multiparty Negotiations 221
Sources of Power—How People Acquire
Power 185
What Dynamics Can Make a Multiparty
Negotiation Effective? 226
Informational Sources of Power 186
Power Based on Personality and Individual
Differences 188
Power Based on Position in an Organization
(Structural Power) 190
Managing Multiparty Negotiations 228
The Prenegotiation Stage 228
The Formal Negotiation Stage—Managing
the Process and Outcome 231
The Agreement Stage 237
Power Based on Relationships 196
Chapter Summary 240
Contextual Sources of Power 197
Endnotes 240
Dealing with Others Who Have More
Power 199
Chapter Summary 201
Endnotes 201
Chapter 9
Relationships in Negotiation 203
Challenging How Relationships in Negotiation
Have Been Studied 203
Chapter 11
International and Cross-Cultural
Negotiation 242
What Makes International Negotiation
Different? 244
Environmental Context 244
Immediate Context 247
Conceptualizing Culture and Negotiation 249
Negotiations in Communal Sharing
Relationships 207
Culture as Learned Behavior 249
Key Elements in Managing Negotiations
within Relationships 208
Culture as Dialectic 253
Reputation 208
Trust
210
Justice 213
Culture as Shared Values 250
Culture in Context 253
The Influence of Culture on Negotiation:
Managerial Perspectives 254
Definition of Negotiation 254
Contents
Negotiation Opportunity 254
3. Identify and Work the BATNA 275
Selection of Negotiators 255
4. Be Willing to Walk Away 276
Protocol
5. Master the Key Paradoxes
of Negotiation 276
255
Communication 256
xv
Time Sensitivity 256
Claiming Value versus Creating Value 276
Risk Propensity 257
Sticking by Your Principles versus Being
Resilient Enough to Go with the Flow 277
Groups versus Individuals 257
Nature of Agreements 258
Emotionalism 258
The Influence of Culture on Negotiation:
Research Perspectives 258
Effects of Culture on Negotiation
Outcomes 259
Effects of Culture on Negotiation Process
and Information Exchange 261
Effects of Culture on Negotiator
Cognition 263
Effects of Culture on Negotiator Ethics
and Tactics 264
Culturally Responsive Negotiation Strategies 265
Sticking with Your Strategy versus
Opportunistically Pursuing New Options 277
Being Too Honest and Open versus Being
Too Closed and Opaque 278
Being Too Trusting versus Being Too
Distrusting 278
6. Remember the Intangibles 278
7. Actively Manage Coalitions—Those Against
You, For You, and Unknown 280
8. Savor and Protect Your Reputation 281
9. Remember That Rationality and Fairness
Are Relative 281
Weiss’s Culturally Responsive Strategies 266
10. Continue to Learn from Your
Experience 282
Low Familiarity 267
Endnotes 282
Moderate Familiarity 267
High Familiarity 268
Chapter Summary 269
Endnotes 269
Chapter 12
Best Practices in Negotiations 273
1. Be Prepared 273
2. Diagnose the Fundamental Structure
of the Negotiation 274
Bibliography 283
Index 307
CHAPTER
1
The Nature of Negotiation
Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Understand the definition of negotiation, the key elements of a negotiation process,
and the distinct types of negotiation.
Explore how people use negotiation to manage different situations of
interdependence—that is, that they depend on each other for achieving their goals.
Consider how negotiation fits within the broader perspective of processes for
managing conflict.
Gain an overview of the organization of this book and the content of its chapters.
“That’s it! I’ve had it! This car is dead!” screamed Chang Yang, pounding on the steering
wheel and kicking the door shut on his 10-year-old Toysun sedan. The car had refused to
start again, and Chang was going to be late for class (again)! Chang wasn’t doing well
in that management class, and he couldn’t afford to miss any more classes. Recognizing
that it was finally time to do something about the car, which had been having numerous
mechanical problems for the last three months, Chang decided he would trade the Toysun
in for another used car, one that would hopefully get him through graduation. After classes
that day, he got a ride to the nearby shopping area, where there were several repair garages
and used car lots. He knew almost nothing about cars, and didn’t think he needed to—all
he needed was reliable transportation to get him through the next 18 months.
A major international airline company is close to bankruptcy. The fear of terrorism,
a number of new “budget-fare” airlines, and rising costs for fuel have all put the airline
under massive economic pressure. The company seeks $800 million in wage and benefit
cuts from the pilots’ union, the third round of cuts in two years, in order to head off the
bankruptcy. Rebuffed by the chief union negotiator for the pilots, the company seeks to
go directly to the officers of the Air Line Pilots Association—the international union—to
discuss the cuts. If the pilots do not agree to concessions, it is unlikely that other unions—
flight attendants, mechanics, and so on—will agree, and bankruptcy will be inevitable.
Janet and Jocelyn are roommates. They share a one-bedroom apartment in a big city
where they are both working. Janet, an accountant, has a solid job with a good company,
but she has decided that it is time to go back to school to get her MBA. She has enrolled in
Big City University’s evening MBA program and is now taking classes. Jocelyn works for
an advertising company and is on the fast track. Her job not only requires a lot of travel,
1
2
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
but also requires a lot of time socializing with clients. The problem is that when Janet is
not in evening class, she needs the apartment to read and study and has to have quiet to get
her work done. However, when Jocelyn is at the apartment, she talks a lot on the phone,
brings friends home for dinner, and is either getting ready to go out for the evening or coming back in very late (and noisily!). Janet has had enough of this disruption and is about to
confront Jocelyn.
A country’s government is in a financial crisis, created by a good old-fashioned
“smackdown” between the newly re-elected president and the legislature. The president
insists that taxes must be raised to pay for ongoing government services, particularly the
taxes of the richest 1 to 2 percent of the taxpayers. In contrast, a majority of the elected legislature, whose political party favors the wealthy, insists that the president cut government
spending instead! Moreover, a group of the legislators have taken a public “pledge” to not
agree to any tax increases and fear losing their jobs in the next election if they give in on
their pledge. If the crisis is not resolved in a few days, a financial doomsday is predicted.
Ashley Johnson is one of the most qualified recruits this year from a top-25 ranked
business school. She is delighted to have secured a second interview with a major consumer goods company, which has invited her to its headquarters city and put her up in a
four-star hotel that is world-renowned for its quality facilities and service. After getting in
late the night before due to flight delays, she wakes at 6:45 a.m. to get ready for a 7:30 a.m.
breakfast meeting with the senior company recruiter. She steps in the shower, grabs the
water control knob to turn it, and the knob falls off in her hand! There is no water in the
shower at all; apparently, repairmen started a repair job on the shower, turned all the water
off somewhere, and left the job unfinished. Ashley panics at the thought of how she is going
to deal with this crisis and look good for her breakfast meeting in 45 minutes.
Do these incidents look and sound familiar? These are all examples of negotiation—
negotiations that are about to happen, are in the process of happening, or have happened
in the past and created consequences for the present. And they all serve as examples of the
problems, issues, and dynamics that we will address throughout this book.
People negotiate all the time. Friends negotiate to decide where to have dinner.
Children negotiate to decide which television program to watch. Businesses negotiate to
purchase materials and sell their products. Lawyers negotiate to settle legal claims before
they go to court. The police negotiate with terrorists to free hostages. Nations negotiate to
open their borders to free trade. Negotiation is not a process reserved only for the skilled
diplomat, top salesperson, or ardent advocate for an organized lobby; it is something that
everyone does, almost daily. Although the stakes are not usually as dramatic as peace accords or large corporate mergers, everyone negotiates; sometimes people negotiate for
major things like a new job, other times for relatively minor things like who will take out
the garbage.
Negotiations occur for several reasons: (1) to agree on how to share or divide a limited
resource, such as land, or money, or time; (2) to create something new that neither party
could do on his or her own; or (3) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.
Sometimes people fail to negotiate because they do not recognize that they are in a negotiation situation. By choosing options other than negotiation, they may fail to achieve their
goals, get what they need, or manage their problems as smoothly as they might like to. People may also recognize the need for negotiation but do poorly because they misunderstand
A Few Words about Our Style and Approach
the process and do not have good negotiating skills. After reading this book, we hope you
will be thoroughly prepared to recognize negotiation situations; understand how negotiation works; know how to plan, implement, and complete successful negotiations; and, most
importantly, be able to maximize your results.
A Few Words about Our Style and Approach
Before we begin to dissect the complex social process known as negotiation, we need to
say several things about how we will approach this subject. First we will briefly define
negotiation. Negotiation is “a form of decision making in which two or more parties talk
with one another in an effort to resolve their opposing interests.”1 Moreover, we will be
careful about how we use terminology in this book. For most people, bargaining and
negotiation mean the same thing; however, we will be quite distinctive in the way we use
the two words. We will use the term bargaining to describe the competitive, win–lose
situations such as haggling over the price of that item that happens at a yard sale, flea
market, or used car lot; we will use the term negotiation to refer to win–win situations
such as those that occur when parties are trying to find a mutually acceptable solution to
a complex conflict.
Second, many people assume that the “heart of negotiation” is the give-and-take process used to reach an agreement. While that give-and-take process is extremely important, negotiation is a very complex social process; many of the most important factors that
shape a negotiation result do not occur during the negotiation; they occur before the parties
start to negotiate, or shape the context around the negotiation. In the first few chapters of
the book, we will examine why people negotiate, the nature of negotiation as a tool for
managing conflict, and the primary give-and-take processes by which people try to reach
agreement. In the remaining chapters, we examine the many ways that differences in the
substantive issues, the people involved, the processes they follow, and the context in which
negotiation occurs enrich the complexity of the dynamics of negotiation. We will return to
a more complete overview of the book at the end of this chapter.
Third, our insights into negotiation are drawn from three sources. The first is our personal experience as negotiators ourselves and the rich number of negotiations that occur
every day in our own lives and in the lives of people around the world. The second source
is the media—television, radio, newspaper, magazine, and Internet—that report on actual
negotiations every day. We will use quotes and examples from the media to highlight
key points, insights, and applications throughout the book. Finally, the third source is the
wealth of social science research that has been conducted on numerous aspects of negotiation. This research has been conducted for almost 60 years in the fields of economics,
psychology, political science, communication, labor relations, law, sociology, and anthropology. Each discipline approaches negotiation differently. Like the parable of the blind
men who are attempting to describe the elephant by touching and feeling different parts
of the animal, each social science discipline has its own theory and methods for studying
outputs of negotiation, and each tends to emphasize some parts and ignore others. Thus,
the same negotiation events and outcome may be examined simultaneously from several
different perspectives.2 When standing alone, each perspective is clear but limited; combined, we begin to understand the rich and complex dynamics of this amazing animal.
3
4
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
We draw from all these research traditions in our approach to negotiation. When we need
to acknowledge the authors of a major theory or set of research findings, we will use the
standard social science research process of citing their work in the text by the author’s
name and the date of publication of their work; complete references for that work can be
found in the bibliography at the end of the book. When we have multiple sources to cite,
or anecdotal side comments to make, that information will appear in an endnote at the end
of each chapter.
We began this chapter with several examples of negotiations—future, present, and
past. To further develop the reader’s understanding of the foundations of negotiation, we
will develop a story about a husband and wife—Joe and Sue Carter—and a not-so-atypical
day in their lives. In this day, they face the challenges of many major and minor negotiations. We will then use that story to highlight three important themes:
1.
2.
3.
The definition of negotiation and the basic characteristics of negotiation situations.
An understanding of interdependence, the relationship between people and groups
that most often leads them to need to negotiate.
The definition and exploration of the dynamics of conflict and conflict management
processes, which will serve as a backdrop for different ways that people approach
and manage negotiations.
Joe and Sue Carter
The day started early, as usual. Over breakfast, Sue Carter raised the question of where
she and her husband, Joe, would go for their summer vacation. She wanted to sign up for a
tour of Southeast Asia being sponsored by her college’s alumni association. However, two
weeks on a guided tour with a lot of other people he barely knew was not what Joe had in
mind. He needed to get away from people, crowds, and schedules, and he wanted to charter
a sailboat and cruise the New England coast. The Carters had not argued (yet), but it was
clear they had a real problem here. Some of their friends handled problems like this by taking separate vacations. With both of them working full-time, though, Joe and Sue did agree
that they would take their vacation together.
Moreover, they were still not sure whether their teenage children—Tracy and Ted—would
go with them. Tracy really wanted to go to a gymnastics camp, and Ted wanted to stay
home and do yard work in the neighborhood so he could get in shape for the football team
and buy a motor scooter with his earnings. Joe and Sue couldn’t afford summer camp and a
major vacation, let alone deal with the problem of who would keep an eye on the children
while they were away. And Sue was already “on the record” as being opposed to the motor
scooter, for obvious safety reasons.
As Joe drove to work, he thought about the vacation problem. What bothered Joe
most was that there did not seem to be a good way to manage the conflict productively.
With some family conflicts, they could compromise but, given what each wanted this time,
a simple compromise didn’t seem obvious. At other times they would flip a coin or take
turns—that might work for choosing a restaurant (Joe and Ted like steak houses, Sue and
Tracy prefer Chinese), but it seemed unwise in this case because of how much money was
involved and how important vacation time was to them. In addition, flipping a coin might
Joe and Sue Carter
make someone feel like a loser, an argument could start, and in the end nobody would really feel satisfied.
Walking through the parking lot, Joe met his company’s purchasing manager,
Ed Laine. Joe was the head of the engineering design group for MicroWatt, a manufacturer
of small electric motors. Ed reminded Joe that they had to settle a problem created by the engineers in Joe’s department: the engineers were contacting vendors directly rather than going
through MicroWatt’s purchasing department. Joe knew that purchasing wanted all contacts
with a vendor to go through them, but he also knew that his engineers badly needed technical
information for design purposes and that waiting for the information to come through the
purchasing department slowed things considerably. Ed Laine was aware of Joe’s views about
this problem, and Joe thought the two of them could probably find some way to resolve it if
they really sat down to work on it. Joe and Ed were also both aware that upper management
expected middle managers to settle differences among themselves; if this problem “went
upstairs” to senior management, it would make both of them look bad.
Shortly after reaching his desk, Joe received a telephone call from an automobile
salesman with whom he had been talking about a new car. The salesman asked whether
Sue wanted to test-drive it. Joe wasn’t quite sure that Sue would go along with his choice;
Joe had picked out a sporty luxury import, and he expected Sue to say it was too expensive and not very fuel efficient. Joe was pleased with the latest offer the salesman had
made on the price but thought he might still get a few more concessions out of him, so he
introduced Sue’s likely reluctance about the purchase, hoping that the resistance would
put pressure on the salesman to lower the price and make the deal “unbeatable.”
As soon as Joe hung up the phone, it rang again. It was Sue, calling to vent her frustration to Joe over some of the procedures at the local bank where she worked as a senior
loan officer. Sue was frustrated working for an old “family-run” bank that was not very
automated, heavily bureaucratic, and slow to respond to customer needs. Competitor banks
were approving certain types of loans within three hours while Sue’s bank still took a week.
Sue had just lost landing two big new loans because of the bank’s slowness and bureaucratic
procedures—and the loss of the salary bonus that landing a big loan would bring. But whenever she tried to discuss the situation with the bank’s senior management, she was met with
resistance and a lecture on the importance of the bank’s “traditional values.”
Most of Joe’s afternoon was taken up by the annual MicroWatt budget planning
meeting. Joe hated these meetings. The people from the finance department came in and
arbitrarily cut everyone’s figures by 30 percent, and then all the managers had to argue
endlessly to try to get some of their new-project money reinstated. Joe had learned to
work with a lot of people, some of whom he did not like very much, but these people from
finance were the most arrogant and arbitrary number crunchers imaginable. He could not
understand why the top brass did not see how much harm these people were doing to the
engineering group’s research and development efforts. Joe considered himself a reasonable
guy, but the way these people acted made him feel like he had to draw the line and fight it
out for as long as it took.
In the evening, Sue and Joe attended a meeting of their town’s Conservation Commission, which, among other things, was charged with protecting the town’s streams, wetlands,
and nature preserves. Sue is a member of the Conservation Commission, and Sue and Joe
both strongly believe in sound environmental protection and management. This evening’s
5
6
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
case involved a request by a real estate development firm to drain a swampy area and move
a small creek into an underground pipe in order to build a new regional shopping mall. All
projections showed that the new shopping mall would attract jobs and revenue to the area
and considerably increase the town’s tax treasury. The new mall would keep more business
in the community and discourage people from driving 15 miles to the current mall, but
opponents—a coalition of local conservationists and businessmen—were concerned that
the new mall would significantly hurt the downtown business district and do major harm to
the natural wetland and its wildlife. The debate raged for three hours, and finally, the commission agreed to continue the hearings the following week.
As Joe and Sue drove home from the council meeting, they discussed the things
they had been involved in that day. Each privately reflected that life is kind of strange—
sometimes things go very smoothly and other times things seem much too complicated.
As they went to sleep later, they each thought about how they might have approached
certain situations differently during the day and were thankful they had a relationship
where they could discuss things openly with each other. But they still didn’t know what
they were going to do about that vacation . . . or that motor scooter.
Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation
The Joe and Sue Carter story highlights the variety of situations that can be handled by
negotiation. Any of us might encounter one or more of these situations over the course of
a few days or weeks. As we defined earlier, negotiation is a process by which two or more
parties attempt to resolve their opposing interests. Thus, as we will point out later on this
chapter, negotiation is one of several mechanisms by which people can resolve conflicts.
Negotiation situations have fundamentally the same characteristics, whether they are peace
negotiations between countries at war, business negotiations between buyer and seller or
labor and management, or an angry guest trying to figure out how to get a hot shower before a critical interview. Those who have written extensively about negotiation argue that
there are several characteristics common to all negotiation situations:3
1.
2.
There are two or more parties—that is, two or more individuals, groups, or organizations. Although people can “negotiate” with themselves—as when someone debates
in their head whether to spend a Saturday afternoon studying, playing tennis, or going
to the football game—we consider negotiation as a process between individuals, within
groups, and between groups.4 In the Carter story, Joe negotiates with his wife, the
purchasing manager, and the auto salesman, and Sue negotiates with her husband, the
senior management at the bank, and the Conservation Commission, among others.
Both still face an upcoming negotiation with the children about the vacation . . . and
that motor scooter.
There is a conflict of needs and desires between two or more parties—that is,
what one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants—and the parties must
search for a way to resolve the conflict. Joe and Sue face negotiations over vacations,
management of their children, budgets, automobiles, company procedures, and
community practices for issuing building permits and preserving natural resources,
among others.
Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation
When You Shouldn’t Negotiate
BOX 1.1
There are times when you should avoid negotiating. In these situations, stand your ground and
you’ll come out ahead.
When you’d lose the farm:
If you’re in a situation where you could lose
everything, choose other options rather
than negotiate.
When you’re sold out:
When you’re running at capacity, don’t deal.
Raise your prices instead.
When the demands are unethical:
Don’t negotiate if your counterpart asks
for something you cannot support because it’s illegal, unethical, or morally
inappropriate—for example, either paying
or accepting a bribe. When your character
or your reputation is compromised, you
lose in the long run.
When you don’t care:
If you have no stake in the outcome, don’t
negotiate. You have everything to lose
and nothing to gain.
When you don’t have time:
When you’re pressed for time, you may choose
not to negotiate. If the time pressure
works against you, you’ll make mistakes,
you give in too quickly, and you may fail
to consider the implications of your concessions. When under the gun, you’ll settle for less than you could otherwise get.
3.
7
When they act in bad faith:
Stop the negotiation when your counterpart
shows signs of acting in bad faith. If
you can’t trust their negotiating, you
can’t trust their agreement. In this case,
negotiation is of little or no value. Stick
to your guns and cover your position, or
discredit them.
When waiting would improve your
position:
Perhaps you’ll have a new technology
available soon. Maybe your financial
situation will improve. Another opportunity may present itself. If the odds are
good that you’ll gain ground with a
delay, wait.
When you’re not prepared:
If you don’t prepare, you’ll think of all your
best questions, responses, and concessions on the way home. Gathering your
reconnaissance and rehearsing the negotiation will pay off handsomely. If you’re
not ready, just say “no.”
Source: J. Conrad Levinson, Mark S. A. Smith, Orvel Ray
Wilson, Guerrilla Negotiating: Unconventional Weapons and
Tactics to Get What You Want (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1999), pp. 22–23.
The parties negotiate by choice! That is, they negotiate because they think they can
get a better deal by negotiating than by simply accepting what the other side will
voluntarily give them or let them have. Negotiation is largely a voluntary process. We
negotiate because we think we can improve our outcome or result, compared with not
negotiating or simply accepting what the other side offers. It is a strategy pursued by
choice; seldom are we required to negotiate. There are times to negotiate and times
not to negotiate (see Box 1.1 for examples of when we should not negotiate).
Our experience is that most individuals in Western culture do not negotiate enough—
that is, we assume a price or situation is nonnegotiable and don’t even bother to ask
or to make a counteroffer!
7
BOX
8
Sign in a New York Deli
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
1.2
“For those of you who need to haggle over the
price of your sandwich, we will gladly raise the
price so we can give you a discount!”
When we negotiate, we expect a “give-and-take” process that is fundamental to our
understanding of the word “negotiation.” We expect that both sides will modify or
move away from their opening statements, requests, or demands. Although both
parties may at first argue strenuously for what they want—each pushing the other
side to move first—ultimately both sides will modify their opening position in
order to reach an agreement. This movement may be toward the “middle” of their
positions, called a compromise. However, truly creative negotiations may not
require compromise; instead the parties may invent a solution that meets the
objectives of all parties. Of course, if the parties do NOT consider it a negotiation,
then they don’t necessarily expect to modify their position and engage in this
give-and-take (see Box 1.2).
5. The parties prefer to negotiate and search for agreement rather than to fight openly,
have one side dominate and the other capitulate, permanently break off contact, or
take their dispute to a higher authority to resolve it. Negotiation occurs when the
parties prefer to invent their own solution for resolving the conflict, when there is no
fixed or established set of rules or procedures for how to resolve the conflict, or when
they choose to bypass those rules. Organizations and systems invent policies and
procedures for addressing and managing those procedures. Equipment rental services
have a policy for what they should charge if a rental is kept too long. Normally,
people just pay the fine. They might be able to negotiate a fee reduction, however, if
they have a good excuse for why the equipment is being returned late. Similarly,
attorneys negotiate or plea-bargain for their clients who would rather be assured of a
negotiated settlement than take their chances with a judge and jury in the courtroom.
Similarly, the courts may prefer to negotiate as well to clear the case off the docket,
save money and assure some payment of a fine rather than risk having the defendant
set free on some legal technicality. In the Carter story, Joe pursues negotiation, rather
than letting his wife decide where to spend the vacation; pressures the salesman to
reduce the price of the car, rather than paying the quoted price; and argues with the
finance group about the impact of the budget cuts, rather than simply accepting them
without question. Sue uses negotiation to try to change the bank’s loan review procedures, rather than accepting the status quo, and she works to change the shopping
mall site plan to make both conservationists and businesses happy, rather than letting
others decide it or watch it go to court. But what about that motor scooter . . . ?
6. Successful negotiation involves the management of tangibles (e.g., the price or the
terms of agreement) and also the resolution of intangibles. Intangible factors are
the underlying psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence
the parties during a negotiation. Some examples of intangibles are (a) the need to
“win,” beat the other party, or avoid losing to the other party; (b) the need to look
“good,” “competent,” or “tough” to the people you represent; (c) the need to defend
4.
8
When the Urge to Win Overwhelms
Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation
Rational Decision Making
BOX 1.3
There are times when the urge to win overwhelms
logic. Authors Malhotra, Ku, and Murnighan
offer the example of a takeover battle between
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Boston Scientific
to buy Guidant, a medical device maker. Even
though Guidant was in the middle of recalling
23,000 pacemakers and telling another 27,000 patients who had pacemakers already implanted to
“consult their doctors,” the bidding war between
the two buyers lead to a final price of $27.2 billion,
$1.8 billion more than J&J’s initial bid. After the
recall, Guidant shares went from $23 to $17 a
share. Fortune magazine later called the acquisition
“arguably the second worst ever,” only surpassed
by AOL’s infamous purchase of Time Warner.
What fuels these competitive dynamics that
lead to bad decisions? The authors identify several key factors:
•
•
Rivalry. When parties are intensely competitive with one another, they are willing to suspend rational decision making.
Time pressure. An artificial deadline, or time
pressures such as those in an auction, can
•
•
9
push people into quick (and often erroneous)
decision making.
The spotlight. If audiences are watching and
evaluating the actor, he is more likely to stick
to his guns and escalate his investment just to
look strong and tough to the audience.
The presence of attorneys. The authors indicate
that attorneys, who are more oriented toward
“winning” and “losing” in legal battles, may
pressure their clients toward winning when
options for settlement may clearly be present.
This perspective may be complicated by the
way the attorneys are paid for their services.
The authors offer several important suggestions to reduce or eliminate the negative impact
of these competitive pressures, in order to make
more sound and reasoned decisions.
Source: Deepak K. Malhotra, Gillian Ku, and J. Keith Murnighan,
“When Winning is Everything,” Harvard Business Review 86,
no. 5, May 2008, pp. 78–86.
an important principle or precedent in a negotiation; and (d) the need to appear “fair,”
or “honorable” or to protect one’s reputation; or (e) the need to maintain a good relationship with the other party after the negotiation is over, primarily by maintaining
trust and reducing uncertainty.5 Intangibles are often rooted in personal values and
emotions. Intangible factors can have an enormous influence on negotiation processes
and outcomes; it is almost impossible to ignore intangibles because they affect our
judgment about what is fair, or right, or appropriate in the resolution of the tangibles.
For example, Joe may not want to make Ed Laine angry about the purchasing problem because he needs Ed’s support in the upcoming budget negotiations, but Joe also
doesn’t want to look weak to his department’s engineers, who expect him to support
them. Thus, for Joe, the important intangibles are preserving his relationship with Ed
Laine and looking strong and “tough” to his engineers.
Intangibles become a major problem in negotiation when negotiators fail to understand how they are affecting decision making or when they dominate negotiations on the
tangibles. For example, see Box 1.3 about the problems that the urge to win can create for
negotiators.
9
10
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
Interdependence
One of the key characteristics of a negotiation situation is that the parties need each other
in order to achieve their preferred objectives or outcomes. That is, either they must coordinate with each other to achieve their own objectives, or they choose to work together
because the possible outcome is better than they can achieve by working on their own.
When the parties depend on each other to achieve their own preferred outcome, they are
interdependent.
Most relationships between parties may be characterized in one of three ways: independent, dependent, or interdependent. Independent parties are able to meet their own
needs without the help and assistance of others; they can be relatively detached, indifferent, and uninvolved with others. Dependent parties must rely on others for what they need;
because they need the help, benevolence, or cooperation of the other, the dependent party
must accept and accommodate to that provider’s whims and idiosyncrasies. For example,
if an employee is totally dependent on an employer for a job and salary, the employee will
have to either do the job as instructed and accept the pay offered, or go without that job.
Interdependent parties, however, are characterized by interlocking goals—the parties need
each other in order to accomplish their objectives, and hence have the potential to influence each other. For instance, in a project management team, no single person could complete a complex project alone; the time limit is usually too short, and no individual has all
the skills or knowledge to complete it. For the group to accomplish its goals, each person
needs to rely on the other project team members to contribute their time, knowledge, and
resources and to synchronize their efforts. Note that having interdependent goals does not
mean that everyone wants or needs exactly the same thing. Different project team members may need different things, but they must work together for each to accomplish their
goals. This mix of convergent and conflicting goals characterizes many interdependent
relationships. (See Box 1.4 for a perspective on interdependence and the importance of
intangibles from a famous agent who represents professional athletes in their negotiated
contracts.)
Types of Interdependence Affect Outcomes
The interdependence of people’s goals, and the structure of the situation in which they are
going to negotiate, strongly shapes negotiation processes and outcomes. When the goals
of two or more people are interconnected so that only one can achieve the goal—such as
running a race in which there will be only one winner—this is a competitive situation, also
known as a zero-sum or distributive situation, in which “individuals are so linked together
that there is a negative correlation between their goal attainments.”6 Zero-sum or distributive situations are also present when parties are attempting to divide a limited or scarce
resource, such as a pot of money, a fixed block of time, and the like. To the degree that one
person achieves his or her goal, the other’s goal attainment is blocked. In contrast, when
parties’ goals are linked so that one person’s goal achievement helps others to achieve their
goals, it is a mutual-gains situation, also known as a non-zero-sum or integrative situation,
where there is a positive correlation between the goal attainments of both parties. If one
person is a great music composer and the other is a great writer of lyrics, they can create a
wonderful Broadway musical hit together. The music and words may be good separately,
Perspective
“I have been representing athletes for almost a
quarter century, longer than some of them have
been alive. During the course of that time, I have
developed deep relationships—friendships and
partnerships—with many of the executives with
whom I do business. We have done dozens of deals
with one another over the years. There has been
contention and struggle. There have been misunderstandings at times. But in the end, not unlike
a marriage, we have stayed together, moved forward, and grown. That kind of shared relationship
over time results in a foundation of trust and respect that is immeasurably valuable.
But that kind of trust must be earned. I
understood this when I did my first deal 23
years ago. A basic premise of my entire career
has been the knowledge that I will be working with the same people again and again. That
means that I am always thinking about the deal
I am making right now but also about a given
player’s future deals. It means I see the other
party as a potential partner, not as a foe to be
vanquished.
If it were not for the team owners, I would
not have a profession. If they did not feel that
they could operate at a profit, we would not have
an industry. I may believe that a player deserves
every penny he is paid, but that is only half the
equation. The other half depends upon whether
the owner believes he can profit by making that
payment.
These are not showdowns. In the end they
are collaborations. We each have an interest in
the success and health of the other. I need and
want professional sports to survive and thrive.
The various leagues need a steady supply of
quality players who are quality people. Each side
has something to offer the other. Each side depends on the other.
In any industry in which repeat business is
done with the same parties, there is always a balance between pushing the limit on any particular
negotiation and making sure the other party—
and your relationship with him—survives intact.
1.4
Interdependence
BOX
11
This is not to suggest that you subordinate your
interests to his. But sometimes it is in your best
long-term interest to leave something on the
table, especially if the other party has made an
error that works to your advantage.
No one likes being taken advantage of. We
are all human beings. We all have the potential to
make a mistake. No matter how much each side
stresses preparation, there is no way to consider
every factor in a negotiation. There may be times
during the process where one party realizes he
has made an error in calculation or in interpretation and may ask that that point be revised. There
may be times where terms have been agreed to
but the other party then sees a mistake and asks
you to let him off the hook. You don’t have to
do it. You could stick him on that point. But you
need to ask yourself, Is it worth it? Is what I have
to gain here worth what I will lose in terms of
this person’s willingness to work with me in the
future? In most cases, the long-term relationship
is much more valuable than the short-term gain.
Sometimes the other party may make a mistake
and not know it. There are times when the GM
or owner I am dealing with makes a major error
in his calculations or commits a major oversight,
and I can easily take advantage of that and just
nail him.
But I don’t. He shows me his jugular, and
instead of slashing it, I pull back. I might even
point out his error. Because if I do crush him, he
will eventually realize it. And although I might
make a killing on that particular deal, I will also
have killed our relationship and, very likely, any
possibility of future agreements. Or it might be
that the person’s mistake costs him his job, in
which case someone else might take his place—
who is much rougher to deal with and is intent
on paying me back for taking his predecessor to
the cleaners.”
Source: Leigh Steinberg, Winning with Integrity (New York:
Random House, 1998), pp. 217–18.
11
12
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
but fantastic together. To the degree that one person achieves his or her goal, the other’s
goals are not necessarily blocked, and may in fact be significantly enhanced. The strategy
and tactics that accompany each type of situation are discussed further in the upcoming
section, Value Claiming and Value Creation, and in Chapters 2 and 3.
Alternatives Shape Interdependence
We noted at the beginning of this section that parties choose to work together because
the possible outcome is better than what may occur if they do not work together. Evaluating interdependence therefore also depends heavily on the desirability of alternatives to
working together. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, in their popular book
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, stress that “whether you should
or should not agree on something in a negotiation depends entirely upon the attractiveness
to you of the best available alternative.”7 They call this alternative a BATNA (an acronym
for best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and suggest that negotiators need to understand their own BATNA and the other party’s BATNA. The value of a person’s BATNA is
always relative to the possible settlements available in the current negotiation. A BATNA
may offer independence, dependence, or interdependence with someone else. A student
who is a month away from college graduation and has only one job offer at a salary far
lower than he hoped has the choice of accepting that job offer or unemployment; there is
little chance that he is going to influence the company to pay him much more than their
starting offer.8 A student who has two offers has a choice between two future interdependent relationships; not only does she have a choice, but she can probably use each job
offer to attempt to improve the agreement by playing the employers off against each other
(asking employer A to improve its offer over B, etc.). Remember that every possible interdependency has an alternative; negotiators can always say “no” and walk away, although
the alternative might not be a very good one. We will further discuss the role and use of
BATNAs in Chapters 2, 4, and 8.
Mutual Adjustment
When parties are interdependent, they have to find a way to resolve their differences. Both
parties can influence the other’s outcomes and decisions, and their own outcomes and
decisions can be influenced by the other.9 This mutual adjustment continues throughout
the negotiation as both parties act to influence the other.10 It is important to recognize that
negotiation is a process that transforms over time, and mutual adjustment is one of the key
causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation.11
Let us return to Sue Carter’s job in the small community bank. Rather than continuing
to have her loans be approved late, which means she loses the loan and doesn’t qualify for
bonus pay, Sue is thinking about leaving the small bank and taking a job with Intergalactic
Bank in the next city. Her prospective manager, Max, thinks Sue is a desirable candidate for
the position and is ready to offer her the job. Max and Sue are now attempting to establish
Sue’s salary. The job advertisement announced the salary as “competitive.” After talking
with her husband Joe and looking at statistics on bank loan officers’ pay in the state, and
considering her past experience as a loan officer, Sue identified a salary below which she will
not work ($70,000) and hopes she might get considerably more. But because Intergalactic
Mutual Adjustment
Bank has lots of job applicants and is a very desirable employer in the area, Sue has decided
not to state her minimally acceptable salary; she suspects that the bank will pay no more
than necessary and that her minimum would be accepted quickly. Moreover, she knows that
it would be difficult to raise the level if it should turn out that $70,000 was considerably
below what Max would pay. Sue has thought of stating her ideal salary ($80,000), but she
suspects that Max will view her as either too aggressive or rude for requesting that much.
Max might refuse to hire her, or even if they agreed on salary, Max would have formed an
impression of Sue as a person with an inflated sense of her own worth and capabilities.
Let’s take a closer look at what is happening here. Sue is making her decision about an
opening salary request based in part on what bank loan officers are paid in the area, but also
very much on how she anticipates Max will react to her negotiating tactics. Sue recognizes
that her actions will affect Max. Sue also recognizes that the way Max acts toward her in
the future will be influenced by the way her actions affect him now. As a result, Sue is assessing the indirect impact of her behavior on herself. Further, she also knows that Max is
probably alert to this and will look upon any statement by Sue as reflecting a preliminary
position on salary rather than a final one. To counter this expected view, Sue will try to find
some way to state a proposed salary that is higher than her minimum, but lower than her
“dream” salary offer. Sue is choosing among opening requests with a thought not only to
how they will affect Max but also to how they will lead Max to act toward Sue. Further, if
she really thought about it, Sue might imagine that Max believes she will act in this way
and makes her decision on the basis of this belief.
The reader may wonder if people really pay attention to all these layers of nuance
and complexity or plot in such detail about their negotiation with others. The answer is
“NO”! First, because they don’t think beyond step 1—deciding what they really want—and
second, if they did, they would likely be frozen into inactivity while they tried to puzzle
through all the possibilities. However, engaging in this level of thinking can help anticipate
the possible ways negotiations might move as the parties move, in some form of mutual
adjustment, toward agreement. The effective negotiator needs to understand how people
will adjust and readjust, and how the negotiations might twist and turn, based on one’s own
moves, the others’ responses, my own countermoves, etc.
It might seem that the best strategy for successful mutual adjustment to the other is
grounded in the assumption that the more information one has about the other person,
the better. There is the possibility, however, that too much knowledge only confuses.12
For example, suppose Sue knows the average salary ranges for clerical, supervisory, and
managerial positions for banks in her state and region. Does all this information help
Sue determine her actions, or does it only confuse things? In fact, even with all of this
additional information, Sue may still not have reached a decision about what salary she
should be paid, other than a minimum figure below which she will not go. This state of
affairs is typical to many negotiations. Both parties have defined their outer limits for
an acceptable settlement (how high or low they are willing to go), but within that range,
neither has determined what the preferred number should be. Or they have thought only
about a desired salary, but not a minimally acceptable one. The parties need to exchange
information, attempt to influence each other, and problem solve. They must work toward
a solution that takes into account each person’s requirements and, hopefully, optimize the
outcomes for both.13
13
14
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
Mutual Adjustment and Concession Making
Negotiations often begin with statements of opening positions. Each party states its most
preferred settlement proposal, hoping that the other side will simply accept it, but not
really believing that a simple “yes” will be forthcoming from the other side (remember
our key definitional element of negotiation as the expectation of give-and-take). If the
proposal isn’t readily accepted by the other, negotiators begin to defend their own initial
proposals and critique the others’ proposals. Each party’s rejoinder usually suggests alterations to the other party’s proposal and perhaps also contains changes to his or her own
position. When one party agrees to make a change in his or her position, a concession has
been made.14 Concessions restrict the range of options within which a solution or agreement will be reached; when a party makes a concession, the bargaining range (the range
of possible agreements between the two party’s minimally acceptable settlements) is further constrained. For instance, Sue would like to get a starting salary of $80,000, but she
scales her request down to $75,000, thereby eliminating all possible salary options above
$75,000. Before making any concessions to a salary below $75,000, Sue probably will
want to see some willingness on the part of the bank to improve its salary offer.
Two Dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment
Deciding how to use concessions as signals to the other side and attempting to read the
signals in the other’s concessions are not easy tasks, especially when there is little trust
between negotiators. Two of the dilemmas that all negotiators face, identified by Harold
Kelley,15 help explain why this is the case. The first dilemma, the dilemma of honesty,
concerns how much of the truth to tell the other party. (The ethical considerations of these
dilemmas are discussed in Chapter 5.) On the one hand, telling the other party everything
about your situation may give that person the opportunity to take advantage of you. On the
other hand, not telling the other person anything about your needs and desires may lead to
a stalemate. Just how much of the truth should you tell the other party? If Sue told Max that
she would work for as little as $70,000 but would like to start at $80,000, it is quite possible that Max would hire her for $70,000 and allocate the extra money that he might have
paid her elsewhere in the budget.16 If, however, Sue did not tell Max any information about
her salary aspirations, then Max would have a difficult time knowing Sue’s aspirations and
what she would consider an attractive offer. He might make an offer based on the salary of
the last person he hired, or claim “bank policy” for hiring at her experience level, and wait
for her reaction to determine what to say next.
Kelley’s second dilemma is the dilemma of trust: How much should negotiators believe what the other party tells them? If you believe everything the other party says, then
he or she could take advantage of you. If you believe nothing that the other party says, then
you will have a great deal of difficulty in reaching an agreement. How much you should
trust the other party depends on many factors, including the reputation of the other party,
how he or she treated you in the past, and a clear understanding of the pressures on the
other in the present circumstances. If Max told Sue that $65,000 was the maximum he was
allowed to pay her for the job without seeking approval “from the Intergalactic corporate
office,” should Sue believe him or not? As you can see, sharing and clarifying information
is not as easy as it first appears.
Value Claiming and Value Creation
The Importance of Aligning Perceptions
BOX 1.5
Having information about your negotiation partner’s perceptions is an important element of negotiation success. When your expectations of a
negotiated outcome are based on faulty information, it is likely that the other party will not take
you seriously. Take, for example, the following
story told to one of the authors:
At the end of a job interview, the recruiter asked
the enthusiastic MBA student, “And what starting
salary were you looking for?”
The MBA candidate replied, “I would like
to start in the neighborhood of $150,000 per year,
depending on your benefits package.”
15
The recruiter said, “Well, what would you
say to a package of five weeks’ vacation, 14 paid
holidays, full medical and dental coverage, company matching retirement fund up to 50 percent
of your salary, and a new company car leased for
your use every two years . . . say, a red Porsche?”
The MBA sat up straight and said, “Wow!
Are you kidding?”
“Of course,” said the recruiter. “But you
started it.”
The search for an optimal solution through the processes of giving information and making concessions is greatly aided by trust and a belief that you’re being treated honestly and
fairly. Two efforts in negoti ation help to create such trust and beliefs—one is based on perceptions of outcomes and the other on perceptions of the process. Outcome perceptions can
be shaped by managing how the receiver views the proposed result. If Max convinces Sue
that a lower salary for the job is relatively unimportant given the high potential for promotion associated with the position and the very generous bonus policy, then Sue may feel more
comfortable accepting a lower salary. Perceptions of the trustworthiness and credibility of the
process can be enhanced by conveying images that signal fairness and reciprocity in proposals and concessions (see Box 1.5). When one party makes several proposals that are rejected
by the other party and the other party offers no proposal, the first party may feel improperly
treated and may break off negotiations. When people make a concession, they trust the other
party and the process far more if a concession is returned. In fact, the belief that concessions
will occur during negotiations appears to be almost universal. During training seminars, we
have asked negotiators from more than 50 countries if they expect give-and-take to occur
during negotiations in their culture; all have said they do. This pattern of give-and-take is not
just a characteristic of negotiation; it is also essential to joint problem solving in most interdependent relationships.17 Satisfaction with a negotiation is as much determined by the process
through which an agreement is reached as with the actual outcome obtained. To eliminate or
even deliberately attempt to reduce this give-and-take—as some legal and labor–management
negotiating strategies have attempted18—is to short-circuit the process, and it may destroy
both the basis for trust and any possibility of achieving a mutually satisfactory result.
Value Claiming and Value Creation
Earlier, we identified two types of interdependent situations—zero-sum and non-zero-sum.
Zero-sum or distributive situations are ones in which there can be only one winner or
where the parties are attempting to get the larger share or piece of a fixed resource, such as
15
16
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
an amount of raw material, money, time, and the like. In contrast, non-zero-sum or integrative or mutual gains situations are ones in which many people can achieve their goals and
objectives.
The structure of the interdependence shapes the strategies and tactics that negotiators
employ. In distributive situations, negotiators are motivated to win the competition and beat
the other party or to gain the largest piece of the fixed resource that they can. To achieve
these objectives, negotiators usually employ win–lose strategies and tactics. This approach
to negotiation—called distributive bargaining—accepts the fact that there can only be one
winner given the situation and pursues a course of action to be that winner. The purpose of
the negotiation is to claim value—that is, to do whatever is necessary to claim the reward,
gain the lion’s share of the prize, or gain the largest piece possible.19 An example of this type
of negotiation is purchasing a used car or buying a used refrigerator at a yard sale. We fully
explore the strategy and tactics of distributive bargaining, or processes of claiming value, in
Chapter 2 and some of the less ethical tactics that can accompany this process in Chapter 5.
In contrast, in integrative situations the negotiators should employ win–win strategies
and tactics. This approach to negotiation—called integrative negotiation—attempts to find
solutions so both parties can do well and achieve their goals. The purpose of the negotiation is to create value—that is, to find a way for all parties to meet their objectives, either by
identifying more resources or finding unique ways to share and coordinate the use of existing resources. An example of this type of negotiation might be planning a wedding so that
the bride, groom, and both families are happy and satisfied, and the guests have a wonderful
time. We fully explore the strategy and tactics of integrative, value-creating negotiations in
Chapter 3.
It would be simple and elegant if we could classify all negotiation problems into one
of these two types and indicate which strategy and tactics are appropriate for each problem.
Unfortunately, most actual negotiations are a combination of claiming and creating value
processes. The implications for this are significant:
1.
2.
3.
Negotiators must be able to recognize situations that require more of one approach
than the other: those that require predominantly distributive strategy and tactics,
and those that require integrative strategy and tactics. Generally, distributive bargaining is most appropriate when time and resources are limited, when the other is
likely to be competitive, and when there is no likelihood of future interaction with
the other party. Most other situations should be approached with an integrative
strategy.
Negotiators must be versatile in their comfort and use of both major strategic approaches. Not only must negotiators be able to recognize which strategy is most
appropriate, but they must be able to employ both approaches with equal versatility.
There is no single “best,” “preferred,” or “right” way to negotiate; the choice of negotiation strategy requires adaptation to the situation, as we will explain more fully
in the next section on conflict. Moreover, if most negotiation issues or problems have
components of both claiming and creating values, then negotiators must be able to
use both approaches in the same deliberation.
Negotiator perceptions of situations tend to be biased toward seeing problems as
more distributive/competitive than they really are. Accurately perceiving the nature
Value Claiming and Value Creation
of the interdependence between the parties is critical for successful negotiation.
Unfortunately, most negotiators do not accurately perceive these situations. People
bring baggage with them to a negotiation: past experience, personality, moods, assumptions about the other party, and beliefs about how to negotiate. These elements
dramatically shape how people perceive an interdependent situation, and these perceptions have a strong effect on the subsequent negotiation. Moreover, research has
shown that people are prone to several systematic biases in the way they perceive
and judge interdependent situations.20 While we discuss these biases extensively in
Chapter 6, the important point here is that the predominant bias is to see interdependent situations as more distributive or competitive than they really are. As a result,
there is a tendency to assume a negotiation problem is more zero-sum than it may
be and to overuse distributive strategies for solving the problem. As a consequence,
negotiators often leave unclaimed value at the end of their negotiations because they
failed to recognize opportunities for creating value.
The tendency for negotiators to see the world as more competitive and distributive than it
is, and to underuse integrative, creating-value processes, suggests that many negotiations
yield suboptimal outcomes. This does not need to be the case. At the most fundamental level, successful coordination of interdependence has the potential to lead to synergy,
which is the notion that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” There are numerous
examples of synergy. In the business world, many research and development joint ventures
are designed to bring together experts from different industries, disciplines, or problem
orientations to maximize their innovative potential beyond what each company can do
individually. Examples abound of new technologies in the areas of medicine, communication, computing, and the like. The fiber-optic cable industry was pioneered by research
specialists from the glass industry and specialists in the manufacturing of electrical wire
and cable—industry groups that had little previous conversation or contact. A vast amount
of new medical instrumentation and technology has been pioneered in partnerships between biologists and engineers. In these situations, interdependence was created between
two or more of the parties, and the creators of these enterprises, who successfully applied
the negotiation skills discussed throughout this book, enhanced the potential for successful
value creation.
Value may be created in numerous ways, and the heart of the process lies in exploiting
the differences that exist between the negotiators.21 The key differences among negotiators
include these:
1.
2.
Differences in interests. Negotiators seldom value all items in a negotiation equally.
For instance, in discussing a compensation package, a company may be more willing
to concede on the amount of a signing bonus than on salary because the bonus occurs
only in the first year, while salary is a permanent expense. An advertising company
may be quite willing to bend on creative control of a project, but very protective of
control over advertising placement. Finding compatibility in different interests is
often the key to unlocking the puzzle of value creation.
Differences in judgments about the future. People differ in their evaluation of what
something is worth or the future value of an item. For instance, is that piece of
17
18
Chapter 1 The Nature of Negotiation
3.
4.
swamp land a valuable wetland to preserve, or a bug-infested flood control problem
near a housing development, or a swamp that needs to be drained to build a shopping
center? How parties see the present and what is possible that needs to be created—or
avoided—can create opportunities for the parties to get together.
Differences in risk tolerance. People differ in the amount of risk they are comfortable assuming. A young, single-income family with three children can probably
sustain less risk than a mature, dual-income couple near retirement. A company with
a cash flow problem can assume less risk of expanding its operations than one that is
cash-rich.
Differences in time preference. Negotiators frequently differ in how time affects
them. One negotiator may want to realize gains now while the other may be happy
to defer gains into the future; one needs a quick settlement while the other has no
need for any change in the status quo. Differences in time preferences have the
potential to create value in a negotiation. For instance, a car salesman may want to
close a deal by the end of the month in order to be eligible for a special company
bonus, while the potential buyer intends to trade his car “sometime in the next six
months.”
In summary, while value is often created by exploiting common interests, differences can
also serve as the basis for creating value. The heart of negotiation is exploring both common and different interests to create this value and employing such interests as the foundation for a strong and lasting agreement. Differences can be seen as insurmountable,
however, and in that case serve as barriers to reaching agreement. As a result, negotiators
must also learn to manage conflict effectively in order to manage their differences while
searching for ways to maximize their joint value. Managing conflict is the focus of the
next section.
Conflict
As we have been discussing, a potential consequence of interdependent relationships is
conflict. Conflict can result from the strongly divergent needs of the two parties or from
misperceptions and misunderstandings. Conflict can occur when the two parties are working toward the same goal and generally want the same outcome or when both parties want
very different outcomes. Regardless of the cause of the conflict, negotiation can play an
important role in resolving it effectively. In this section, we will define conflict, discuss the
different levels of conflict that can occur, review the functions and dysfunctions of conflict,
and discuss strategies for managing conflict effectively.
Definitions
Conflict may be defined as a “sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests, ideas,
etc.” and includes “the perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties’ current
aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously.”22 Conflict results from “the interaction of
interdependent people who perceived incompatible goals and interference from each other
in achieving those goals.”23
Conflict
Levels of Conflict
One way to understand conflict is to distinguish it by level. Four levels of conflict are commonly identified:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Intrapersonal or intrapsychic conflict. These conflicts occur within an individual.
Sources of conflict can include ideas, thoughts, emotions, values, predispositions,
or drives that are in conflict with each other. We want an ice cream cone badly, but
we know that ice cream is very fattening. We are angry a...