negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

05/02/2023Cross-cutting isues in Negotiation 1

Negotiation skillsCross-Cutting Issues in Negotiation

Group 4:Reuben Kimutai Koech HD333-0C10-0596/2014

Samuel Niyomugabo HD333-0C10-5803/2014Solange Kayitesi HD333-0C10-5860/2014


Outline• Introduction• Key cultural variables that influence negotiations• Basic approaches to negotiation• Framing and reframing• Who engages in negotiations, and how?• Power and influence• Conclusion


Introduction• International business deals not only cross borders, they

also cross cultures. Culture profoundly influences how people think, communicate, and behave. It also affects the kinds of transactions they make and the way they negotiate them.

• Cross cutting issues; are topics which by their very nature, have a strong impact on all operations in a given field and, therefore, must receive special attention.


Key cultural variables that influence negotiations

• Each person is a member of multiple cultures. While each of us is part of a broad national culture that shares many characteristics in common, we each also maintain memberships in our family, a community or communities, and usually some form of workplace (company, government agency, nongovernmental organization, school, and so forth), and each of these represents a somewhat different culture or subculture.


Key cultural variables that influence negotiations

• Organizational or work cultures probably exhibit the greatest variability, even within a single country.

• Although there are general tendencies among most workplaces within a national culture, some organizations are highly bureaucratic and regulated, with explicit rules for almost every occasion (and therefore low context), while others are informal and flexible, depending to a large extent on unwritten rules and personal relationships to determine how to proceed (and are therefore high context).


Key culture variablesMembers of indirect-dealing cultures are seldom explicit in exchanges and often prefer to communicate through intermediaries. They avoid strong expressions of feelings or any hint of disharmony. The meanings of yes and no are not obvious.

Members of direct-dealing cultures tell you what they think, directly and in person.They do not mind expressing feelings and will even shout and argue. For them, a yes is a yes and a no is a no. While harmony is a nice ideal, ‘‘you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.’’


Key culture variables

High-context cultures understand meaning in context—based on who you are, your relationship with others, and norms that are universally understood by any member of the culture. Much is implicit and unexpressed because it does not need to be pointed out; everyone (except outsiders) understands already.

Low-context cultures create meaning through explicit expressions: clear and direct speech, unambiguous messages, detailed documents, rules, regulations, written norms and expectations, and so forth.Relationships are constantly formed, reformed, and defined in the moment as needed and, depending on the context, through direct discussion. An outsider coming into a low-context setting might even be given a manual explaining exactly what is expected


Key culture variables

Relationship-oriented cultures depend on a series of affiliations to function in life. These may be based on long-term connections— family ties, friendships, ethnic group membership, school or university associations, business relationships, or other affective bonds. The primary task in any kind of negotiation is to establish or improve a relationship, which will serve as the basis for any future agreement or deal. In some cases, the relationship may be more important than any substantive element of a settlement, as it will endure over time and provide the context for resolving any misunderstandings or conflicts.

Task-oriented (or substantively oriented) cultures focus on the substantive matters at hand and the issues that have brought negotiators together, whether a business deal or a deep conflict. While members of these cultures may spend some time building a relationship, this is normally a means to the real end: the substantive deal.In the extreme, task-oriented negotiators will sacrifice a relationship for a more advantageous settlement.


Key culture variablesHolistic cultures do not separate relationships, feelings, context, specific joint activities, and substantive issues; they see them as integrally connected. They would rarely compartmentalize different elements of life: business relationships, work, home, social life. In these cultures, unwritten or verbal agreements are strongly valued, and in some cases, they may be seen as more valuable than written commitments or contracts.

Contractually oriented cultures tend to compartmentalize people, relationships, issues, and diverse activities. They separate specific kinds of relationships (business, family, social) and are likely to make explicit agreements in each. An old joke illustrates the extreme: ‘‘He would sue his mother if he thought it would get him a better deal.’’ Written contracts are the last word


BASIC APPROACHES TO NEGOTIATION

Four factors influence how individuals or teams of negotiators approach negotiations and related strategies, tactics, and behaviors (Quinney, 2002)


• Specific personality and personality traits of an individual negotiator or members of a negotiation team• The general context of negotiations and issues under discussion, such as whether parties are involved in a transaction or resolving a dispute; are engaged in diplomatic, commercial, or other kinds of talks; or are resolving substantive, procedural, or relationship or psychological issues• Structural factors, such as the broader political-economic position of the negotiator or entities he or she represents and those of the counterpart, the political or economic systems in which negotiations are occurring, organizational structures, leadership, and decision-making structures and procedures• The culture or cultures of the people involved, including gender, age, race/ethnic group, profession, education, rank or status, region, or national origin

Factors influence how individuals or teams of negotiators approach negotiations


Positional Negotiation (Hard bargaining or distributive bargaining)

• This approach is often used when counterparts believe that a division of goods, resources, or benefits will be required to reach a settlement and that the end result will most likely be some form of compromise between their two views on a desirable allocation (distribution).

• A positional approach is common when the outcome of negotiations is seen by one or more parties as having a potential winner or loser.


Why do negotiators use positional bargaining

and strive for distributive outcomes to negotiations?

It often has to do with the mind-sets and attitudes of individual parties and broader cultural norms or accepted practices regarding what negotiations are and how they should be conducted, plus the context and the issues at stake.


Negotiators often choose to conduct positional negotiations in these situations:

• The stakes for winning are perceived to be high, and the negotiator cannot afford to lose• The issue at stake is a matter of principle and requires a strong position to demonstrate

the strength of the negotiator’s commitment to it.• Resources (time, money, psychological benefits, or something else) are perceived to be

limited, and the only possible outcome will result in a distribution of gains and losses• The negotiator believes that the resource being negotiated is not divisible into multiple

subissues or sub-interests, which could facilitate trading items that are valued differently by the parties

• The interests related to the resource have been translated into symbolic solutions that are framed in terms of specific numbers (money, time, number of units produced, number of acts to perform a task) rather than proposals that meet the real interests or needs.



• Both parties want exactly the same thing for the same purpose, and it appears that a win for one side automatically means a loss for the other

• The parties are not interdependent, will not pursue any future relationship or interaction, or do not consider any future relationship more important than immediate substantive gain

• The parties control adequate resources and coercive power to attempt a forced solution and damage the others if an impasse in negotiations occurs, and each believes that they can withstand or overcome the costs that will result from the exercise of the other side’s coercive power.

• Posturing for a constituency and presentation of an initial, and often public, high demand is expected or required to maintain the credibility of the negotiator and the support of his or her followers



• A negotiator believes that an initial high-demand or hard-line position is needed to educate the other party about the importance of the issue, the expected level of exchange, and the strong commitment of the initiator to a high settlement. Parties enmeshed in international trade negotiations often employ this tactic.

• The issue is not very important, it does not involve multiple interests to be traded, and the parties need a mechanistic procedure to split differences and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Or the ritual of positional bargaining is the norm and culturally expected.


Variations of the Positional Bargaining Process

In the first variation, positional bargainer A presents an initial position early in negotiations. They may or may not explain the interests it satisfies. If the initial position is rejected by counterpart B, which it frequently is, positional bargainer A explains more about his or her proposal and may ask why, and what interests of counterpart B are not addressed or met by the position. If this information is provided, negotiator A uses it to modify the initial position to make it more acceptable or to develop a new position.


Variations of the Positional Bargaining Process

The second variation begins much the same as the first. Positional bargainer A presents an initial position and explains the interests that the proposal satisfies. However, counterpart B, who is also a positional bargainer, rejects the initial position outright (often without providing much of an explanation as to why) and immediately proposes a counter-position that better satisfies his interests. In response, bargainer A may ask counterpart B why his alternative position is preferable to the first proposal. Bargainer A may also inquire about the merits of her proposal and problems inherent in the initial offer. Finally, A may ask explicitly about the interests satisfied by the counter-position from B


Interest-Based Negotiations• Interest-based negotiations represent alternative procedures for

reaching agreements. • In the positional approach, parties focus on advocating positions

or specific solutions that meet their individual interests or needs and persuading opposing parties to accept their proposals.

• In contrast, in an interest-based (or needs-based) process, negotiators focus first on identifying the concerns, needs, or interests of all parties, and only then do they individually or jointly develop integrative options to address them.


Three types of interests• Substantive interests are tangible benefits a party wants to have

satisfied or exchanged through negotiations. They include financial remuneration, the exchange of property, performance of specific acts or behaviors, and time commitments.

• Procedural interests refer to preferences regarding the process by which problem solving, negotiations, or dispute resolution occurs and the way that agreements are reached or implemented. They include a desire for an efficient and timely process, clearly understandable steps, and an opportunity for all parties to present their views.


Three types of interests• Relationship or psychological interests concern how

individuals or groups are treated, both in the negotiation process and outside it, as well as how relationships are valued and shaped through negotiations. Psychological interests include an individual negotiator’s desire to be trusted, respected, and heard and to have feelings and experiences acknowledged.


Triangle of Satisfaction


Attitudes of Interest-Based Negotiators

• Interest- or needs-based negotiations begin with general mind-sets, attitudes, and assumptions that are quite different from those common to positional bargaining.


Interest based negotiators assumptions

• Zero-sum negotiations, in which one party will win and the other will lose, are not as common as most people believe. Rather, the goal for bargaining is to strive for benefits to both or all parties

• Resources being bargained over are not necessarily limited, and there may be a way to maximize gains for all concerned parties

• Resources may be expanded through concerted action; each party has the potential to gain more benefits from cooperation than from adversarial initiatives



• Any negotiation includes substantive, procedural, and psychological interests and needs that may be met in a variety of ways to reach joint gains.

• Interests that have been expressed in numerical form (such as money, time, number of units produced, number of actions, and so forth) may be broken down into subtopics and associated interests that can be traded or addressed in a number of ways



• Parties may want different outcomes or benefits, value the items being discussed differently, or want benefits at different times or in different forms, providing the potential for trade-offs

• The ongoing relationship between the parties is valued both during and after negotiations, and a focus on meeting each party’s interests will strengthen this relationship


The Interest-Based Negotiation Process

• Define the issue or problem• Educate each other about interests and needs• Clarify interests and needs, and identify criteria for acceptable

agreements• Generate options.• Engage in bargaining and persuasion• Evaluate options• Implement and monitor the agreement


Strategies for Coordinating Approaches to Negotiation

Coordinatation Among Positional Bargainers.• Continue advocating for the unacceptable position, with the hope that logic, the

exercise of some means of influence or leverage, or a change of circumstances will encourage the other side to accept the proposal.

• Try to switch to an interest-based approach, encouraging each other to engage in joint problem solving to satisfy all interests and needs.

• Modify proposals or make a counterproposal that better meets the needs or demands of the other side, based on information gained about a counterpart’s needs and interests.

• Identify a compromise position or solution in which gains and losses are shared.• Break off negotiations.



Coordination Among Interest-Based Negotiators• If both parties begin negotiations using an interest-based

approach, they may still have several coordination tasks. They may need to jointly define issues so that each party understands the problem or dispute to be addressed and associated subissues.

• In addition, they must clearly identify the interests (substantive, procedural, and relationship or psychological) that must be addressed and coordinate procedures for generating and evaluating options



Coordination Between Interest-Based and Positional Negotiators• The positional bargainer may continue to try to educate her counterpart about

the merits and logic of her position, and how it meets the interests and needs of her counterpart—and, if they are persuasive enough, move toward agreement.

• The positional bargainer may continue to advocate for his original position as stated, but at the same time will listen to what his counterpart has said, ask questions, and collect more information about the other party’s interests. He may then use this information to show how his initial position meets the other’s interests or develop another position that better meets all parties’ interests



Coordination Between Interest-Based and Positional Negotiators• The positional bargainer may use her opening position as a place marker, but put it

on hold while exploring the interests and needs of her counterpart. A counterpart using an interest-based approach may be able to convince the positional bargainer to switch to a more collaborative process of problem solving.

• The interest-based bargainer may become positional and begin to advocate for specific positions or preferred solutions that meet his interests.

• The parties can divide up issues and apply different approaches to each, depending on whether they are more amenable to integrative or distributive solutions.

• The interest-based negotiator may convert the positional negotiator to the use of an interest-based approach.


Coordination Between Interest-Based and Positional NegotiatorsCoordination Between Interest-Based and Positional Negotiators• Generally interest-based negotiators who want to persuade a

positional bargainer to use a more integrative and cooperative approach must refrain from offering counter-positions or making explicit substantive proposals early in negotiations. Rather, they either directly or indirectly engage their counterpart in interest-based strategies and tactics.


Coordination Between Interest-Based and Positional NegotiatorsCoordination Between Relational and Positional or Interest-Based Negotiation Approaches• Relational orientations toward negotiations are principally

focused on creating positive emotional connections and commitments between parties that can ultimately be translated into reciprocal bonds of respect and obligation.


FRAMING AND REFRAMING• Frames refer to the specific way that parties see or

describe the situation in which they are involved. A frame includes how you see the problem or situation and your perspective on it. A party’s description (frame) not only defines and assigns meaning to the broad underlying problem to be addressed and often the goals to be achieved, but also guides a negotiator’s actions to achieve desired ends

• SchÖn on and Rein (1994) define a frame or a general frame as the story that a party tells himself or herself about a situation that for him or her is troublesome and needs to be addressed.


• A negotiator’s frames lie behind the presenting problem or purpose of negotiations. In that sense, each party’s framing of the purpose, issues, problems, and interests remains relevant through the negotiation process. This concept is useful throughout the phases.

• Because of the importance of how parties describe the purpose of negotiations and frame the interests they hope to achieve, it is critical for them to be aware of possible conceptualizations and how they will influence negotiations. Negotiators need to be introspective throughout the process, trying to articulate, at least to themselves, how they define problems to be addressed and their underlying frames.

• They will then have to determine what should be expressed in negotiations, how their perspective (frame) can best be described to a counterpart, and what should be only privately acknowledged or remain unsaid.


Coordinating Purposes and General Frames

• In many negotiations, parties articulate and readily agree on the general purpose of discussions and have similar frames, or at least not mutually incompatible ones

• In other negotiations, especially those initiated to resolve conflicts, parties often have frames that are at odds. In this situation, negotiators have to make efforts to coordinate their understandings of the purpose of negotiation and how they frame the process.


Suggested strategies for coordination of general frames• Avoid explicit presentation of your general frame until your counterpart

presents his.• Advocate a purpose and underlying general frame and reject that of your

counterpart, thus forcing him to accept your purpose and frame if he wants to reach an agreement.

• Advocate a general frame, and then, if necessary, adapt it to make it acceptable to all parties

• Propose a general frame, listen to that of your counterpart, and, through mutual education, jointly shift to a totally new description of the purpose of negotiations and general frame.


Framing Issues or Problems for Negotiation

In general there are four ways to frame an issue: as a (1)Neutral topic statement, (2)Statement of a position, (3)Statement about a party’s interests, or(4)Joint problem to be addressed, which incorporates

descriptions of two or more parties’ interests or needs.


Case study: Israel vs Egypt (1975)

• Neutral topic statement: ‘‘We will discuss the issues of territory and security.’’• Positional statements: ‘‘We demand return of our land.’’ And, ‘‘We refuse to

leave, as occupation ensures our security.’’• Statement of interests: ‘‘We must regain control over our sovereign territory

and want to be treated with respect.’’ And, ‘‘Any agreement must include provisions that guarantee our security from attacks through the Sinai.’’

• Joint problem statement: ‘‘How can we enable Egypt to regain control over its territory, while at the same time guaranteeing Israel’s security from attack?’’


Untangling Frames Through Reframing

How an issue is framed affects whether a party is even willing to talk about it, much less engage in productive problem solving. When a party frames an issue in a way that is unacceptable to the other party, one or the other will eventually have to figure out a way to reframe the topic in a manner that refrains from attacks, removes reference to a fixed solution, and invites joint problem solving.


Different possibilities• Translation from a win-lose or distributional approach to looking

for joint gains or an integrative approach that tries to meet all parties’ needs

Win-lose frameIntegrative frame• Redefining issues in either more general or more specific ways

that allow problem solving.Overly general frameReframe (more specific)


Different possibilities• Adjusting time frames if they are too short or constrained

or too long and unlimited.Time-limited frameReframe• Translate one-sided frames to address the concerns or

interests of multiple partiesOne-sided frameReframe


Different possibilities• Remove toxic, adversarial, or judgmental languageToxic frameReframe


WHO ENGAGES IN NEGOTIATIONS, AND HOW?

• Another cross-cutting issue in global and intercultural negotiations concerns the people who are involved and the roles they play.

• Within the same culture, the size, composition, and roles of negotiation teams differ depending on whether the matter at hand is personal or familial, commercial, communal, governmental, or in the realm of international diplomacy


Individual Negotiators or Teams

• Individual negotiators, each representing himself or herself• Individual negotiators, each representing larger entities, such as a

community, organization, company, government agency, or national government

• Multiple individuals, each representing themselves• Multiple individuals, each representing larger entities• Teams of two or more people, each representing a larger entity• Multiple teams, each representing a larger entity


Team Unity or Diversity• When teams are involved in negotiations, the situation becomes a bit more complex, and it

is important to determine how the team is composed and the dynamics within it.• The team may represent one group or organization and hold unified views regarding the

issues, needs, interests, and outcomes that will be under discussion.• The team may represent one group or organization, but individual members speak for

different parts of the entity (even rival units) and may have individual interests different from other members of their team.

• The team may represent an informal or formal coalition of individuals or groups whose members have fairly similar views regarding the negotiations and the issues. Examples are representatives of an environmental coalition or a business association or trade group.

• The team may be composed of representatives of an informal or formal coalition of individuals or groups, but the members do not represent a unity of views or interests regarding the issues to be addressed in negotiations.


Team Organization, Composition, Size, and Symmetry

• Team Organization and Decision Making. Teams representing national or organizational hierarchical cultures are usually organized in a similar manner, with a clear leader and other members in subservient positions


Team CompositionIssues involved in team composition include:• The formal position and status of team members• The personal or professional reputation and credibility of

members• The areas of expertise needed for the particular

negotiations• The personal style and perceived ability of individual

members to promote agreements


Additional Considerations Regarding Team Composition

• Age, gender, rank, status, and qualifications or expertise all exert an influence on the progress of deliberations,

• Symmetry Between the Position and Status of Negotiators Members of some cultures wish to deal with individuals or groups of equivalent rank in terms of organizational position, social status, or political influence

• Size of Negotiation Teams The size of these teams is influenced by culture, as well as the context of talks and the complexity of issues under discussion.


SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR COORDINATING TEAM

COMPOSITIONISSUES• Determine what the norms of your counterpart are likely to be

regarding the presence, level of authority, and involvement of decision makers in negotiations

• Identify the cultural norms for your culture and that of your counterpart regarding the size and composition of negotiation teams

• What are your cultural norms and those of your counterpart regarding the appropriateness, roles, and responsibilities of people of specific ages, genders, or status in negotiations?


SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR COORDINATING TEAM

COMPOSITIONISSUES

• Do the cultures draw strong distinctions or prohibitions regarding the acceptability of younger or older people (women/men, high/low status) engaging in specific negotiation activities?

• Decide if you want to adhere to your own norms or accommodate the norms of your counterpart. What impact might your decision have on the negotiation process?

• What are your cultural norms and those of your counterpart regarding the kind and levels of expertise expected in negotiations? Think about the kind of expertise that will be convincing to your counterpart.


POWER AND INFLUENCE• Power is the capacity to get what you want or get

something done. • Influence involves acts performed to change another’s

views or actions to achieve desired ends• Power comes in many forms—and each negotiator or

negotiation team possesses multiple kinds of power.


In order for power to work and achieve desired ends, negotiators must:

• Distinguish between actual power, which they already have and can exercise immediately, and potential power, which must be developed and cultivated before it can be used

• Develop the ability to mobilize their power and turn it into influence that can be used effectively

• Determine the costs and benefits of exercising different types of power and influence• Ascertain how much power or influence they will have to use for specific ends• Cultivate the will to use power when necessary• Select from among different sources of power to use at appropriate times to exert the

desired impact on a counterpart


Negotiations & Power• In the context of negotiations, the least effective sources of power

are position and coercion. • Positional power works only if the holder also possesses a number

of the other sources of power, such as perceived legitimate authority

• Coercive power is effective only if a party actually possesses it, is willing to use it, can overcome resistance from a counterpart that the use of force provokes, and has accurately assessed the ability of the counterpart to withstand the exercise of this form of power


Establishing and Managing Role, Authority,and Power Relationships

• Parties’ roles, rank, status, authority, and power relationships in relation to each other are often established even before talks begin.

• However, the first face-to-face meeting or meetings is often the place where power relationships and dynamics are exhibited and tested.

• Some parties are quite forceful, open, and explicit in projecting their power and exercising influence, while others prefer more subtle signals.


Establishing and Managing Role, Authority,and Power Relationships

• Personalities, the issues in question, the resources and power that each party has at their disposal, and cultural norms for addressing and handling these factors all affect how the parties interact and the means they use to achieve desired ends.


Ways to establish rank, status and power

• One-up or one-down behavior, gestures, or body language• Relationship-oriented statements that establish dominance

versus more egalitarian or cooperative relationships• Emotional and positional statements versus more

emotionally neutral statements.


SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR COORDINATION OF POWER AND

AUTHORITY ISSUES• Assess how important status, rank, authority, and power are to

you and your counterpart• Consider potential impacts of the use of power on the process of

negotiation and the likelihood of moving toward greater information exchange, option generation, or reaching an agreement

• If you decide that you need to engage in positioning or posturing consider ways of doing so that are less likely to cause resistance or damage potential positive working relationships



AUTHORITY ISSUES• Think about how long you want to posture before

beginning to share information with your counterpart about your interests and needs

• Try revealing some information about your interests, and see if your counterpart reciprocates

• If they persist in posturing, ask them whether the approach they are using is achieving desired results, and propose a shift to a more in-depth exploration of all parties’ issues, needs, and interests



AUTHORITY ISSUES• Determine what information you can share and at the

same time minimize potential risks to what you want to achieve


Conclusion• In every negotiation, there are those important topics that

are should be taken such as the culture of both parties, teams and the nature of negotiations to engage, knowing steps to be undertaken and processes based on the culture.

• It’s also important to frame and reframe so that statements make sense.

negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

Business