tx marketing ii: negotiation techniques - … marketing i: negotiation techniques 2 module three:...

TX Marketing II:

Negotiation Techniques

MODULE THREE: GENERAL NEGOTIATIONS ................................................................ 2

MODULE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 2

MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 3

KEY TERMS ......................................................................................................................... 4

LESSON 1: COOPERATION, CONFLICT AND NEGOTIATION ..................................... 12

LESSON 2: NEGOTIATION FUNDAMENTALS AND DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING ..... 33

LESSON 3: INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION .................................................................... 66

LESSON 4: HIGH-PRESSURE TACTICS AND ETHICS IN NEGOTIATIONS ................. 100

LESSON 5: COMMON PROBLEMS IN NEGOTIATIONS AND

REAL WORLD PRACTICE ............................................................................................. 131

2 TX Marketing II: Negotiation Techniques

Module Three: General Negotiations

Module Description

This module introduces the student to the strategy, structure, and common

problems of negotiation. Virtually anyone can profit from improving her or his

negotiation skills; since there is so much cooperative exchange in human life, we

regularly encounter situations in which we must bargain with someone else to get

what we want. Real estate professionals, whose livelihoods depend on negotiating

good deals for themselves and their clients, can benefit from studying negotiation

even more than most people.


This negotiation module is made up of five lessons:

Cooperation, Conflict, and Negotiation

Negotiation Fundamentals and Distributive Bargaining

Integrative Negotiation

High-Pressure Tactics and Ethics in Negotiation

Common Problems in Negotiation and Real Estate Practice

These lessons begin with basic ideas about conflict, move through detailed

discussion of negotiation strategy, and conclude with a real-world practice lesson in

which the student applies this new knowledge to examples and case studies.

Module Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this module, the student will be able to:

Explain why conflict is a common event in human life, and be able to describe

common responses to conflict.

Apply an understanding of conflict reactions to make judgments about which

response is appropriate in a particular conflict.

Describe the central role of concessions and commitments in negotiation.

Discover and evaluate the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.

Rank alternatives in terms of preference, and explain how these preferences

determine the scope of negotiation.

Name and apply some basic strategies for evaluating the offers made during

negotiation.

Explore basic considerations to prepare for negotiation.

Distinguish between the two common styles of negotiation, and make

judgments about which style is appropriate for a particular conflict.

Outline the central strategies of these negotiation methods, as well as the

demands each approach places on negotiators.


Spell out the purpose of high-pressure negotiating tactics, and give examples

of both the tactics themselves and strategies for managing the high-pressure

negotiator.

Apply an ethical standard in negotiations, and explain why unethical behavior

is a potential problem in negotiation.

State the common cognitive errors and psychological tendencies that are the

primary pitfalls of the negotiation process, and give details about the problems

these issues pose for negotiators.

Key Terms

Actor-Observer Error: This is a kind of attribution error in which we attribute our

own behavior to external causes (like bad luck or circumstance) while attributing

others’ actions to internal causes (like personality traits). This error often leads us to

excuse our own conduct while criticizing others who are behaving similarly.

Avoiding: This is a response to conflict which aims for non-engagement. Our goal is

not to get involved with the conflict at all; avoiding the conflict sometimes includes

making an effort to stay away from the other party.

BATNA: “BATNA” is an acronym which stands for “best alternative to negotiated

agreement.” Your BATNA is essentially your best backup plan, in case negotiation

fails or cannot provide an outcome above your bottom line. It is important to

understand your BATNA because it can help you decide whether negotiation is a

good choice for you, and it can help you determine what counts as a good offer in

negotiation.

Bargaining: Bargaining is the process of making offers, counteroffers, and tradeoffs

in the hopes of reaching a mutually acceptable solution. We often think of

negotiation and bargaining as the same thing, but bargaining is actually only one part

of the negotiation process.


Bargaining Mix: A negotiation rarely involves just one issue. The bargaining mix is

the collection of issues or goals involved in a particular negotiation, some of which

are generally more important than others.

Bargaining Range: The bargaining range is the area of potential agreement in

negotiation. It is determined by the “space” between negotiators’ bottom lines. For

example, imagine you are selling a car and your asking price is $12,000. If you won’t

take less than $10,000 for your car (your bottom line) and I won’t pay more than

$11,000 (my bottom line), then we have a bargaining range of $1,000. The spread

between $10,000 and $11,000 consists of prices that we would both find acceptable,

at least in principle.

Bottom Line: Your bottom line is the least appealing outcome you are willing to

accept from negotiation. It represents the greatest sacrifice of your interests that you

are willing to make before negotiation becomes a losing strategy for you. The bottom

line is sometimes also called the “resistance point,” since a negotiator will not readily

go beyond it.

Brainstorming: Brainstorming is a creative process for generating possible solutions

to a conflict. Rather than taking the conflict and possible outcomes as given,

brainstorming aims to help us rethink our situation. Generally the ultimate goal of

brainstorming is to create a solution that helps both parties to get more of the value

or benefit they want.

Cognitive bias: Cognitive biases are common ways we oversimplify information—or

fill in the missing parts of incomplete information—in order to make that information

manageable. However, these patterns of thought can lead us into errors and

misunderstandings when we are not thoughtful about the conclusions we draw from

them.


Collaborating: This is a response to conflict in which we try to work together to find

a way that we can both achieve our goals. Successful collaboration often requires

that we reconsider our situation and think creatively about alternatives we might not

have initially been willing to consider.

Commitment: A commitment is a tool for defining your position in negotiation. It

amounts to stating your position along with an assurance about your future behavior

relative to your demands in negotiation. For example, I make a commitment when I

say “If you do not give me a raise, I will quit” or “If you agree to give me a raise, I will

increase department revenues by 15%.” Commitments are effectively promises, and

should be honored in the same way. In addition, commitments with a negative

overtone (like the threat to quit, above) are often perceived by the other party as

threats, which can create further problems and conflicts in negotiation.

Competing: This is a response to conflict in which we see ourselves in a struggle with

the other party to divide a fixed amount of benefit or value. The competitive response

sees conflict as a zero-sum game; whatever one party gains is a loss for the other

side. When we react competitively, we choose to pursue our own interests at the

expense of the other party’s aims.

Compromising: This is a response to conflict in which we try to share gains and

losses between both parties. Each party agrees to modify his initial demands, so that

both parties can get some of what they want.

Concession: A concession is an offer made by one party to the other, in which she

suggests a decrease in her own benefits. Concessions generally amount to offering

some benefit or value to the other party, and are one of the main tools that move

negotiations toward a solution. They often take the form of tradeoffs, for example “I

will give up X if you will give up Y, or if you will give me Z instead.” The willingness to

make concessions is generally essential to productive negotiation.


Conflict: A conflict is a disagreement between two or more parties about how some

benefit or value should be divided. Conflict is not inherently bad; given that we are

interdependent creatures who frequently engage in cooperative projects, we should

assume that conflict is a natural part of human life.

Constructive Conflict: Conflict is constructive when it moves issues or relationships

forward in a respectful, positive way. It resolves conflicts instead of creating them,

and it generates solutions both parties can accept. Constructive conflict generally

focuses on the real subject of the conflict, and does not deploy strategies like threats

or personal criticism.

Destructive Conflict: Destructive conflict produces more problems than it solves. It

is generally highly divisive, because parties are personally identified with their

positions. Communication in such conflicts focuses on criticizing or blaming the other

party, and rather than building on common interests the negotiators use threats and

deception to achieve their goals.

Distributive Bargaining: Distributive bargaining is one of the two main approaches

to negotiation. It is a fundamentally competitive strategy for dividing up value or

benefit, and its basic goal is to push the other party as close to his or her bottom line

as far as possible so that you can capture a maximum amount of the contested value

or benefit for yourself.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations are criteria that help us decide

whether a negotiated solution is a morally good outcome. They tell us about whether

a particular outcome conforms to (or violates) ethical standards. We generally believe

that ethical considerations tell us about what we should do, and that these

considerations often override practical or prudential considerations. For example, if

I need money right now, it might be that stealing your money would be both the


easiest thing to do and the act that best serves my interests. However, we still do not

think that stealing your money is the right thing for me to do. The conclusion that it

is morally wrong provides me with a reason not to do it—a reason which overrides

the practical and prudential considerations in favor of the act.

Fundamental Attribution Error: When we make this mistake, we attribute behavior

to internal causes (like character traits or motives) rather than external ones (like luck

or circumstance), even when the cause is visibly external.

Halo Effect: The “halo effect” is the cognitive bias that leads me to draw general

conclusions about a person based on her or his specific traits. For example, research

has shown that people tend to assign positive personality traits to those they find

attractive. Clearly, there is no necessary connection between being handsome and

being a good person. Like stereotyping, halo effects are problematic because they

keep us from seeing the real facts about the other party.

High-pressure or “Hardball” Negotiation Tactics: High-pressure negotiation

tactics try to force the other party to accept an outcome that he or she would

normally reject. Strategies like deception and intimidation are often used to push the

other party to take offers at or below his or her bottom line. The high-pressure

approach can backfire badly when the other party later decides she or he has been

treated unfairly and will not honor the negotiated agreement, or seeks revenge.

Integrative Negotiation: Integrative negotiation is one of the two main approaches

to negotiation. It is a fundamentally collaborative strategy for dividing up value or

benefit, and its basic goal is to maximize the value or benefit available to both parties.

Interests: A negotiator’s interests are the goals or aims she or her wants to see

achieved in negotiation.


Maximal Demand: If you state the outcome you want most (your ideal objective) as

your opening position, then it is called your maximal demand because it represents

the most you think you can get from negotiation.

Negative Bargaining Range: There is no overlap between the outcomes the parties

will accept. For example, if we are dividing a pie and you want half of the pie while I

want three quarters—and neither party is willing to modify his demands—then there

is no possible outcome that can give both of us what we want.

Negotiation: Negotiation is a bargaining process between two or more parties who

believe they are in conflict, via which they try to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

This conflict can be a real clash between goals, or it can be merely an apparent clash

created by the way the various parties perceive their situation.

Negotiator: A negotiator is anyone who is working with the other side of a conflict

to reach a solution. Sometimes, the negotiators are the people or groups in conflict;

in other situations, there may be an individual or team who is appointed specifically

to manage a conflict for each side. Another possibility is appointing an impartial

negotiator to mediate between the two sides. In this course, the term “negotiator”

generally denotes someone involved in the conflict, not an impartial mediator.

Opening Position: Your opening position is your initial statement of what you want

from negotiation. Since it is made before interacting with the other party—and thus

before it is clear whether concessions will be necessary—it is often considerably

different from the actual outcome.

Outcome: An agreement reached via negotiation. This term is used interchangeably

with “result,” solution,” and “settlement.”


Positive Bargaining Range: When we have a positive bargaining range, this means

that there is “space” between the two parties’ bottom lines. There is a zone of

potential agreement in which we can find solutions that do not require either of us

to accept outcomes below our bottom lines. For example, if you are selling something

and I am willing to pay at least a bit more than the lowest offer you will accept, then

we can bargain with each other in that range between the most I will pay and the

least you will accept.

Practical Considerations: Practical considerations are a kind of criteria that help us

to decide whether a negotiated outcome is a good one. They include questions of

cost, time, efficiency, ease and the like. For a practical consideration to tell us

anything about what we should do, we must already have an interest in whatever

trait it tells us about. For example, if I am unconcerned about the cost of solving a

conflict, then the fact that one solution is the cheapest one is not relevant to me—it

tells me nothing about whether that solution would be a good one to pursue.

However, practical considerations alone cannot tell me everything I need to know to

assess a solution. I generally need the further information provided by prudential

and ethical considerations before I can make a final evaluation.

Prudential Considerations: Prudential considerations are a second kind of criteria

that help us to decide whether a negotiated outcome is a good one. They tell us about

how well (or poorly) an outcome serves our personal interests. For example,

prudential considerations are the sort of thing which tell me that jumping off a cliff

is probably not the best way to get to the bottom, even though that might be the

fastest way to get there. We generally assume that everyone wants to see her or his

personal goals achieved and her or his interests protected, and thus prudential

criteria are usually understood to give us some important information about what

we should or should not do. However, I generally need the further information

provided by prudential and ethical considerations before I can make a final

evaluation of an outcome.


Self-Serving Error: This is the third common attribution error, in which we conclude

that our successes should be explained by internal causes (i.e., we should get credit

for them), but our failures should be explained by external causes which are beyond

our control.

Stalemate: Negotiators have reached a stalemate when they find that negotiations

cannot move forward. Stalemates arise in many ways – for example, both parties

might stubbornly refuse to modify their positions, or they may feel they have

exhausted all possible options without reaching an agreement. “Stalemate” is used

interchangeably here with “impasse” and “deadlock.”

Stereotyping: When I stereotype someone, I take one piece of information about

him—the fact that he is member of a certain group—and then assign other traits and

features to him based on popular generalizations about that group. In essence, I use

one general feature about him to draw specific conclusions about his behavior and

motives. Stereotyping is problematic in negotiation because it often obscures the

actual information before us, thereby leading us to misunderstand the other party

and his goals.

Target or Ideal Objective: Your target or ideal objective is the outcome you most

want from a negotiation. It is your preferred alternative among those possible in

negotiation, and generally sets the upper limit on what you think you can achieve by

negotiating.

Yielding: This is a response to conflict in which one party chooses to postpone or

sacrifice her goal, thereby allowing the other party to achieve his goals. This method

of handling conflict is also sometimes called “accommodating,” a term which some

people believe has a more positive connotation.


Lesson 1: Cooperation, Conflict and Negotiation

Lesson Topics

This lesson focuses on the following topics:

Introduction

Cooperation and Negotiation

Constructive and Destructive Conflict

Conflict Responses

Responding to Conflict Appropriately

Negotiation as Conflict Management


Lesson Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

Explain why conflict is a common event in human life, and be able to describe

common responses to conflict.

Apply an understanding of conflict reactions to make judgments about which

response is appropriate in a particular conflict.

Describe and explain the different modes utilized to respond to conflict.

Determine the most appropriate response to respond in a conflict situation.

Utilize negotiation as method of managing conflict.

Introduction

This lesson will introduce you to the basics of conflict and conflict management.

Negotiation is a particular method of conflict management, so before we can

understand negotiation, we need to know some general facts about conflict and how

people respond to it.

Because other people’s goals often differ from our own, we can come into conflict

with them when we are living or working together. These conflicts are not always a

bad thing; they can often teach us important things about ourselves and others.

Working through a conflict can sometimes help the people involved in a

disagreement to understand one another better, and this increased understanding

can facilitate problem-solving and improve our future interactions in many other

ways. Instead of believing that conflict is wholly negative, we would do better to think

of conflict as a fact of human life and to learn how to handle it accordingly.

The way we deal with conflict can have far-reaching effects on our relationships with

the other parties in the conflict, as well as on our reputations and on other things we

value. We can thus help both ourselves and others by developing a more thoughtful

stance toward conflict.


We can also become more skilled at dealing with conflict by cultivating our

understanding of how people respond to conflict and why they tend to react in

certain ways.

Upon completion of this lesson, you will know why conflict is a common feature of

cooperative relationships, and you will be able to identify and describe some of the

ways people frequently react to conflict situations. In addition, you will begin

developing standards for determining the best way to respond to a particular

conflict. You will also recognize the role emotional and psychological factors play in

our responses to conflict. Lastly, you will begin to develop an understanding of how

negotiation can work to resolve conflicts. Later lessons will expand on this

understanding and explain the actual process of negotiation more fully.

Cooperation and Negotiation

Negotiation aims at creating mutually acceptable solutions for individuals (or groups

of individuals) who find themselves in conflict. Those whose interests or aims are at

odds with our own are those with whom we may choose to negotiate. This sort of

situation presents itself in many aspects of our lives, such as work, family, social

relationships, and commerce. Any time we encounter a conflict of interest and

choose to work toward a solution—rather than simply giving in or walking away—we

are engaged in some sort of negotiation process.

The centerpiece of any negotiation process is usually a progressive exchange of

provisional offers and counteroffers, in which each party attempts to shape her

position into something the other party will accept. Offers and proposals do not

determine outcomes until they are deemed mutually agreeable. Because it works in

this way, negotiation is not a method for dictating solutions to the other party. It is

generally understood to be a more democratic approach, since solutions must be

accepted by all parties.


The negotiation process is carried out by negotiators. A “negotiator” is anyone who

is working with the other side of a conflict to reach a solution. Sometimes, the

negotiators are the people or groups in conflict; in other situations, there may be an

individual or team who is appointed specifically to manage a conflict for each side.

Another possibility is appointing an impartial negotiator to mediate between the two

sides. Although relatively few of us are negotiation coaches or consultants, we all

have experience negotiating with other people.

Experience with negotiation is very common because human beings are

interdependent creatures, that is, we generally need other people’s help and

resources to achieve many of our aims. In addition, when interdependent individuals

are working together on a project, one person’s objective often conflicts with the

goals other parties may have for that same project. We cannot achieve everything

we want on our own, but neither can we have everything our own way when we are

cooperating with other people, since they have goals and interests of their own just

like we do.

Even though interdependence and cooperation often lead to conflict, most people

feel that the benefits of working collaboratively with others are quite significant.

Living and working in isolation would mean doing without cooperative achievements

like medicine, public libraries, and the symphony. Since most of us choose to live and

work together, it’s essential that we find fair and effective ways to manage the

conflicts that are sure to arise. Negotiation aims to help us achieve this end.

Negotiation is a decision-making process, but it is also social process. It is not a

simple formula that will solve our conflicts for us. Instead, effective negotiation

requires that we understand our own motives, interests and alternatives, as well as

those of the other party. In addition, we need to have some sense of the errors we

are likely to make and the problems we are likely to encounter during negotiation.

The initial difficulty we face as negotiators is determining how to understand and


react constructively to our conflict, a challenge that is made more complicated by our

tendency to misunderstand the causes of other people’s behavior.

Constructive and Destructive Conflict

We often think of conflict as a negative thing; as it’s popularly used, the term tends

to suggest wars and loud arguments.

But it is really something much more neutral: conflict is simply what happens any

time two (or more) parties clash over the division of some value or benefit. Someone

working cooperatively cannot reasonably expect to claim all value or benefit for

herself, but at the same time we all tend think it is very important that we achieve

our goals (i.e., get value or benefit for ourselves). Therefore we should not be at all

surprised that conflict occurs regularly.

Not all conflict is problematic or harmful. For example, if two friends are discussing

where to have dinner and one wants Italian food while the other wants Thai food,

then their goals are clearly in conflict. However, this does not mean that they are

angry, or that they are fighting. Similarly, even more heated conflict can sometimes

be constructive and productive; here we might think of something like lively civic

debate that results in shifting public spending from one project to another.

Conflict is constructive when it moves issues or relationships forward in a respectful,

positive way. A constructive disagreement can, for example, help people to

understand one another, or help to allot resources in a way that allows the conflicted

parties to get along better. We should note, though, that constructive conflict does

not require a particular outcome.

In striving to make our conflicts constructive, the critical issue is the way the

negotiators react to one another as they try to resolve the conflict. This matters far

more than what the conflict is about or which solution we choose.


Even though some conflicts can be productive and constructive, it remains true that

others can be very damaging. In negotiation, the way the negotiators interact often

makes the difference between a constructive conflict and a destructive one.

Destructive conflict is generally characterized by some combination of the following

features:

Parties are frustrated and resentful, and these feelings are directed at the

other party.

Communication is focused on criticizing or blaming the other party.

Each party is closely identified with her position, obscuring the real issues at

stake and making the conflict highly personalized.

Parties see their positions as radically opposed; rather than looking for

commonalities and possible avenues of agreement they focus on their

differences.

Instead of looking for ways to move forward in negotiation, frustrated and

antagonistic negotiators resort to threats and deception in an effort to achieve

their goals.

Destructive conflict often ends unhappily. For example, most of us have been

involved in situations where clashing goals led to harsh words and personal attacks.

This kind of conflict is destructive because it leaves one party discouraged and upset,

and less inclined engage in future cooperative projects with the other person or

group. Effective negotiation offers us a way to avoid these negative outcomes, but

first we need to know more about our interpretations of others’ behavior and our

reactions to conflict.


Attribution Errors and Destructive Conflict

Whenever we observe other people’s behavior, we engage in a complex interpretive

process in which we try to make sense of their behavior by finding its cause. These

causes are either internal (within the person being observed – in personality or

motivations, for example) or external (outside the person – like luck or the influence

of others). Human beings have a strong need to attach meaning to other people’s

behavior – that is, we will generally not be satisfied that we understand someone’s

actions unless we have an adequate causal explanation. This tendency carries over

into conflict situations.

The way we understand others’ behavior is important to negotiation because

conflicts generally require us to make sense of other people’s actions. When other

people’s interests conflict with ours, we generally come to know this through their

conduct; similarly, we interpret their behavior during the conflict to get an idea of

what they want and what they are willing to do to get it.

All of this interpretation would not be a worry if we were always adept at determining

the causes of others’ behavior. Unfortunately, we are not. Instead, our thinking leads

us to make three common mistakes when deciding why other people act the way

they do. This diagram identifies each of these errors.

COMMON INTERPRETIVEERRORS

Fundamental Attribution

Error

Actor-Observer Error

Self-ServingError


Fundamental Attribution Error: We make this mistake when we attribute behavior

to internal causes (like character traits or motives) rather than external ones (like luck

or circumstance), even when the cause is visibly external. For example, I commit the

Fundamental Attribution Error when I decide that my mother yelled at me because

she is an unreasonable, tyrannical person while overlooking the fact that she is

clearly overworked lately.

Actor-Observer Error: This mistake consists in attributing our own behavior to

external causes while we attribute others’ actions to internal causes. This error often

leads us to excuse our own conduct while criticizing others who are behaving

similarly. Expanding on the example above, I could commit the Actor-Observer Error

by deciding that my mother yells because she is mean, but when I yell at my brother

it’s because he is provoking me. Here, her behavior is explained in terms of an

internal cause (a character defect) for which she is responsible, while mine is

attributed to an external cause (my brother’s disobedience) and is thus not my fault.

Self-Serving Error: I make the Self-Serving Error when I decide that my successes

should be explained by internal causes, but my failures should be explained by

external causes. Here, I take credit for things that go well, but blame things that go

badly on external factors beyond my control. I yelled at my brother because he is

disobedient, but when he and I get along well it is because I am fun-loving and kind.

We should understand that these errors are not produced by character flaws. It is

not just conceited or inattentive people who make these mistakes. We all do this.

These inaccurate interpretations arise from the way the human mind generally

works. However, if we are willing to do some extra thinking we can often get past

these defective views of others’ behavior.

The simplest thing we can do to overcome these errors is make a special effort to be

aware of the external causes of others’ behavior. Rather than assuming we know


things about other people’s character and motivations, we should look at the

external factors involved in the situation. We can often ask the other party about

these factors, as well. Likewise, we should try to be fair and responsible in evaluating

the causes of our own behavior instead of simply explaining it in whatever way we

find most flattering to our self-image.

Our attributions have an enormous influence on how we perceive and react to others’

behavior. My belief that you took my book because you are greedy creates a much

different reaction from my belief that you took it because you thought it needed to

go back to the library. Our attributions have similar broad effects on how we see

ourselves and how we think others should react to our conduct.

Because attribution errors involve making assumptions about others’ motives and

reasoning, it is not difficult to see how they can lead to destructive conflict or cause

a constructive conflict to devolve into a destructive one. Most destructive conflict

situations can be averted or improved by making a genuine effort to understand the

other person’s position; striving for this deeper understanding is useful even in

constructive conflicts.

We need to understand the real causes of a conflict before we can figure out what

counts as an appropriate reaction to it. Likewise, we need this deeper understanding

before we can determine how to resolve it. Given that these common attribution

errors often lead us away from the true causes, we cannot accept our own analyses

of the other party’s behavior at face value. We should always consider—and try to

correct for—the possible influence of these errors when we are deciding how to

respond to a conflict.


Conflict Responses

Imagine that I have a car you want to buy, but you believe my asking price of $12,000

is too high. You have suggested an alternative price of $10,500. Our goals are thus in

conflict: I want a certain amount of money for my car, but you do not want to pay my

asking price.

There are a variety of ways each of us could respond in this situation. Initial reactions

will largely be determined by how each party judges the importance of achieving her

or his own goals, in combination with the importance she or he attributes to other

person’s goals. Five general responses arise out of these basic considerations:

1. Yielding

2. Avoiding

3. Compromising

4. Collaborating

5. Competing

We should be thoughtful about how we first react to a conflict, because this initial

response will set the stage for any future bargaining or negotiation between us.

Yielding

If I choose to yield in a conflict situation, this means that I choose to agree to your

demands without further discussion. The party who yields believes that it is more

important to satisfy the other person’s goals than her own, so she sets her own

interests aside and focuses on accommodating the other party’s interests. Follow the

example below to see how yielding works in our conflict over the price of my car.

EXAMPLE: In our car example, I could yield by simply accepting the price you have

offered for my car, despite the fact that I really did want my full asking price.


There are many reasons I might yield; for example, I might be in a hurry to sell my

car because I am moving, and decide that it is better to take a somewhat

disappointing offer than to risk getting no other offers at all.

This method of handling conflict is also sometimes called “accommodating,” a term

that some people feel has a more positive connotation.

Avoiding

If I choose to avoid a conflict, I have chosen to simply walk away or skip the issue

entirely. In this situation, I have decided that achieving my goal is not important

enough to justify dealing with any kind of conflict. Similarly, I have decided that I do

not care enough about seeing your goal achieved that I am willing to clash with you

over it. Read the example below to see how avoiding works in our conflict over the

price of my car.

EXAMPLE: In our conflict over the price of my car, I could avoid the conflict by telling

you I will think about your offer, and then just drop the discussion. Again, there are

many reasons I might choose to react in this way; for example, I might decide that it’s

just not that important to me whether I sell the car right now, so I am unwilling to

expend time and energy wrangling with you over the price.

Notice that yielding and avoiding are similar because both responses indicate that I

am not very concerned about achieving my own goal. They differ in the importance I

assign to achieving the other party’s goal—yielding suggests that I see the other

party’s goal as quite important (possibly because her achieving it helps me in some

way, too), whereas avoiding suggests that I am not particularly concerned about

whether she achieves her aim.


Compromising

By responding to a conflict by compromising, I show that I have a roughly equal level

of concern about both my own goals and the other party’s goals.

However, I am not necessarily concerned that either of us gets exactly what we

initially said we want. That is, compromise is a reaction that says “Maybe we can both

get something good from this project if we modify our objectives.” Compromise is a

familiar strategy from our own lives. Read the example below to see how

compromising works in our conflict over the price of my car.

EXAMPLE: One way I might compromise in our conflict over the price of my car would

be to suggest that we meet each other halfway, i.e., to suggest you pay me $11, 250

so that we split the difference between my $12,000 asking price and the $10,500 price

you’ve proposed. By reacting to this conflict with compromise, I make it clear that

while I want to achieve some version of my own aim, I am also willing to modify that

aim to (at least somewhat) to help you achieve your objective, too.

We should note, though, that someone who is compromising is not (necessarily)

yielding. I may only be willing to compromise on the price of the car up to a certain

point, for example, and if you insist on a price below that point, I may decide not to

deal with you at all. The compromising party is moderately concerned to see both

parties’ goals realized, but she is not so concerned that she is willing to ignore her

own interests entirely.

Collaborating

Collaborating is an effort to maximize the outcomes for both parties. If I choose to

collaborate, I judge it to be quite important that both parties achieve their stated

aims and I am willing to work with the other party to find an inventive solution that

brings us both closer to achieving our stated goals. A collaborative response to

conflict requires that both parties be motivated to engage in (sometimes extensive)


discussion of the conflict, and that they be willing to consider creative and unusual

solutions to their problem.

Even though collaborative solutions can be complex and difficult to forge,

collaborating is still an appealing response to conflict because it allows both parties

to achieve much—sometimes all—of what they want from a conflict.

Read the example below to see how collaborating works in our conflict over the price

of my car.

EXAMPLE: Our car example is a bit oversimplified to illustrate collaboration well, but

we can still imagine a collaborative solution here. I want $12,000 for my car, and you

want a car for $10,500. It’s clear that we cannot get what we want from one another.

However, it might be the case that I can find someone who has a suitable car he

would sell you for the price you desire, and you know someone who would buy my

car for my asking price. Working together in this way, we can devise an outcome that

provides both of us with our desired aim.

It is admittedly a bit unlikely that we could solve our car conflict this simply. Still, this

example captures the fact that collaboration requires work and creativity from both

parties. It also illustrates the way successful collaboration requires that negotiators

approach problem-solving as a joint project.

Competing

When I react to a conflict by competing, I feel achieving my own aim is very important,

but I assign considerably less importance to achieving your goal. In effect, my

reaction here is an effort to make you yield, or to persuade you to come as close to

yielding you will. If I react to the conflict in this way, I am not (genuinely) interested in

your counteroffers or the reasons you have for making those counteroffers. I am


primarily interested in achieving my own goals—I “win” this competition by getting

you to give up at least a significant part of your aim.

Read the example below to see how competing works in our conflict over the price

of my car.

EXAMPLE: Reacting competitively means that I would respond to the conflict over

the price of my car by trying to get you to pay my asking price, or at least getting you

to pay as much of it as I can. I might try to woo you with friendly talk about what a

great deal I am offering you, or I might try to browbeat you with claims that you

clearly have no idea what my car is worth—in both cases, I would be trying to

encourage you to give up your goal of a cheaper car in favor of my goal of getting a

higher price.

Note

The five responses to conflict discussed here are

adapted from The Managerial Grid, R.R. Blake and J.S. Moulton

(Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1964) and from K.W. Thomas and

R.H. Kilman’s Conflict Mode Instrument (Tuxedo, NY: XICOM, 1974).

These are the five basic ways people react to conflict. The response we choose

influences how the other party reacts to us. However, our response can also

determine whether negotiation can perform any meaningful function in this

particular conflict. If one party chooses to yield in a conflict or to avoid it entirely,

then there is no scope for further bargaining or discussion—that is, there is no place

for negotiation. In these cases, the only purpose of negotiating would be to try to

convince the person who yields or avoids that she should respond differently.

Compromising, collaborating, and competing, however, leave ample room for

negotiation and discussion.


Responding to Conflict Appropriately

It is not the case that one of these ways of reacting to conflict is right while the others

are wrong. Depending on the parties involved and the issues at stake in the conflict,

any one of them may be an appropriate response.

In addition, it may be that one kind of response is a good choice at a certain stage of

a conflict, while a different response becomes appropriate at a later point in the same

conflict because the issues have shifted or evolved.

Responding appropriately is a matter of sensitively considering the context and

character of the disagreement, as well as the relationships between the parties

involved.

Read the corresponding information for the circles below to learn more about the

general contexts in which a particular response is a good or bad choice.

Yielding: If the central issue in our conflict matters a great deal to the other party

but is not important to me, I might reasonably choose to yield. This approach

provides the other party with his desired outcome and saves me the time and effort

of negotiating.

Selecting your

response to conflict

Yield

Avoid

CompeteCollaborate

Compromise


In addition, yielding now might “buy” me future goodwill—that is, if I am

accommodating in this conflict, he might be more inclined to yield to me in some

future conflict.

However, if the issue matters a great deal to me, then it would probably be a mistake

to yield, since I will feel that I have given up something very important and gotten

nothing in return—an outcome which is likely to have negative effects on my future

interactions with the other party.

Avoiding: If the conflict is over something trivial, or I am concerned that confronting

the other party will have broad negative results for me, then avoiding a conflict may

well be a prudent course of action. But if leaving the conflict unresolved will cause it

to grow worse, or if I am the only person who can address the conflict, then avoiding

the conflict would be a mistake.

Compete: If the conflict must be resolved quickly, or if one party’s goal is simply

unacceptable (for example, if her aim is to do something unethical), then a

competitive response may be the best one. But if both parties are equally able to

pressure each other, or the issue is complicated, then responding competitively is

unlikely to be effective.

Collaborate: If a conflict is very complicated and I cannot solve it alone, collaborating

is often a good option. But if we need a quick solution, or I feel that the other party

doesn’t care about my goals, then collaborating is probably not a wise choice.

Compromise: If both parties simply cannot attain their stated ends simultaneously—

for example, if I want half of a pie and you want three-quarters of that same pie—

the situation is one in which compromise would be an appropriate response.


Some conflicts are too complex for the parties to simply “split the difference”

between their desired ends; compromise is probably not a good approach in these

cases.

The situations described in the diagram do not cover every context in which a

particular response is appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, they aim to give you a

sense of how what counts as an appropriate response is determined by the character

of the conflicted parties and the character of the conflict itself.

Emotional and Psychological Influences Affecting Response to Conflict

The previous discussion has focused on the ways that the facts of a conflict can help

us to determine how we should respond to it. However, there are also subtle

emotional and psychological influences that affect how people react to conflict.

Whatever we think of them, these influences play a role in nearly every conflict and

negotiation process; eliminating these factors is not an option.

We saw earlier that response to conflict is largely determined by how each party

judges the importance of achieving her own goals, in combination with the

importance she attributes to other person’s goals. Emotional and psychological

influences play a significant role in my decisions about what goals are important and

why, regardless of whether those goals belong to me or to someone else. This does

not mean that these influences are the “real” subject matter of conflict and

negotiation—they are not, since the central issue of our disagreement is dividing the

value or benefit that brought us into conflict in the first place. Instead, the point is

that these influences often motivate us to respond to our conflict in certain ways.

Because this is so, we should be aware of how these influences can affect both

ourselves and others. Such awareness can help us to understand both our own

position and the other party’s stance more clearly.


In addition, these influences can lead both parties to react in a way that is at odds

with what they know about the facts of a conflict; being sensitive to them helps us to

keep our reactions in line with our rational understanding of the problem. If we are

ignorant of these influences, or make no effort to correct for them, then they can

push both parties to react in ways they would rather avoid.

So while it is extremely important to understand the rational facts of a conflict, we

must also think about other issues:

What is each party’s level of comfort with conflict in general, and how

comfortable is each party with this particular conflict?

What kind of affection or animosity exists between the two parties?

How much does each party trust the other?

What preconceptions or prejudices might affect the parties’ understanding of

each other and their respective positions?

Are there background factors that might be behind each party’s desire to “win”

in this conflict—that is, is there more at stake for one or both parties than is

immediately apparent from the facts of the conflict? For example, would one

party lose the respect of her coworkers if she failed to achieve her goal?

These concerns are complex, and these factors play a different role in each

negotiation. When someone reacts in an unexpected way, this is one place we might

look for information about his response; we can also often ask the other party about

these issues, as long as we do so in a thoughtful and diplomatic fashion. For example,

rather than saying “Why don’t you trust me?” we could instead say “I’m getting the

feeling that you’re somewhat uncomfortable sharing information with me. I feel the

same way. Do you think we might discuss this before we start negotiating?”

We must recognize the influence of emotional and psychological factors because

they are at work in nearly all conflicts from the very beginning. They affect our initial


response, and they shape the way we negotiate about our problems amongst

ourselves as well as the way we respond to external negotiation efforts.

Negotiation as Conflict Management

All of the responses to conflict discussed earlier have the potential to go wrong.

Reacting inappropriately can intensify a conflict because it can irritate and provoke

the other parties rather than pacifying them; inappropriate responses also have the

potential to create new conflicts, compounding the one we were originally trying to

address. This is easy to see if we imagine one party who responds by avoiding the

conflict while the other party reacts competitively.

The person who avoids the conflict walks away from it, suggesting that the issue is

unimportant; this makes the competitive person feel angry and disrespected since

the issue is very important to her.

This does not mean, though, that the proper way to handle a conflict is simply for

both parties to match their responses to one another. The problem in the previous

example lies in the way the competitive party interprets the avoiding party’s response.

The person who wants to avoid the conflict can still do so, but she needs to do this

in a way that does not make the other party feel slighted—otherwise all she has done

is create an additional conflict while leaving the original problem unresolved. Instead,

she should help the other party understand her response accurately. She might, for

example, try to explain clearly why she wants to avoid the conflict, including an

explicit statement saying that her response is not meant to trivialize the other party’s

concerns.

When you leave it wholly up to the other party to make sense of your position in a

conflict, you essentially invite him to misunderstand your stance.


You want to make it easy for the other party to agree with what you are saying and

simple for him to agree to your offers. The belief that the other party’s view of your

position is “his problem” or “not your concern” does not help with these goals at all.

Instead it is likely to lead to further misapprehensions and additional conflicts,

especially in cases where the two parties have an ongoing relationship. Reacting in

an inappropriate way is one way of mishandling a conflict, but refusing to do the

work that is needed to make your position as clear as possible is certainly another.

Mishandling a conflict in either or both of these ways is the first step toward making

it a destructive conflict.

Destructive conflict is what negotiation tries to avoid; it is considered a method of

conflict management because it seeks to stop destructive conflicts in their tracks, and

to keep constructive conflicts from escalating into destructive conflicts. Negotiation

works to clarify a conflict, to determine possible solutions to that conflict, and to find

a course of action that allows all parties to feel their goals have been acknowledged

and they have been treated fairly.

This does not mean that good or successful negotiation aims at making sure

everyone gets exactly what they would most like to have. Negotiation seeks to find a

solution that everyone can accept, and which will thus allow them to continue

enjoying the benefits of working cooperatively.

Click here to view and print an activity in which you can identify different elements

of a conflict.

Lesson Summary

Conflict is a central feature of human life because many of our goals require us to

work and live cooperatively. Because we are interdependent creatures, we often find

ourselves interacting with people or groups who have aims that are different from

our own. This tension between our interests gives rise to conflict.


We should remember that not all conflict is negative or problematic, and even strong

clashes between goals can be productive if we respond to them appropriately.

Reacting to conflict in the proper way requires that we understand our basic options

for responding (yielding, avoiding, compromising, collaborating, and competing), and

that we think carefully about the character of the dispute and the individuals involved

to determine which kind of response is best suited to a particular disagreement.

When we are making decisions about how to react, we should be sure that we

actually understand the issues to which we are reacting. We need to grasp what it is

that’s causing our conflict, that is, what the contested benefit or value actually is and

why it’s contested.

We also need to understand the other party’s response, since this helps us to

determine our own reactions both before and during negotiation.

In particular, we need to be aware of making attribution errors; understanding our

situation accurately requires that we avoid falling into these common—but

mistaken—ways of interpreting the causes of others’ behavior.

In addition to knowing what specific features of a conflict make a response

appropriate, we must also be sensitive to the psychological and emotional factors

operating in the background that motivate people to react to conflict in certain ways.

There are many subtle influences that guide the way we handle conflicts, and an

awareness of them can help us to make sense of behaviors that might otherwise

seem puzzling or purposely antagonistic. If a conflict is to have a productive outcome

for both parties, it should be managed thoughtfully and carefully from the very

beginning. Our initial responses to a conflict set the stage for later negotiation and

bargaining, whether we negotiate the issue ourselves or get outside help resolving

the issue.


Lesson 2: Negotiation Fundamentals and

Distributive Bargaining

Lesson Topics


Introduction

Basic Perspectives for Negotiation

Preferences: Evaluating and Ranking Outcomes

Concessions and Commitments

Planning and Preparing for Negotiation

Introduction to Distributive Bargaining

Tactics and Strategy in Distributive Bargaining

.............................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.




Describe the central role of concessions and commitments in negotiation.

Discover and evaluate the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.

Compare alternatives in terms of preference, and explain how these

preferences determine the scope of negotiation.

Effectively utilize the tactics of distributive bargaining in controlling

information and influencing the opponent.

Describe the strategies used in distributive bargaining.

Introduction

This lesson will introduce you to distributive bargaining, which is one of the two basic

approaches to the negotiation process. Before we can really understand distributive

bargaining, though, we need to explore some concepts that are fundamental to

negotiation in general. For this reason, this lesson begins by discussing preferences

and outcomes.

No matter how we approach negotiation, it remains true that each party attaches

certain values to the various possible solutions—that is, each party ranks and

evaluates her outcomes. To understand both our own position and that of the other

party, it helps to have some sense of how our various preferences interrelate. We

should attach particular importance to one particular outcome: our best alternative

to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This outcome, and where it fits in our spectrum

of preferences, matters a great deal because it is the standard by which we judge

whether we should engage in negotiation, and how we should judge its possible

outcomes.

Similarly, we need some preliminary understanding of concessions and

commitments because these are the basic tools we use to get from one position to

another in negotiation.


Concessions are the changes we make to our initial position in a conflict—they are

the benefits we relinquish in an effort to get something else we want. Commitments

are statements about alternatives that we cannot or will not accept; they are

generally declarations about how far we are willing to go in making concessions. A

very strong commitment, for example, might take the form “If you won’t offer me a

higher salary, I will quit.”

After discussing these more basic issues, the lesson moves on to an in-depth

examination of distributive bargaining. This is a fundamentally competitive approach

to negotiation. A distributive bargainer aims to capture for herself as much as

possible of the contested value or benefit in a conflict; she does this primarily

through controlling information within the conflict and trying to influence her

opponent’s perception of what it is feasible or desirable for him to achieve as a result

of the conflict.

The ultimate object of distributive bargaining is to push one’s opponent as close to

yielding as possible—to get a maximum amount of benefit or value for yourself while

giving your opponent the minimum outcome you can get him to accept. Distributive

bargaining can produce quick solutions, especially if one party can exert strong

pressure on the other. However, this approach sometimes lends itself to an

aggressive, bullying tone, which makes many people uncomfortable and incline

people to accept solutions to which they do not genuinely wish to agree

Upon completion of this lesson, you will know the basic structure and operation of

preferences in a negotiation process. You will also be able to identify and evaluate

your BATNA, and know how to use it to decide when to stay in a negotiation and

when to leave. In addition, you will be able to describe the role of concessions and

commitments in the negotiation process. Beyond this background material, you will

be able to determine when a negotiator is using distributive bargaining.


You will also be able to describe the basic tactics and strategy of distributive

bargaining, as well as some of its prominent drawbacks.

Basic Perspectives for Negotiation

In Lesson 1, we noted that only certain approaches to conflict actually leave room for

negotiation. Yielding and avoiding effectively close the discussion, but if we respond

competitively or collaboratively, then we can still discuss options for how each of us

might reach our goals. In addition, relatively few instances of non-trivial conflict

prompt people to react by yielding or avoiding. Most individuals want to see their

goals achieved, and this means that the parties to a conflict between goals will not

generally be inclined to yield or avoid. Much more likely responses are pressing to

see one’s own goal achieved (competing) or making an effort to see if there is a way

both goals can be achieved (collaborating).

Because collaborating and competing are the most likely responses, and because

they are the approaches most likely to produce results from a conflict, these are the

perspectives that define the two basic theoretical models of negotiation.

The distributive bargaining model operates from a competitive perspective; the

integrative negotiation model—which will be treated in detail in the next lesson—

focuses on collaboration. Compromise does not define a particular model because it

is not generally a place where people begin negotiation; instead it is seen as a

response or strategy that may emerge during either a competitive or a collaborative

negotiation process.

In their discussions of distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation, some

writers on negotiation favor one approach in all cases; others believe that a

negotiator should choose between the approaches on a case-by-case basis,

depending on the features of a particular negotiation.


These strategies are not mutually exclusive, and some negotiations might involve

both methods at different points in the process. Over the next two lessons, we will

look at the particulars of these approaches; we will also compare their advantages

and drawbacks, and explore some ideas about how one perspective might be better

suited to a particular situation.

Before we can really understand the details of either of these two positions, however,

we need to understand the background material that is common to both methods.

Specifically, we need to clarify some general ideas about how people understand and

evaluate their preferences, and we need to appreciate the role of concessions and

commitments in negotiation.

Preferences: Evaluating and Ranking Outcomes

We need to begin our discussion of negotiation by talking about preferences because

no matter how we respond to conflict and regardless of what negotiation model we

choose, it remains true that each party to a negotiated conflict has preferences —i.e.,

she attaches certain values to the various possible outcomes. We can think of each

party as having a spectrum of preferences that ranges from her target or ideal

objective (the outcome she would most like to achieve) to her bottom line (the

outcome she wants the least).

The bottom line is also sometimes called the “resistance point,” since it indicates a

point at which that party no longer sees negotiation as a winning strategy—she will

resist any outcome that does not satisfy her bottom line.

There may be any number of potentially acceptable outcomes between any party’s

ideal objective and his bottom line. If only my ideal objective is acceptable to me,

then my target and my bottom line are the same; if this is true, I am likely to be rather

inflexible in our negotiations. However, it might instead be that there are many

options I would accept, as long as they were presented to me in the proper way.


The negotiation process itself will do much to reveal information about parties’ ideals

and bottom lines, as well as about how much “space” lies between those points on

their spectrum of preferences.

Identifying and Evaluating Your Best Alternative to Negotiation

In addition to his ideal and his bottom line, each party should consider his best

alternative to a negotiated agreement—a concept sometimes abbreviated as

BATNA.

NOTE: The term “BATNA” was coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In.

For example, if I am job hunting and I enter into negotiations with Company B about

my salary, it’s important for me to know what my options are if we cannot or do not

reach an acceptable agreement. Is there another employer with whom I might

negotiate instead? Would I choose simply to stay at my present job? In short, if for

some reason these negotiations don’t work out, what it my best alternative? I need

to think about these before I enter into negotiation because a good understanding of

my BATNA helps me to see clearly when and whether I should decide to abandon a


You can determine your BATNA via the following steps:

1. First, think creatively about your options: if the negotiation does not turn out

as you would like, what are your alternative courses of action? List as many as

you can come up with, making an effort to think creatively and to consider

possibilities you might have previously rejected.

2. Second, critically evaluate this list of options: Which of them are real

possibilities and which are just wishes or vague hopes? Prune your list so that

it includes only those options you believe are real possibilities.


3. Third, determine what steps are needed to make these more practical options

into realities. Look at those steps and see if they are themselves feasible and

realistic. For example, if one of your options requires you to further your

education, think about whether that is something you can afford to do. Prune

your list again so that it includes only practical alternatives which you can bring

about with the time and resources you currently have.

4. Fourth, from this refined list select the alternative that you find most

appealing. Keep in mind that there are many different factors that could make

one alternative the best. For example you might prefer the one that can be

brought about most quickly, the one that can be done most cheaply, or the

one that can be done most easily. The criteria you use to make your choice are

up to you.

Remember that your BATNA must be a real alternative: it must be something you can

actually do. If it is not, or if you have not taken the time to determine whether it is,

then you will often be risking a great deal by depending on it in negotiation. In

addition, it is often prudent to spend some time working to improve one’s BATNA

before entering negotiation, since it is difficult to foresee exactly how any negotiation

process will turn out.

Each party’s BATNA is important because it can have an enormous influence on what

is viewed as an acceptable negotiation outcome. Returning to the salary negotiation

example, let’s imagine that I am interested in Company B primarily because they are

located close to my home.

However, I also have a job offer from Company A; this company is farther away, but

the job includes a salary higher than that offered by Company B. I have decided that

I will only take the job with Company B if I can persuade them to offer me a similar

salary. In this situation, my BATNA is accepting a job with Company A.


Since I have this other offer already, it would be nice for me if negotiations with

Company B produced a salary matching that offered by Company A but it is by no

means necessary that they do so. I have an attractive alternative no matter what

happens in my negotiations with Company B. This may mean that I am less likely to

offer any kind of compromise in my negotiations with Company B.

If, on the other hand, I currently have no job and I have no other offers, then I cannot

afford to be so choosy about which outcomes I will accept from Company B. If my

BATNA here is “no job or income at all,” then I will probably be much more flexible

about the results I will accept from this process.

As you can see, having a good BATNA increases the strength of my bargaining

position. If I can reject unfavorable outcomes because I have a better alternative

waiting somewhere else, then I am unlikely to feel pressured to accept offers that do

not come close to my ideal objective. If I am to get the best result I can from any

negotiation process, then I must be able to decide accurately whether a negotiated

agreement that is unappealing in some ways is better than no agreement at all.

Thoughtful consideration of my own preferences and BATNA will give me a better

understanding of what I hope to get from negotiation. However, it is usually more

difficult to obtain knowledge about other parties’ preferences and BATNA. Unless

they choose to give this information to me directly, my understanding of their

position will largely be indirect, based on my inferences about their actions and

statements. Nonetheless, knowledge about their alternatives and how they see them

can be very useful to me because it can help me to identify which options they will

actually see as potential solutions. If I know what their aims are and what options are

unacceptable to them, I can better tailor my own contributions to the negotiation

process. There are two main methods by which we achieve this “tailoring:”

concessions and commitments.


Concessions and Commitments

Concessions

Like preferences, concessions are another topic that is largely shared by distributive

bargaining and integrative negotiation. A concession is a change we make to our

initial position in a conflict—it is an offer made by one party to the other, in which

she suggests a decrease in her own benefits. They often take the form of an

exchange: “I’m willing to stop asking for A, if you will give me B instead.” or “I will quit

asking for A from you if you will quit asking for B from me.” When we noted earlier

that neither yielding nor avoiding left room for negotiation, what we were really

pointing out was the fact that neither the yielder nor the avoider is interested in

making concessions.

If neither party is willing to make any concessions (for whatever reason), then there

can be no negotiation—negotiation is, instead, the interplay between concessionary

offers. In most conflicts, one party makes an opening offer expressing how he would

like to see the conflict handled, and the other party responds with a counteroffer or

a critique of the opening offer—i.e., her own vision of how the conflict should be

handled. Negotiation is the process of reaching the solution that lies between these

two views, and the concession is one of the primary methods we use to get there.

Concessions are a complex issue. We need to figure out what (if any) concessions are

acceptable to us, and whether the other party will be interested in revising their

position in response to the concessions we are willing to make. We also need to

determine how to present our concessions in the best light. It is important that we

be willing to make some concessions, because that willingness is one significant way

that we show the other party that we take his position – and his concerns—seriously.

It is also a way we show him that we are meeting him as an equal, since we are willing

to change our position to accommodate him, just as we hope he will do for us.


Presenting our concessions in a defiant and rigid way—“This is all I’m giving you, and

that’s my final offer!”—can undermine whatever good things we might have been

able to achieve by making them in the first place. Instead, it is generally best to aim

for adaptability in our concessions. Discussing various options—i.e., various

combinations of concessions—with the other party helps us to get a better sense of

how he understands his position and role in this conflict. When we have this

information, negotiation is often more productive.

Conferring about concessions in an open and accommodating way also allows both

parties to feel that they have been part of the decision-making process. It might be

the case that I have a good idea of my final offer in a conflict, and I would rather just

start there instead of wasting time dickering over concessions. However, if I come to

you and say that my opening offer is also my final offer, you are likely to feel that I

am dictating a solution to you and react negatively.

I can make our discussions more productive if I go through the steps that determined

my final offer with you—if I begin with something that strikes me as a reasonable

offer, but which also leaves us with some room to negotiate, and use concessions to

work from that toward a solution that you are willing to accept, too. It might even be

the case that we can eventually agree on the very same solution which you would

have rejected if I had started by stating it as my final offer. In addition, in most cases

it is much more likely that whatever I state as my final offer will be taken more

seriously if the other party can see some of the work and concessions that have gone

into creating my final position.

Once again, we can see that there is a great deal going on underneath the simple

facts of any negotiation, and that we need to be sensitive to people’s typical

emotional and psychological responses.


Even though we want to aim for flexibility and a tempered approach, we still do not

want the concession process to devolve into yielding or avoiding. We want to deliver

our concessions firmly enough that they are taken seriously as options, and we want

to be sure they are clearly perceived as a voluntary decrease in our own benefits. We

also want some assurance that the other party is willing to make concessions, too,

before we give up anything that really matters to us.

Commitments

Commitments are central to the negotiation process in both integrative negotiation

and distributive bargaining. If we want to make progress in our negotiations, then we

cannot just mull over various options indefinitely. At some point, we need to make

statements about the positions we will and will not accept, and the concessions we

can and cannot make. In negotiation, we call these statements “commitments.”

Stating a commitment in this context amounts to making a binding agreement to do,

or to refrain from doing, something. While concessions give us flexibility and

potential, commitments give us certainty.

If we return to our salary negotiation example, I can make a commitment by telling

Company B’s negotiator “I am not interested in negotiating further about this job

unless you offer me at least $50,000.” This is a much stronger statement than merely

telling the negotiator that my basic salary requirement is $50,000. In the latter case,

an employer who really wanted to hire me might try to offer me other benefits, or

some similar enticement to accept a lower salary. If I explicitly tie my minimum salary

to my interest in further negotiations, however, I am effectively saying “Unless you

can meet my bottom line, I feel that we have nothing else to discuss.”


This example illustrates several important features of commitments:

They make specific claims.

They describe particular consequences.

They make it clear that the claims are not open to further discussion.

If, instead, I had responded to Company B’s offer with the more imprecise and open-

ended statement “I would really like a larger salary than that,” then I would not have

made a commitment.

Whereas concessions often work to increase the array of available options,

commitments instead tend to narrow them. Commitments reduce my options

because when I commit to a certain course of action, I should expect that the other

party takes me seriously. I cannot simply walk away from a stated commitment if I

expect this person (or anyone else) to take my other commitments at face value.

Commitments also reduce the other party’s options because now he must either

accommodate my commitment or abandon (or significantly restructure) our

negotiations. For example, once I make the salary commitment, whatever else

Company B’s negotiator might have had planned that did not involve offering me

$50,000 is no longer a possibility.

Commitments vary in their strength, and they can be worded in quite a few different

ways. For example, I might make my salary commitment by saying “If you will give

me $50,000, I can assure you that I will meet your demands on whatever other

concessions you might want from me.” This commitment is framed in terms of

satisfying my prospective employers’ needs, rather than terminating our

negotiations. Nonetheless, this way of putting the matter implicitly suggests that if I

do not get the salary I desire, I will not be making any other concessions. So the

message is still fundamentally the same.


No matter how it is framed, a commitment is often interpreted by the other party as

a threat or a high-pressure tactic, since it has the effect of limiting his options. In

addition, a simple statement of fact like “If you cannot offer me $50,000, then I don’t

think we should bother negotiating further” can seem like a threat to the person

receiving it, because he will be the one left to face whatever negative consequences

might arise from ending negotiations. Further, if the other party had—for whatever

reason—focused much of his effort on options that did not involve meeting my

bottom line, the my commitment can leave him feeling angry and frustrated that he

has wasted his time.

Even though they are often interpreted as threats, we should not assume too much

about how the other party will respond to a commitment from us. In particular, we

should not make a commitment—especially one that we don’t want to honor—based

on a belief that we can predict how he will react. We do not want to be stuck with an

unattractive alternative if he does not behave the way we expected. We also want to

be careful about putting the other party in a position where he feels he must make

a commitment. Whatever advantages I can gain by making a commitment, the other

party can similarly gain over me by making a commitment of his own.

For all of these reasons, we should handle commitments like the volatile tactical

maneuvers they are. While a commitment may sometimes get us what we want, in

other situations it may lock us into a position we do not want to occupy.

Planning and Preparing for Negotiation

Face-to-face confrontation is stressful and intimidating for many people, and we have

looked at some of the complicated considerations that are at work in negotiation.

Because negotiation can be daunting and complex, we should not expect that we can

simply walk into a negotiation process unprepared and rely on quick thinking to get

what we want.


Outcomes are not generally predictable and if we walk into a conflict hoping to simply

“play it by ear,” we can easily end up unhappy with the result.

There is a great deal we can do to make conflicts and the process of negotiating

easier for ourselves. We are much more likely to achieve our goals if we lay out a

solid foundation of information and understanding from which we can negotiate.

Exactly what we need to know depends on the particular negotiation. However, we

can say some general things about the issues a negotiator should consider before

beginning negotiation. Read the corresponding information for each box in the

diagram to learn more.

Determine your goals: Formulate a clear, concise statement of your objectives in

negotiation, and a realistic picture of your BATNA. Identify the basic components of

your bargaining mix, simultaneously thinking about how the components relate to

one another and how important each one is for achieving your main objective(s). In

addition, if other people are significantly affected by the outcome of negotiation, be

certain to consult them about their goals as well.

Preparing for Negotiation

Determine your goals

Determine your fundamental interests

Determine your strengths and

weaknessesLearn about the other party

Identify your limits

Prepare your presentation


Determine your fundamental objectives: In addition to having a clear statement

of your position, you should also work out why you want that outcome. This can help

you to recognize whether another outcome might serve your basic interests equally

well. Having this deeper understanding can also help you to identify when a

superficially attractive outcome actually fails to satisfy your more basic aims.

Know your strengths and weaknesses: This is a critical part of understanding your

position. You must understand these dimensions of your situation if you are to

anticipate the other side’s arguments and objections. In addition, this knowledge can

help you better predict what you can achieve in negotiation and how difficult it may

be to get it.

Learn about the other party: Even though negotiators often have incomplete or

ambiguous information about the other side’s position and attitudes, we should still

make an effort to develop a picture of what the other party wants and how he is likely

to go about getting it. We should try to anticipate ways he might formulate his

position, and ways he might try to get us to accept his position. We should then use

what we know or can infer about his view to work out our own response to his

position and his strategy for pursuing it.

Identify your limits: Think about which concessions you are willing to make and

why. Consider what kind of exchanges might make a concession worthwhile to you,

and where you will draw the line and make no more concessions. Plan how you will

state your commitments if the negotiation reaches that point. Again, if other people

are likely to be affected by this process, you should determine what outcomes and

concessions are unacceptable to them.


Prepare your presentation: Develop a clear sense of how you will present your

position to the other party. Know which points you will discuss, and what you want

to say about each of them. Think about how your position will sound to the other

party, and about ways you might make it sound more attractive. Anticipate objections

the other party might have, and plan a way to respond to them.

We now have a better understanding of the basic material of negotiation. We also

have a clearer picture of the main tools used to move the process forward, and of

how we can effectively prepare for the process. With this background understanding

in hand, we can begin discussing one of the primary models of negotiation:

distributive bargaining.

Introduction to Distributive Bargaining

In distributive bargaining, negotiating parties are seen—and see one another—as

competitors. Whatever is at stake in the conflict is seen as a fixed resource,

something that cannot be broken up in such a way that all parties can have what they

would most like; it is called distributive bargaining because the issue is seen as a

matter of distributing a limited value or benefit. The simplest way to envision this is

by thinking of dividing a pie: if I want half of a pie while you want three-quarters of

the same pie—and this is the only pie we have—then our negotiating process can be

framed in terms of distributive bargaining.

We are in competition with each other to get as much of the pie (benefit) for

ourselves as possible, because there is no way to divide the pie so that each of us

gets exactly what we want. If I get half of the pie, you have lost a quarter of what you

wanted; similarly, if you get three-quarters of the pie, then I have lost a quarter of

what I wanted. From the perspective of distributive bargaining, one party’s gain is

necessarily a loss for the other party. For this reason, distributive bargaining is

sometimes also called “zero sum” or “win-lose” bargaining.


In distributive bargaining, each party uses the negotiating process to achieve an

outcome that is as close as possible to her ideal objective, a result that is generally

understood to come at the other party’s expense.

The relationship between our respective bottom lines is a defining feature of

distributive negotiation. If, for example, the smallest part of the pie I am willing to

accept (my bottom line) is one half, and the smallest part of the pie you are willing to

accept (your bottom line) is three-quarters, then we are at an impasse. In such cases

we have what is called a “negative bargaining range,” because there is no overlap in

our preferences, and so there is no possible solution that satisfies each of our goals

even at their minimal, bottom line level. There is thus nothing for us to bargain about

unless we are willing to revise our preferences and begin anew.

In most conflicts, however, there is a “positive bargaining range”—that is, there are

outcomes that each party would prefer over a stale mate, or no outcome at all. Let’s

return to the salary negotiation example, and imagine that my bottom line (the least

I am willing to accept from them) is $50,000. If negotiations with Company B reveal

that the most they are willing to pay me (i.e., their bottom line) is $52,000, then there

is a positive bargaining range between these figures that gives us room to negotiate.

The $2,000 “space” between our respective bottom lines each represents a zone of

outcomes or settlements that are at least potentially acceptable because they satisfy

both parties’ preferences to a degree they judge to be adequate. This is the area

where bargaining can occur.

We should keep in mind that most negotiations revolve around more than one issue.

For example, in choosing a new job, I am likely to be concerned about more than just

the salary—perhaps my starting date is another possible point of conflict, though

there may be many more. Each of these other issues has its own ideal outcome, its

own bottom line and its own range of alternatives that lie between those two points.


My prospective employers, too, are likely to have additional concerns of their own.

In any negotiation, there is thus an array of issues actually under discussion; the

various issues that must be settled before we can consider the conflict settled is

known as the bargaining mix.

The competition in distributive bargaining is a struggle over whatever amount of

benefit or value lies in the positive bargaining range of a particular issue. Both parties

know that they cannot achieve their ideal objective (otherwise there would be no

conflict), but each still wants to capture as much of the bargaining range as she can.

My goal is to push the other party toward her bottom line—that’s how a distributive

bargainer “wins” a competitive negotiation. In the example, I would win our

negotiation by convincing Company B to offer me the highest salary they are willing

to give—or the closest approximation of that I can achieve. The other party is likewise

trying to push me toward my bottom line. Company B would win by persuading me

to agree to a salary at or near the lowest figure I would accept.

The closer I can push them to their bottom line, the more I get of the $2,000 that

makes up our positive bargaining range; the closer they can push me to accepting

$50,000 as my salary, the more of that $2,000 they get to keep for themselves. Our

negotiation can be seen as a kind of tug-of-war over the money that makes up our

positive bargaining range. All distributive bargaining is fundamentally this kind of

competitive struggle over allotting value or benefit.

Tactics and Strategy in Distributive Bargaining

Managing Information about One’s Preferences

The control of information is crucial to the success of distributive bargaining. Each of

the parties in a negotiation process has a spectrum of preferences, but in distributive

bargaining each party’s preferences are largely kept private—especially those

preferences that are less attractive than their ideal outcome. Keeping these

preferences private is thought to create greater leverage in the negotiation process.


For example, let’s say I know in advance that Company B’s bottom line salary offer

will be well above my ideal objective. That is, what they see as the most they can pay

me is actually a lot more than I thought I could possibly get from them under any

circumstances. If I know this about Company B’s preferences while they remain in

the dark about my preferences, then I can shift my both my ideal objective and my

bottom line upwards and refuse to accept any offer far from their bottom line. If they

were aware of how low my bottom line salary really was, they would surely not start

with an offer they knew to be well above it. Thus my knowledge about Company B’s

preferences (when they know nothing about mine) gives me an advantage in

bargaining with them, because it allows me to capture more benefit for myself.

In essence, distributive bargainers guard information about their bottom lines

because it is always possible that your opponent’s bottom line is “better” (for you)

than you think it is: it might be the case that she will take less money for her car,

wants less of the pie you’re dividing, or is willing to pay a higher minimum salary.

However, if you openly state your bottom line and your opponent sees that she can

do better than she had planned—that is, if she sees you will pay more for her car,

take less of the pie, or work for less money than she had thought you would—then

she is unlikely to be willing to revert to her original position, since she has now seen

that she can do better. Precisely the same thing can happen to your opponent if she

openly states her bottom line to you. For reasons like these, it is generally thought

that one should keep one’s bottom line to oneself in distributive bargaining.

It is not just the bottom line that must be carefully guarded in distributive bargaining.

One must also be thoughtful about what is called one’s “opening position”—your

initial statement about the outcome you would prefer. This is sometimes called your

“maximal demand,” in which case it is taken to indicate your target, or ideal objective.

In the competitive context of distributive bargaining, opening positions and ideal

objectives can play complicated and unpredictable roles.


For example, in some situations the opening position has little to do with the

objective a party actually hopes or expects to achieve. In distributive bargaining, it

may be to one’s advantage not to open with one’s actual ideal outcome. For example,

I might begin negotiations by vastly overstating my desired salary to Company B,

starting very high so that even if we negotiate down to a lower salary I will still get

something well above my bottom line. Though this strategy might backfire if I choose

a salary outside of Company B’s bargaining range, there are also reasons this strategy

might work; perhaps Company B will hear my figure and begin to think I am in fact a

more valuable employee than they had previously believed.

In addition—and much as was the case with my bottom line—I would do well to keep

my ideal objective to myself to the extent that I can, since I might be able to do better

than I expect. For example, if I begin by stating my opening position honestly, I could

end up getting a much lower salary than Company B would actually have been willing

to pay if I had approached the issue differently.

Similarly, if my opponent knows my real goal from the outset, she can work to make

me believe that goal is less attainable than it actually is; if she can push me below my

original bottom line, she can achieve an improved version of her ideal objective.

While openly revealing one’s range of preferences is a bad idea in distributive

bargaining, especially near the beginning of the process, it is still the case that all

parties need to be able to make some reasonably accurate inferences about the

other parties’ position(s), particularly their bottom lines. If they cannot or do not do

this, they stand to waste a lot of time discussing courses of action that are not actually

viable alternatives.


Sometimes people will give explicit information about their preferences during

negotiation, but more often explicit information does not emerge until late in the

process and the negotiator must rely largely upon her own people-reading and

information-gathering skills to develop a picture of the other party’s preferences.

The Three Central Tactics of Distributive Bargaining

As we noted earlier, distributive bargaining can be understood as a struggle between

the bottom line of each party—each party wants the other to give up as much as

possible. Yet each party wants to keep most of the facts about his preferences,

including his bottom line, to himself. We can see, then, that distributive bargaining

will be, in part, a struggle over information: over access to various kinds of information,

and over how that information is understood. Much of the work of distributive

bargaining has to do with getting information about your opponent, controlling the

information she can get about you, and influencing the way she understands what

she knows about both her own position and yours.

Given this basic project, there are several general tactics I should use as a negotiator

in distributive bargaining:

I should try to learn as much as I can about how the other party views his

alternatives, and how he views the negotiation. In particular, I want to learn

what I can about his bottom line, and I should determine whether he sees

abandoning the negotiation as a strongly negative outcome (since I can use

his need for a negotiated agreement to push him closer to his bottom line).

However, in the process of gathering information about him, I want to give

only minimal information about my own preferences to my opponent.

Once I have determined the other party’s perspective as best I can, I should

make an effort to control his view of my alternatives and my investment in the



In effect, I want to determine as much accurate information about him as I can,

but I do not want him to have—or think he has—any information that might

make him believe my bottom line can be manipulated. I want to find out what

he knows about my position, and I want to influence his understanding of that

information in a way that increases my bargaining power as much as possible.

Having established some level of control over his ideas about me and my

position, I should work to change his view of his own position in the conflict so

that my desired outcome appears more positive to him.

First Tactic: Get the Information You Need

Now that we have a clear idea of the basic tactical tasks in distributive bargaining, we

can see how information about each party’s position plays a central role. It is

essential that I be able to locate the other party’s bottom line as accurately as

possible. I would also like to know as much as I can about how she perceives this

conflict, as well as her motives for engaging in it and how confident she feels about

achieving her goal(s).

One way of getting this information is simply to ask the other party for it. In general,

however, she is unlikely to give me open and accurate information, for the same

reasons that I am reluctant to give her similar information about my own position.

Because each party in distributive bargaining perceives the other as an opponent,

this kind of negotiation is often a complex and subtle process that discourages the

free exchange of information.

In situations where there is little leeway for bargaining or in which both parties feel

the need for a rapid solution, however, people may be more forthright about how

they perceive the conflict and their alternatives. If Company B tells me that they

absolutely cannot pay me more than $52,000 and explains the reasons behind this

stance to me, I may very then well tell them truthfully that the less-conveniently-

located Company A has offered me $54,000 for a similar job.


In this situation, both parties have their articulated their genuine positions because

there is nothing to be gained by obscuring the issue. It is worth noting that to get to

this point, one party must generally go first—that is, one party must lay out his

position in a way the other party can clearly see is truthful. Otherwise each party

might reasonably continue thinking that the position being described is simply a

further attempt to manipulate the bottom line.

Few negotiations begin with one or both parties pushed to the absolute limit in this

way, though, and so directly asking for information about bottom lines and ideal

objectives is not generally the most productive strategy. Instead, the negotiator must

take a more indirect route to get at what she wants to know. In our salary example,

Company B might make plausible estimates about my bottom line by researching

how much people with my skills and educational background are currently paid in

this industry. They might also look at factors such as how long I’ve been seeking a job

to help them determine how committed I am to my bottom line. There are myriad

sources from which a person might get information that helps them negotiate

successfully: books, newspapers, web sites, and experts in the field are just some of

the options here. Knowing where to find the facts that enable you to understand your

opponent better is part of being a skilled negotiator.

When we get our information in these indirect ways, we need to remember that our

conclusions can differ wildly from what our opponent actually feels or believes.

This kind of information can be a helpful guide to formulating your position and it

can help you to understand your opponent’s views better, but it is not any kind of

guarantee about the way your opponent will respond in negotiation.

Second Tactic: Control your Opponent’s Information and How It is Interpreted

In distributive bargaining, each party is trying to guide the opposing side toward a

particular interpretation of her position.


I want the other party to believe my goals are desirable, perhaps even necessary, and

he wants me to believe the same thing about his goals. This interpretation may not

be accurate—it may even be false—but it is still an understanding that gives each

party greater bargaining power, which is what they both want at this stage.

Controlling your opponent’s interpretation of whatever facts she has about your

position (and her own) is essential to maintaining your power in distributive

bargaining. You can greatly increase the strength and stability of your position by

persuading your opponent to accept the “facts” as you present them (regardless of

whether they are genuinely the facts of the situation), particularly if the way you

present them simultaneously gets her to question her own position.

Controlling Your Opponent’s Information

One simple way to control the information your opponent receives is to keep your

mouth shut. Many people will talk simply to fill up empty space in a conversation and

this habit carries over to negotiation, where it often results in giving away more

information than the speaker intended. For example, instead of providing lengthy

and detailed answers to questions, give the minimum response that will do the job.

Focus your energy on asking questions and getting information for yourself, rather

than divulging it to your opponent. Similarly, bring your best poker face to a

distributive negotiation. Even if you keep your mouth shut, a look of disappointment

or delight can speak volumes, giving your opponent information you do not want her

to have.

Another way to control the information your opponent receives is to control the

people with whom she interacts.

For example, if you and your spouse are considering buying my car, it might be wise

to choose only one person to deal with me. Otherwise, you will need to engage in

complex pre-negotiation efforts to determine who will be allowed to say what, and

when.


The point here is to minimize the number of people who can weaken your position

by inadvertently giving me new information about your position.

Further, by keeping some of the individuals involved out of the direct negotiation

process, you can give yourself an out if I begin pressuring you to make a decision. In

that situation, you can say that you are not able to make the decision without

consulting the other people who are affected by the outcome. This approach is

useful, because then it is much more difficult for me to push you into revealing

information about your target and your bottom line.

The methods discussed focus on limiting the information available to your opponent.

As an alternative, one might try overwhelming the opponent with information. The

goal here is to present so much information that your real concerns and objectives

are obscured. One way you might do this is by increasing the issues in your

bargaining mix—that is, by introducing so many side concerns and preferences

(some of which may not actually matter to you at all) that it is no longer clear which

issues are genuinely important to you. This way, even if your real bottom line and

your real target are laid out openly someplace in the bargaining mix, it is unlikely that

your opponent will be able to pick them out readily.

Influencing How Your Opponent Interprets Information

The way you present the facts of your position is the key to influencing how your

opponent sees that position. The basic strategy here is to enhance your own position

as much as possible while appearing to remain neutral. This is often done by

presenting information selectively, in such a way that I only present the information

that supports my position. This may involve concealing some kinds of information.

However, a successful negotiation requires that I do this in a way that isn’t nakedly

self-serving.


If I am clearly only out for myself in a negotiation, my opponent will likely either

abandon the issue entirely (if that’s an option for her) or respond to my efforts to

manipulate her by fighting all the harder for her desired outcome. Fortunately for

the distributive negotiator, there are many subtle ways of selectively presenting

information.

For example, I can frame my discussion of your preferred outcome in terms of its

potential costs and risks for you. Anything a negotiator can do to make your ideal

result seem less attractive to you is a gain for him, and there are many ways of doing

this. His goal is to convince you that you don’t actually want what you thought you

wanted—instead, he aims to convince you that you want what he wants to give you.

Company B’s salary negotiator might try to push me closer to my bottom line by

reminding me of the difficult job market in my field, or pointing out that what I see

as my bottom line salary is well above the average income for someone in my field.

This information may not accurately describe my own situation—but if I don’t know

the facts, I may be swayed by what he says. When it is offered in a helpful and

concerned fashion, this kind of information can often make people reconsider their

bottom lines—in part because many people have not done enough research to know

the real strengths and weaknesses of their positions. Similarly, he might focus on the

current restrictive budget situation at Company B while emphasizing its other

benefits, in an effort to make me feel as though he is doing the very best he can for

me—something that he hopes will incline me to modify my own position in return.

Beyond presenting information selectively, there are ways to use conversational

conventions to your advantage.


Usually, the time we spend discussing a topic and the detail in which we discuss it

are both reliable indicators of how much we care about that topic. Both of these

methods can be used to mislead one’s opponent about how much an issue actually

matters to you.

Similarly, you can manipulate the other party’s understanding of your position by

using body language and facial expressions which don’t accurately reflect your real

feelings. Generally, this more complex psychological approach is used in

combination with selective presentation.

Third Tactic: Influence Your Opponent’s Bottom Line

If I have obtained the information I need either directly or indirectly and I have

effectively managed my opponent’s perception of the conflict and my position, then

my negotiating task now focuses on influencing the other party’s bottom line. The

other party’s bottom line is defined primarily by how much he cares about the goal

at issue in combination with the quality of his BATNA—i.e., in combination with what

he stands to lose if the negotiation gets hopelessly tangled or is abandoned.

We can see this if we return to our salary negotiation example. In the case where I

have no current employment alternatives to the position I am presently negotiating,

I stand to lose a great deal if this negotiation gets complicated or if the other party

walks away. This means that I am unlikely to be as stubborn about my bottom line

as I might be if I had other employment alternatives. Also, I care a greatly about

finding a job, but because I have no job at all right now, I care less about finding a job

that fits well with all of my ideal outcomes. My bottom line for what counts as an

acceptable job is thus lower than it would be in other circumstances. This means that

I might take a job that offered a less-than-ideal salary, since my alternative is no

salary at all.


How much your opponent cares about his goal and the quality of his BATNA also

affect his willingness to lower his bottom line. Since these are the key elements

determining his bottom line, they are where you should focus your attempts to

influence him. If you are the negotiator for Company B you can use these facts about

my situation to manipulate my bottom line. For example, if you know (or can infer)

that I feel that I will lose a great deal by walking away from our negotiations, then you

also know that you can push me—and my bottom line—harder than you could if my

alternatives were more attractive.

Similarly, if you know that I want a quick solution—which I do, since I currently have

no job—you could threaten to lengthen or abort our negotiation process in an effort

to get me to back off from my stated bottom line.

If you can successfully employ these kinds of strategies, you can create more “space”

between our bottom lines, and thus increase the positive bargaining range in a way

that favors your position since your bottom line stays stable while mine drops.

Specifically, you increase the alternatives that are close to your ideal, the outcomes

that require the other party to accept results that are at (or below) his bottom line.

We mentioned earlier that a person’s bottom line is determined by several factors.

The first is the importance he attaches to realizing a particular goal. The methods

described are focused on influencing how determined a person is to achieve a

particular outcome. However, the other party’s bottom line is also determined by the

extent to which he perceives ending or complicating the negotiations as a loss to

himself. Another way to influence someone’s bottom line, then, is to influence his

beliefs about what he stands to lose if the negotiation gets complicated or ends

without a resolution.

Deadlines—and how you react to them—are one way to achieve this goal.


Generally, the deadline of any negotiation is more pressing to one party than the

other. The party who is not under pressure from a deadline has a certain amount of

power she can use to her advantage: the other party needs a solution in a particular

amount of time, and by refusing (or appearing to refuse) to give in as that deadline

approaches, she can motivate the other party to accommodate some version of her

demands. Similarly, one party generally has more to lose if negotiations are aborted.

For example, if Company B ends or delays our salary negotiations when I have no

other job offers lined up, then I am the one who suffers most.

Since stalled or prematurely abandoned negotiations are usually undesirable to at

least one party in a conflict, distributive bargaining strategies can also focus on

altering the costs of not completing negotiations (or similarly, on altering the

perceived costs of incomplete negotiations). If you are committed to completing

negotiations, I can pressure you to lower your bottom line by finding ways to make

you believe that your current position will make it difficult for us to complete an

agreement.

There are a number of ways one might go about manipulating the (perceived)

outcome here. For example, striking workers who picket their workplace are using a

strategy that increases their employer’s costs for not settling a strike. The picketing

often produces negative publicity for the business, and if those who sympathize with

the highly-visible strikers choose to boycott the company this means lost revenue as

well. These results make it increasingly difficult for the employer to ignore the

strikers; the sooner the company reaches an agreement with them, the sooner the

problems created by the picketing will cease. Thus the employer feels increasingly

pressured to reach an agreement with the strikers, which is exactly what the strikers

want.


As the examples in this section suggest, there are widely varying strategic

approaches one might use to influence the other party’s bottom line in ways that

favor one’s own position. Virtually all of these revolve around the basic tactical

methods discussed earlier: they require an alert negotiator who can carefully

manage information and control how that information is understood.

Drawbacks of Distributive Bargaining

Some conflict management scholars completely reject distributive bargaining. They

see it as unnecessarily adversarial, and unlikely to produce results that actually

satisfy all parties. There is certainly some truth to these claims. It is not hard to see

how an encounter with a distributive bargainer who is well-informed about your

position and willing to deploy high-pressure tactics could leave you feeling

manipulated and hostile. Because of this, it is easy for the careless or overly forceful

use of distributive bargaining methods to make a conflict worse. Particularly in

situations where the two parties must continue interacting with one another—co-

workers, for example, or a married couple—the distributive approach, with its model

of winners pitted against losers, may not be the best choice.

Similarly, distributive bargaining’s strong focus on winning may encourage those

people who place a high general value on winning to approach negotiation in a highly

competitive and inflexible way. From this perspective, it is difficult to justify or

tolerate making concessions; this unwillingness to accommodate the other party can

stall negotiations or intensify a conflict.

In a similar way, distributive bargaining may prompt those who are especially

concerned about a particular goal to adopt ethically questionable negotiating tactics.

It is a very short step from selective presentation or the withholding of information

to outright lying. In Lesson 5, there will be further discussion of the ethical issues

raised by the negotiating process.


But even without knowing more about negotiation ethics, we can see that the

distributive bargaining approach can easily create a context in which we must be

more ethically sensitive than we might need to be otherwise. If I view the other party

in a negotiation as an opponent whose beliefs and values are of interest to me

primarily as something I can manipulate to my own advantage, I run a serious risk of

treating him merely as a tool for achieving my own goals rather than as a person with

important goals of his own.

Further, many people react negatively to the distributive approach unless it is applied

quite gently. Most people are uncomfortable with a negotiation process in which it

seems that the other party is only concerned about achieving his own ends; in this

context they are wary and resentful, which can actually make it more difficult to reach

an agreement. In addition, individuals generally dislike feeling pressured to make a

choice, particularly when they are pushed to make a choice that they do not feel

serves their interests.

Distributive bargaining definitely has some significant drawbacks. However, there

are situations in which a more cooperative approach is unattractive to one or both

parties, for various reasons. If, for example, you genuinely want to maximize the

benefit you get from this particular exchange and have no continuing relationship

with the other party (or do not care about how this conflict affects that relationship),

then distributive bargaining may be the right method.

Also, some conflicts really are win-lose conflicts—they are like our case of dividing

the pie between parties who are not satisfied with a 50-50 split. In those cases,

distributive bargaining is probably necessary. We should look closely at a conflict,

though, before deciding that it is definitely of this kind. We shouldn’t assume that a

conflict is necessarily a win-lose situation simply because we are strongly attached to

our ideal outcome.


Lastly, even if we desire or choose another negotiating method, it might be the case

that the other party wants to use the distributive bargaining approach. In these

situations, unfamiliarity with what he is doing can work against us. It might also be

the case that in a particular negotiation, it is not up to us to choose what method we

will use. So we should educate ourselves about distributive bargaining even if we

have no plans to use this method ourselves.

Lesson Summary

This lesson introduced the student to the basic ideas and terminology used to

evaluate and rank their preferences in a negotiation. It also described how to

discover and evaluate one’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), an

option that deserves special attention when we are analyzing our preferences since

it helps us to decide whether to enter negotiation at all and has a large influence on

the terms we will accept in a negotiation.

This lesson addressed the fundamental tools we use to move a negotiation process

forward: concessions and commitments.

Concessions are the things we are willing to relinquish in a disagreement; we can

“exchange” them with the other party in an effort to secure other things that matter

more to us. Commitments are specific, clear statements about alternatives we can

or cannot accept, and actions we will or will not take, as well as the consequences

that will follow. Commitments are volatile tactical maneuvers, and should be used

with care. While they can help make a negotiation more productive, it is also true that

the other party may interpret a commitment as a threat and react much differently

than we had anticipated.

These topics are common to all negotiations; we need to understand them no matter

what negotiating method we choose. Distributive bargaining is one negotiating style

we might choose; it a competitive approach to negotiation and was discussed in

detail in this lesson.


A distributive bargainer aims to capture as much benefit or value as she can for

herself; her primary strategies for achieving this aim are controlling information and

influencing her opponent’s perception of what he can or should get from a conflict.

The distributive bargainer ultimately wants to push her opponent as close to yielding

as possible—she wants to maximize her own benefit while giving her opponent the

minimum outcome she can get him to accept. Distributive bargaining can produce

quick solutions, especially if one party can exert strong pressure on the other.

However, this approach sometimes lends itself to an aggressive, bullying tone, which

makes many people uncomfortable and which can incline people to accept solutions

to which they do not genuinely wish to agree. In addition, distributive bargainers

have strong motivation to distort and conceal information; this inclination must be

watched carefully to keep it from devolving into lying and fraud.


Lesson 3: Integrative Negotiation

Lesson Topics


Introduction

The Fundamental Perspective of Integrative Negotiation

Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation

Resolving the Conflict

Obstacles to Successful Integrative Negotiation

.............................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.




Name and apply some basic strategies for evaluating the offers made during

negotiation.

Recognize the basic considerations to explore to prepare for negotiation.

Distinguish between the two common styles of negotiation, and make

judgments about which style is appropriate for a particular conflict.

Outline the central strategies of these negotiation methods, as well as the

demands each approach places on negotiators.

Identify solutions to bring the parties to an agreement with a positive outcome

for all parties.

Introduction

Distributive bargaining is a fundamentally competitive approach to negotiation.

Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, approaches negotiation from a

collaborative perspective.

Instead of taking the problem as given and struggling to capture maximal benefit or

value for herself, the integrative negotiator focuses on working together with the

other party to find creative alternatives to a “win-lose” outcome. Integrative

negotiators aim to get as close as they can to a solution that lets both parties have

everything they want; for this reason, integrative negotiation is sometimes called

“win-win” negotiation.

The first step in this process is openly sharing information. Integrative negotiators

closely examine and thoroughly discuss their conflict and their goals; they also make

an effort to articulate the more basic interests and concerns that underwrite those

goals. Using this approach, negotiators work to understand the conflict and the other

party’s view of it, and to develop a thorough understanding of why the other party

has the goals he does.


These are the pillars that support successful integrative negotiation: a clear definition

of just what the problem is—one that both parties accept—and a solid appreciation

of the other party’s needs and concerns.

The negotiators then use this information to think creatively about possible solutions

to their conflict. There are many things they might do here, but in general this step

of the negotiating process revolves around one of two basic strategies. First,

negotiators might focus on rethinking their problem: for example, is there a way to

get more resources so that each party can have what she wants? Is there a tradeoff

they might make within the conflict itself, such that one party can achieve one of her

important goals in exchange for the other party achieving an aim he cares about?

Other tactics for rethinking the problem will be discussed later in this lesson, but they

are all alike in that they aim to help us see the problem in a new way, as something

other than a head-to-head clash in which one party’s gain is the other’s loss.

Second, integrative negotiators might take the character of the problem as given and

instead focus their energies on coming up with an innovative solution. Brainstorming

is one example of a tactic they could use here; this is a process in which they work to

get past the obvious or traditional solutions, in the hopes of finding a creative insight

that will allow them to craft a solution that is good for both parties. The “solution-

generating phase” of integrative negotiation often takes time, and both sides must

be willing and motivated to work together in an atmosphere of trust. Done well,

though, integrative negotiation can generate surprising, innovative outcomes that

both parties accept readily.

Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to describe the basic tactics of

integrative negotiation, as well as some of the important ways it differs from

distributive bargaining. You will be able to name some strategies for clarifying a

conflict, and know why this clarity is important.


In addition, you will be able to identify the various general kinds of concerns and

motivations that frequently underwrite people’s positions in negotiation. You will

know the basic methods that integrative negotiators use to find a solution, and be

able to explain integrative approaches to rethinking a conflict. You will also be able

to identify the basic rules for successful brainstorming. Lastly, you will recognize

some of the major obstacles to successful integrative negotiation.

The Fundamental Perspective of Integrative Negotiation

Integrative negotiation seeks a solution that gets all parties close to their ideal

outcomes—that is, its goal is to maximize outcomes for both parties. Instead of a

tug-of-war between two bottom lines, integrative negotiation is a collaborative

problem-solving process aimed at finding solutions in which both sides feel they have

won. So rather than seeing one another as competitors pursuing incompatible goals,

integrative negotiators should understand themselves as working cooperatively to

achieve a good outcome for everyone involved.

This is not just a matter of semantics. It is true that a distributive bargainer might say

she wants to work cooperatively toward a shared good when what she really wants

is to convince us to accept her aims.

However, we can determine what she is actually doing by looking at the methods

she uses. If she hoards information about her own position, tries to manipulate our

view of what goals we can attain, and proposes solutions that consistently favor her

own aims, then she is using distributive bargaining. Integrative negotiation uses

different methods to achieve its ends, and these methods show that it operates from

a fundamentally different perspective.


The Basic Concerns of Integrative Negotiation

We can begin to understand integrative negotiation and its methods by examining

its perspectives on the basic subject matter of negotiation, and looking at these in

contrast with the distributive bargainer’s stance. One important thing to keep in mind

when examining real estate negotiations is the number of parties involved. Usually,

there are two sellers and two buyers. The sellers’ agent and the buyers’ agent are

essential parties of the negotiation process when they are representing their ‘clients,’

respectively.

The Exchange of Information

The distributive bargainer seeks to control and conceal information, while the

integrative negotiator openly shares the particulars of his position. The integrative

negotiator’s first task, and one that persists throughout the negotiations process, is

facilitating the free exchange of information. Both parties must be able to talk openly

about what they hope to achieve and what they are willing to do to reach that goal.

They must also feel reasonably sure that this information will not be used against

them by the other side. Rather than spending time blustering and bluffing about our

ends while trying to manipulate the other party’s vision of her goals, integrative

negotiation begins with a forthright discussion about the facts of our conflict and our

respective positions.

The last lesson showed us how the distributive bargainer can use information about

our position against us. It may now seem like the free exchange of information is a

bad idea, and that we should worry about the price we will pay for trusting the other

party with the truth about our position.

We should remember, though, that there are also significant costs attached to lying,

being suspicious of him, hiding information, and otherwise treating him like an

adversary. These things take time and energy, and can be damaging to our

relationship with the other party.


In addition, fact-finding work, inspections and the like—which are often necessary in

negotiations when the parties do not trust each other—may create substantial

business expenses. So it is not at all the case that integrative negotiators are naive

about the potential dangers of sharing information. They are aware of these hazards,

but they have decided that the costs of making negotiation into a win-lose battle

outweigh the disadvantages of openly sharing their goals and interests.

The Other Party’s Interests and Concerns

The distributive bargainer wants to manipulate the other party, hoping to persuade

an alteration in position that favors the desired outcome. The integrative negotiator,

conversely, aims to understand the facts and motivations of the other perspective so

that solutions can be found that will work for everyone. The integrative negotiator

genuinely wants to understand what the other party seeks in the negotiating process.

He or she does not see the other’s ideal objective simply as an obstacle on the path

to his or her own goal, something that would be brushed aside if possible. Instead,

he or she truly wants to know what the other party needs and why it’s needed; he or

she wants to identify the underlying influences that shape the position. The

integrative negotiator does not use this information to undermine or manipulate the

other party’s position. Instead he or she uses it as building material for constructing

a mutually agreeable solution.

Outcomes

The distributive bargainer focuses on pressuring the other party’s bottom line; the

desire is to push the other party to the worst deal that they are willing to accept. The

integrative negotiator focuses instead on the parties’ shared interests, and on

whether they can work together to develop a solution that provides both sides with

at least some important part of their ideal objective.


Integrative negotiation focuses on what the parties have in common, and the ways

in which they can collaborate productively. Distributive bargaining sets two bottom

lines in opposition, and paints the parties as opponents. By focusing on the parties’

basic similarities, integrative negotiation works to remind the two sides of a conflict

that this disagreement is not the whole story about their relationship—a fact that

often gets forgotten in the heat of distributive bargaining.

Integrative negotiators approach the subject matter of negotiation from a different

perspective than the one assumed in distributive bargaining. They use different

tactics and methods from the very beginning of the process. Because this is the case,

early in any negotiation we can generally establish a reasonably good idea of whether

a negotiator is pursuing a distributive or an integrative approach.

Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation

The key to successful integrative negotiation is clear and open communication that

goes beyond the surface of a conflict, combined with the ability to be both certain

and adaptable about one’s ideal outcome. If both parties are to maximize their

outcomes, they must know what they want to achieve (be certain) but they must also

be willing to think about various ways their goal can be achieved (be adaptable)—

that is, they should be clear about what their basic aims and needs are, while

remaining open to different ways of satisfying those aims and needs. However,

before negotiators start talking about adapting their goals to fit different solutions,

they need to understand what their problem is in the first place.

Clarifying the Conflict

If our goal is to solve a conflict in a way that satisfies both parties, then the first step

in integrative negotiation is determining exactly what the conflict is and whether both

parties understand it in the same way. There is no real point in working on solutions

until we understand the problem and we know that the other side understands it in

roughly the same way.


If we plow ahead with solutions before we have a shared description of our problem,

then we run the risk of wasting our time crafting solutions for a problem other than

the one we really need to address.

This point seems obvious, but it can surprisingly difficult to identify and describe a

conflict in a way that all parties accept as accurate, and this difficulty increases as the

number of parties involved in a disagreement increases. We can think of this in terms

of the familiar claim “There are two sides to every story”—similarly, there are as many

sides to a conflict as there are parties involved, and it can be difficult to find one

description of the problem that all parties think is satisfactory.

There are, however, some steps that we can take to help formulate a clear, mutually

acceptable vision of our conflict. First, we should be clear about the questions to

which we need answers—what do we need to know to understand our problem? In

most cases, we need answers to the questions represented on the following diagram.

Read the corresponding information for each box to learn more:

Clarifying the Conflict

Who are the parties to the conflict?

Is anyone else affected by the outcome of the conflict?

What kind of relationship, if any, exists between the conflicted parties?

What are the basic points of disagreement?


Who are the parties to the conflict? Who are the people truly involved in the

conflict? We should be wary of thinking the conflict consists just of those who see

themselves as being in disagreement. For example, it might be the case that the only

person who can resolve the conflict doesn’t even know about it yet. In addition, we

should think about how many people are genuinely involved in the conflict. We want

to make sure everyone who is really involved gets to take part in negotiation, but at

the same time we want to limit the conflict—and the negotiation process—to people

whose input is actually necessary for a solution.

Is anyone else affected by the outcome of the conflict? Sometimes the way we

solve a conflict has effects that reach far beyond the parties directly who are directly

involved. For example, if we are local government officials negotiating about where

to build a new landfill, the residents and property owners in the locations we are

considering could be greatly affected by our decision to put a landfill in their area. In

cases like these, we need to get input from the other affected parties about their

goals and interests. Otherwise, what looks like a good agreement to us may turn out

to be totally unacceptable when we try to put it into action.

What kind of relationship, if any, exists between the conflicted parties? Do they

like each other? Do they have a history of hostility? Past interactions can have a

strong influence on what kind of negotiation and outcomes are possible. In addition,

we want to know if there is an existing relationship that should influence the way we

should understand and approach a conflict. For example, the right approach to a

disagreement between two corporations is probably not the right approach for a

conflict between a parent and his child.

What are the basic points of disagreement? What is the contested benefit or value

at issue in the conflict? How does it relate to the parties’ more fundamental interests?

Seeing the answers here often requires us to put aside personal judgments about

the people involved in the conflict.


However, we need to get clear on this to understand why the parties are in conflict

in the first place, and to see what kind of solutions will actually resolve the issue.

As we work on answers to these questions, we want to avoid creating further

disagreement and tension. There are a number of basic strategies that can help us

achieve this goal.

State the Problem Neutrally: All parties should make an effort to describe the

problem in neutral terms—language that does not favor their own position or

disparage the other party’s stance. This can be difficult in volatile conflict situations,

but it goes a long way toward finding a description of the problem we are trying to

solve that is acceptable to everyone.

Focus on the Problem, not the People: We want to address the conflict itself, not the

character of the people involved. Personal attacks and judgments about the

personalities of the other parties just distract us from the real problem. Constructive

negotiation requires us to focus on the actual facts of the problem. Depersonalizing

a conflict can go a long way toward making it more manageable and toward helping

parties see one another as collaborators rather than competitors or enemies.

Make Defining the Problem a Joint Effort: Parties to the conflict should try to define

the problem together. If we make this a joint endeavor we are much more likely to

come up with an understanding of the conflict that accurately reflects both parties’

interests and aims.

Keep the Definition Focused and Simple: Our description of the problem should

focus on parties’ primary concerns. At this stage, we are not trying to put the whole

bargaining mix on the table. All we want to do is sort out the most important issues

and make sure they are represented in our definition of our problem. There will be

time to talk about secondary issues later, if they still seem important.


Disconnect the Statement of the Problem from Solutions: Like the previous point,

this step asks us not to make things too complicated too early in the process. We

want to define the problem in terms of an objective and the obstacles standing in the

way of that objective. In defining the problem, all we are interested in is what we are

trying to accomplish. We can worry about how to accomplish it at a later stage in our

negotiations, after we are sure about what our goal really is.

Be Specific: Defining the problem in terms of an objective is good, but we can help

ourselves further by making sure we define it in terms of a specific objective.

The more concretely we can describe the particulars of the conflict, the more clearly

we can assess each party’s role in it and the more clearly we can see what would

need to be done to resolve it.

How we define and understand our conflict can have a substantial effect on whether

the integrative approach can address it successfully. If we want integrative

negotiation to work for us, we should strive to frame our problem in a way that

makes it clear that there is a “common good” here—that both parties will gain from

working to resolve the problem together. If either party believes she can do better

working alone, or by competing against the other party, then an integrative

agreement is likely to be an uphill battle.

Integrative negotiators should keep in mind that there are different ways of

understanding the parties’ common good. It might be that each party shares in a

good outcome equally, each getting some benefit or value she could not attain on

her own.


On the other hand, each party might get a different kind or amount of benefit, but

again the benefit (regardless of the type or quantity) is one that would not exist

unless they worked together. We want to stay flexible about how we understand

what it means for both parties to do well. This does not mean that we should try to

deceive the other party into believing that a loss is actually a gain.

However, if we get too attached to one particular idea of what it would mean for us

both to maximize our outcomes, we can end up right back in the tug-of-war that

typifies distributive bargaining.

If integrative negotiation is to achieve its goals, both parties must be motivated to

work together to maximize benefit overall. They must be committed to attaining the

benefits that collaboration makes available to them when they work together. Only

from this perspective are they likely to be open, honest, and adaptable about their

goals and their interests, rather than being suspicious and inflexible.

Clarifying the Other Party’s Wants and Needs

An important part of getting clear on a conflict is recognizing and appreciating what

is going on in the background of the other party’s position. When someone states

their ideal objective, we know what she wants from the conflict, but we do not know

anything about why she wants that outcome. Virtually every negotiator’s position is

motivated by a complex interplay of worries, requirements, and hopes. We should

also think hard about our own deeper concerns and motivations, because

sometimes these are not as clear to us as we imagine them to be.

Successful integrative negotiation requires that we have at least some sense of this

“motivational network” behind each party’s stance. We need this knowledge because

it helps use to see the fundamental wants and needs that drive each party to take

the position she has chosen.


Returning to our salary negotiation example, let’s say I have asked Company B for

$53,000—a figure that exceeds the $52,000 their budget permits. At this point, if we

do not look behind my position to see what is motivating it, then we have no options:

Company B cannot meet my demand, and I am not willing to accept a lower salary.

Neither of us will get what we want from this negotiation.

But if Company B’s negotiator knows why I want a certain salary from his company,

he may be able to help me reach my goals in other ways while still keeping his salary

offer in line with what his budget allows. If, for example, I tell him that I need at least

$53,000 because in addition to my regular budget I must pay a certain amount for

child care, he might be able to help me achieve my goals by informing me about

Company B’s highly respected and very inexpensive daycare program. If that

program offers what I want while still costing less than I had anticipated spending for

childcare, I may be willing to accept a lower salary from Company B. In this way, we

both get what we want: he gets me as an employee at a salary within his budget, and

I while I don’t get the salary I was seeking, I do get a job benefit that does the same

work of a higher salary.

This example illustrates a number of important points about integrative bargaining.

It shows us how important it is for integrative negotiators to communicate openly

and honestly with one another: if Company B’s negotiator does not know about the

factors driving me to ask for a higher salary, he cannot do anything to address them.

Similarly, unless there is forthright communication between us neither he nor I can

see intersections between our wants and needs that might give rise to solutions we

can both accept. This example also demonstrates that reaching a mutually

satisfactory solution often requires integrative negotiators to be open to diverse and

perhaps unexpected options for satisfying their interests.


Making the effort to see and understand the elements operating in the background

of each party’s position is often what will bring the conflicted parties together as

collaborators. Asking probing questions and openly exchanging information can help

us to see why the other side’s position is actually reasonable, given what they care

about, believe, and desire. Once we see that both sides have legitimate issues

addressing their wants and needs, and a reasonable stance, we are well on our way

to working together toward a shared goal. In addition, when we have this additional

information about the other party it is easier for us to see him as a complete, complex

person rather than just an obstacle heedlessly blocking us from our goals.

Likewise, when the other side expresses genuine interest in your position, and in

helping you achieve your goals, it tends to help you feel that negotiation is a

conversation between real human beings, instead of a struggle between caricatured

enemies.

It is fairly easy to understand that each party has this background network of wants

and needs that motivates her position. However, it is not so easy to see specifically

what her true wants and needs are, or how we might ask her the right questions to

find out about them. While this process will depend in part on the particulars of a

given negotiation, there are some general things we can say about the sort of

concerns and interests people often have regarding their perceived wants and

needs. If we know what these are, we can remind ourselves to look for them in a

negotiation.

Concerns about the Details of the Conflict

In most negotiations, both parties have interests connected to the specific issues at

the core of the conflict—that is, they have an interest in the contested benefit or

value being used a particular way, or divided in a certain way. These interests can be

discovered by asking questions about the substance of the negotiation, for example

“Why does this salary seem like too little to you?


What made you decide you wanted $53,000?” It is important to remember—for this

point and those that follow—that if we want real information and a collaborative

response from the other party, we must ask these questions in a way that shows that

we are genuinely interested in her input. Similarly, we must use what she tells us in

the negotiation: our responses and the options we offer her must reflect that we

hear and understand what she has told us. Otherwise, the other party will likely—

and reasonably—conclude that we are not listening to her, or not truly interested in

what she has to say.

Concerns about How the Conflict is Resolved

People often have interests pertaining to how the conflict is resolved. For example,

sometimes people care less about the subject matter of the conflict and more about

the fact that they feel like no one ever consults them about how things should be

done. This can be true even if that person starts the negotiation by taking a hard line

on a specific point about the subject matter of the conflict; her desire to be heard

can lead her to act as though another issue is very important to her, even though it

actually is not. In such a case, finding out about this underlying concern makes it clear

that the real issue is making sure we solve the conflict in way that assures this person

that her input is important in our decision-making process.

In other cases, someone may be pushing for a high-pressure distributive bargaining

approach because she sees a given conflict as part of a bitter interpersonal dispute

between herself and the other party. We can learn a great deal about these interests

by asking each party about her ideal objectives, and about what methods she thinks

would lead to the best solutions. She might not tell us outright that she prefers

distributive bargaining because it will give her a chance to make the other party look

bad, but if we listen carefully here we can find important clues about what people

see as the real problem, and how they perceive that problem.


In essence, we must remember that particular ways of solving a problem carry

different meanings for various individuals. These meanings are not inherently a part

of the solution or the process. For example, someone who has frequently been left

out of decision-making might not have been overlooked at all. Perhaps we tried to

make decisions without her because we thought she was too busy to get involved in

our problems; we didn’t leave her out because we thought she was too trivial, rather

we tried to avoid bothering her because we thought she was too important. Even

though the ways we solve problems are themselves generally neutral, a good

negotiator will recall that people do interpret the “meanings” of various methods and

take this into account when he is choosing a solution.

Concerns about How the Conflict Will Affect a Relationship

Parties to a conflict often have concerns about how that conflict will affect a

relationship. When one party places a high value on his relationship with the other

party in the conflict, these concerns can strongly influence what he is willing to do in

negotiation because he wants to avoid damaging the relationship. In other cases, one

party might see the conflict as a chance to establish dominance or control in a

relationship; here, the person values the outcome she believes will make her look

strongest, but she values it primarily as a tool for shaping her relationship with the

other party—i.e., she would be equally attracted to any other outcome that achieved

the same result.

In addition, an individual might be concerned about how a conflict will affect his

relationship with someone outside the conflict entirely; for example, a child might be

concerned about what his parents will think about his position in a conflict. We can

find out about these interests by asking people about what they hope or worry will

happen after a conflict is resolved. Relationship issues are often very sensitive points

in the negotiation process, and we would do well to ask such questions in a

diplomatic and thoughtful way.


A further consideration related to relationships is the fact that people commonly

conclude that there is no need to bother with integrative negotiation when there is

no ongoing relationship between the negotiators. This view arises from the belief

that, in essence, there is no need to make a special effort to understand or work

collaboratively with someone you will never see again—instead you should use

distributive bargaining to get as much benefit as you can from him. There is some

merit to this view; integrative negotiation can take a great deal of work and time,

which may make it a less appealing approach when dealing with people who are—

and will remain—strangers. However, we should also bear in mind that one never

really knows what the future holds: for example, the person who crumpled under

your high-pressure distributive bargaining when you bought her car may turn out to

be your next supervisor. Because life is unpredictable in this way, the choice to forego

integrative bargaining can have unforeseen repercussions.

Concerns about How the Conflict Relates to Other Abstract Values

Parties also often have concerns about how their position and their alternatives are

evaluated in terms of a standard outside the conflict. For example, someone’s

bargaining position might be motivated by a concern for doing the morally right

thing, or by a concern for how this kind of conflict has traditionally been handled.

These kinds of basic values can strongly influence what a person views as an

acceptable outcome, and sometimes in surprising ways; for example, one party may

be unwilling to accept a solution she believes is unfair, even if it is unfair in a way that

favors her.

It is not always easy to get people to articulate the abstract values and beliefs that

guide their positions; sometimes they cannot even explain these well to themselves.

However, it is still worth looking for their influence in negotiation. At best, speaking

clearly about our more abstract values will help us to see important things we have

in common.


If, for example, we can both agree that we are committed to arriving at an ethical

solution, we can use our concern for a morally right outcome as a touchstone in our

discussions, a point we can return to when we find ourselves starting to disagree. At

the very least, having a clearer sense of each party’s abstract values will help us to

see the basic framework our solution must satisfy.

Some General Points about Wants and Needs

Now that we know more about what kind of concerns arise when realizing the

negotiators’ wants and needs that they bring to the process, we should remember

some important points about them. First, wants and needs can shift or change during

a negotiation. People may reconsider an issue and come to see their concerns in a

different light, or they may decide that something they initially thought was

important is actually trivial. In addition, even if we think we have a clear sense of the

other party’s wants and needs, we should realize that new concerns may arise at any

time. And, we should be aware that some concerns over different wants and needs

may be rooted between each of the two buyers—or each of the two sellers: not

necessarily between just buyers and sellers…i.e.: between husbands and wives;

elderly parents and children; siblings, etc.

Second, people can value their wants and needs in different ways. If I am concerned

to see a particular outcome realized, it could be because I value that outcome in itself

(i.e., getting it will please or satisfy me, and I want nothing further from it). However,

I might instead value that outcome as a tool for achieving further outcomes. It is

important that we know how people value their concerns; when people value an

outcome as a tool it is often the case that they will accept other tools that can do the

same job, and if other tools are acceptable, this opens up the range of satisfactory

solutions.


Third, our concerns over our wants and needs are not necessarily anything like the

other party’s concerns over their wants and needs—the other party may have

different concerns of the same type, or she may have an entirely different sort of

concern. This seems like a simple point, but people often assume that the things that

matter to them are the same things that matter to the other party. This belief that

both parties are struggling over the same issues is part of what leads many people

to see conflicts as competitions. If a discussion about our underlying concerns

reveals that we are not actually in conflict about the same specific points, it can be

considerably easier to find a solution that will satisfy us both.

Lastly, a single position can be motivated by various kinds of wants and needs. For

example, it might be the case that I care strongly about certain details of the actual

conflict itself, but I also care intensely about how that conflict is resolved and how

that resolution fits with my more abstract values.

Distributive bargaining focuses on undermining and discrediting the other party’s

position; this mindset has no place in integrative negotiation. Exploring the wants

and needs that underwrite people’s positions in a conflict is critical to the success of

the integrative approach. If the parties to a conflict are to work together

cooperatively (rather than thinking they can do better alone, or by competing), it is

essential that each see the other’s position as valid and reasonable.

I do not need to share your position—or even agree with it—to see it as valid and

reasonable.

However, I do need to understand why someone might sensibly hold that position,

that is, I need to understand the facts and background influences that make it a

plausible position.

Each party needs to feel that the other party’s position is legitimate—at least in large

part, if not completely.


This perspective is central to the respectful, open communication required

throughout the integrative negotiation process. Additionally, honest and considerate

discussion of each party’s wants and needs can do much to build a general

atmosphere of trust in the negotiating process. When parties do not trust one

another, collaboration is extremely difficult; people who mistrust one another tend

to spend their time acting defensively, trying to protect their resources and ideas

from attack instead of working together. Some significant level of trust is thus

necessary for successful integrative negotiation.

Clearly, people who do not trust each other will not reveal their deeper wants and

needs to each other, either; so it is not as though this stage of integrative negotiation

(exploring the other party’s wants and needs) will create trust if there isn’t at least

some already. This is why one’s attitude and demeanor are so important in

integrative negotiation. From the very beginning of the process, one should strive to

present oneself as compassionate and reflective.

Resolving the Conflict

The early stages of integrative negotiation focus on developing a clear and shared

idea of the problem negotiators are trying to solve, as well as a sketch of the

background influences that affect what each party defines as an acceptable solution

to that problem. With this information in hand, they are in a good position to begin

thinking about what kind of solutions are possible, and how they might bring those

solutions about.

Conflicts arise because people believe their goals are at odds—each of them believes

he wants something he cannot have if the other party gets what he wants, too.

Initially, most conflicts are cast in terms of “either I get to have my way or you get to

have your way.” Distributive bargaining focuses on trying to change what your

opponent thinks he wants, deserves, or can get, so that you can capture more of the

contested benefit for yourself.


Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, emphasizes creatively exploring

alternative ways to resolve the problem. On this view, negotiation is not a battle

between my position and your position; integrative negotiators approach the conflict

in much less absolute terms. They focus on changing both parties’ understanding of

the problem, or of their available options, so that everyone can leave the bargaining

table knowing that they have achieved at least some of their important goals.

At this stage of integrative negotiation, we are largely finished gathering information.

Now our goal is to reach a solution by thinking creatively about the problem. There

are two general strategies used at this stage. One approach focuses on changing the

way we see the problem, since rethinking the problem can help us to find mutual

gain in a situation that previously seemed to be win-lose. The other approach accepts

the problem as we presently see it, and focuses instead on creating an array of

alternative solutions.

Rethinking the Problem

If we choose to seek a solution by rethinking the problem, we should be sure that we

have done the work of exploring our background concerns and desires. We need to

be clear about the basic needs and interests we want to see satisfied, because these

are the fundamentals of our conflict. We should not be focused on seeing them

satisfied in a particular way—that is, we are not wedded to a specific course of action;

any course of action that satisfies these fundamental concerns in a suitable way can

be considered a good solution.

Let’s say we are planning an evening out, and we disagree about both where to have

dinner and which movie to see. I want to have Vietnamese food and see a horror

movie, whereas you would like to have Mexican food and see a romantic comedy. On

the face of it, this is a win-lose conflict: we each want different things, and if one of

us achieves an ideal outcome then the other party loses.


As integrative negotiators, however, there are a number of tactics we might use to

recast our conflict:

Increasing the available resources

Finding a solutions that brings parties’ goals together

Seek a tradeoff inside the conflict

Look for a tradeoff outside the conflict

Make your ideal outcome less costly for the other party

These techniques are discussed in detail in the sections that follow.

Increasing the Available Resources

One tactic we can use is looking for a way to increase the available resources. The

object here is to increase the amount of value or benefit available to both parties.

This technique is sometimes called “expanding the pie,” a metaphor that recalls our

earlier example about dividing a pie: if we could somehow have had an additional

quarter of a pie in that example, then there would not have been a conflict at all.

Many conflicts spring from the belief that the value or benefit is limited in such a way

that we cannot both have what we want. This is not always true, and a very simple

solution to this kind of conflict is to add resources.

It is not always easy to see where these additional resources might come from, but

it is similarly true that creative thinking about how to “expand our pie” can often do

so successfully. Toward this goal, we should keep in mind that “resources” can be

many different things: time, money, and objects are just a few possibilities.

Similarly, we should also note that we need not always add more of the same

resource that is already under discussion; instead we might be able to offer another

resource that the other party finds equally, or more, attractive.

Read the example below to see one way we might increase resources in planning our

night out.


EXAMPLE: In planning our evening out, it is true that we cannot have dinner at two

restaurants simultaneously, nor can we see two movies at once. However, maybe we

could plan a longer day together, in which we had Vietnamese food for lunch and

then went to see a romantic comedy, after which we had Mexican food for dinner

and then finished our evening with a horror movie. By adding more time to the

equation—increasing the resources available to us—we can arrive at a solution that

lets each of us have what we would like.

Find a Solution that Brings the Parties’ Goals Together

Another way of reframing the problem is to look for a solution that closes the gap

between both parties’ ideal outcomes—whether the parties are the buyers and

sellers…or, the parties are the two sellers, or the two buyers. The two sellers may

need guidance on agreeing on the list price of their home. The two buyers may need

guidance on accepting each other’s priorities when making a purchase. These

respective problems must be solved before going into negotiations between the

buyers and sellers in a transaction. Achieving these solutions through this strategy is

similar to the previous one, in that it aims to let both parties realize their target

objectives in full. Here, what we are looking for is a way to achieve those outcomes

without adding resources. Success here requires that we let go of our attachment to

a particular way of satisfying our interests, and focus instead on what those interests

actually are. We need to know what our real target objectives are, and we need to

separate them from our preconceptions about the “right” solution.

Once we’ve done this, we can often see that there are ways to get those things other

than the positions we have set out.

Read the example below to see one way we might bridge the gap between our goals

in planning our night out.


EXAMPLE: Perhaps—just maybe—there is a restaurant in town that serves both

Vietnamese and Mexican food. If we agree to go there for dinner, then we have found

a “bridge” between two goals that looked incompatible. Similarly, we might be able

to find a film about the romantic hijinks of zombies that would satisfy both your

desire for a romantic comedy and my desire for a horror movie.

While the solutions above are a bit farfetched, it is still true that we can often find a

bridge between apparently opposed positions if we focus on our fundamental

interests. Maybe I do not actually want to go to a certain Vietnamese restaurant—

that’s not my most basic interest. Instead, all I want are some good spring rolls. If the

Vietnamese-Mexican restaurant serves these, then I will probably be delighted to go

there.

Look for a Tradeoff inside the Conflict

If we can find more than one important issue in a conflict, we can often trade off on

these issues so that one of us achieves her target outcome on the issue that matters

most to her, while the other party achieves his target outcome on the other on the

one that matters most to him. Even if neither of us sees one issue as more important,

we can often still arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement by dividing the issue in

this way; it gives each party roughly equal power in the decision-making process and

gives each of us at least part of our ideal outcome. Since neither of us is getting our

full ideal outcome, it is important that we each feel we are making a fair trade—i.e.,

that we feel our trade is roughly balanced—so that neither party feels shorted or

manipulated.

Read the example below to see one way we might find a tradeoff inside our conflict

about planning our night out.

EXAMPLE: In discussing how to plan our evening, it might become clear that one of

us cares much more about where we have dinner than about which movie we see.


The other party might then offer to “trade” the dinner choice for the movie choice: if

you care most about where we eat I might offer to let you choose the restaurant, so

that you can get your desired outcome on the issue that matters most to you. In

exchange, though, I would get to choose which movie we saw.

Look for a Tradeoff outside the Conflict

We can also try to reframe the problem by looking for a tradeoff outside the conflict.

This strategy requires the person who gets his ideal objective to “buy out” the other

party—whichever party gives up his ideal outcome must be compensated in some

way, and the person who is “buying” her ideal outcome must find a “price” that

appeals to the other party. This means the person doing the compensating must

have a clear idea of the “price” the other party attaches to his ideal outcome.

In most cases, we will not literally pay the other party money to persuade him to let

us have our ideal objective. Instead, we are more likely to trade him something else

he wants, something unrelated to our present conflict. It could be an activity, it could

be some task we perform for him, it could be an object—possible payments here are

limited only by our imagination. Finding an acceptable form of compensation may

take several attempts, however, and it is possible that this method of negotiation

could slip into distributive bargaining if one party is extremely attached to an

outcome that the other party wants him to give up.

Read the example below to see one way we might find a tradeoff outside of our

conflict about planning our night out.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say that we agree about where to have dinner but disagree about

which movie to see—now we cannot perform the simple exchange we did when we

were looking for a tradeoff inside our conflict.


In this case, though, we might find our tradeoffs elsewhere: I might be willing to see

your movie if you will go bird watching with me later in the week, or you might go to

my movie if I will agree to play cards with you afterward.

We can still find tradeoffs here, even though they revolve around activities that are

separate from the subject of our conflict.

Note

The strategy of making tradeoffs—both inside and outside the conflict

—which allow each party to achieve at least one preferred outcome

is sometimes called “logrolling.”

Make Your Ideal Outcome Less Costly for the Other Party

This method aims specifically to reduce your costs (whatever they may be—money,

time, inconvenience, etc.) for giving me the outcome I want. For this method to work,

I will need to have a good idea of what costs you face as a result of accommodating

my goal(s), as well as an understanding of how much I need to reduce those costs

before you will find my goal attractive. Of course, it may be that I cannot afford to

reduce your costs to the extent necessary to attain my goal. As is true of all integrative

strategies, this approach does not guarantee we will find an outcome we both like.

Read the example below to see one way I might decrease your costs in our conflict

about planning our night out.

EXAMPLE: I might be able to decrease your costs to an acceptable level if I offer to

buy your dinner and your movie ticket in exchange for you letting me choose the

restaurant and the movie. In this scenario, I get what I want, and you have not spent

money on a movie or a meal that you did not really want.


Notice how this is different from a simple tradeoff: paying for your meal and movie

reduces your costs in a way that agreeing to play cards with you later does not, since

even if we play cards later you will still have paid to see a movie you did not choose.

Creating Alternative Solutions

In the approaches discussed, we sought a solution by recasting the problem(s) at

issue. We focused on each party’s fundamental interests, and our solutions aimed to

satisfy those. As an alternative, we can take our definition of the conflict as a given,

and then work to solve that conflict creatively.

At some points, the rethinking approach and the “conflict as given” approaches

overlap. For example, if I offer you your choice of restaurants in exchange for my

choice of movies, this solution does not really change the character of our conflict at

all. It is still the case that our solution is a matter of choosing between incompatible

outcomes, so this solution could arise either from rethinking the problem in terms

of a tradeoff, or from taking the conflict as given. However, if we choose to spend a

longer day together in which we do all of the things we would each like to do, then

we have fundamentally altered the character of our conflict: it is no longer a matter

of determining whether to do one activity or the other in a limited amount of time.

Brainstorming

If integrative negotiators take the conflict as given, then their goal is to use creative

insight to get beyond “either I get to have my way, or you get to have your way” as a

solution to their problem.

The most common method used here is called “brainstorming,” in which each party

tries to come up with as many possible solutions as she can. We can brainstorm

alone, in pairs, or in small groups.


Including more people rather than brainstorming alone can often be helpful, even if

those people are not part of our conflict; the more people we can consult for ideas,

the more diverse our resulting list of possible solutions will be. Brainstorming groups

need to be a manageable size, though: the group must be small enough for each

person to have his input heard, and for the members to be able to interact with one

another and share ideas.

In addition to controlling the size of our group, there are other keys to effective and

productive brainstorming:

Suspend your judgment of the proposed solutions. This is not the time to

decide whether a solution is absurd or practical. If group members criticize

each other’s solutions, soon people will feel cowed and stop contributing.

Similarly, we can stifle our own stream of ideas if we allow a running critique

of them in our minds. The goal right now is to lay out as many ideas as

possible, so the only thing that merits criticism at this stage is a lack of

proposed solutions.

Offer unconventional and extreme ideas. The point of brainstorming is not

simply to list the solutions we already know about, or the solutions that seem

“safe.” We are trying to explore all possible avenues for solving the problem,

even ones which seem crazy or exaggerated. Push yourself to think of the most

preposterous solutions you can, and add them to your list alongside your

tamer ideas.

Keep the proposed solutions short. There will be time later to expand on

your ideas or to ask for clarification. Right now we are looking for quantity, and

getting caught up in details will only slow us down.

Build on other people’s ideas. If you are brainstorming alone, you do not

have to begin from scratch, sitting there paralyzed until you come up with an

original solution. You can think about how other people have approached

similar problems (perhaps someone you know or admire, perhaps a solution

you have learned about elsewhere), and start building from there.


Similarly, if you are working with a group, do not get fixated on sharing only

your original thoughts. You can make valuable contributions—sometimes

more valuable contributions—by building on what other people have said.

o Don’t give up too soon. Try to come up with an exhaustive list—one

that you really feel lists as many possible solutions as you can generate.

If you find yourself stuck for ideas, one option is to go back over the

solutions you already have, and look for ways to build on them.

o Remember that all ideas are equally valid at this stage. If we are

working in a group, we should remember the similar point that

everyone’s input is equally valuable and that all of our contributions

belong to the group as a whole.

o Do not sort the suggested solutions by how realistic you think they are,

or by what you think of the person who offered them. All possible

solutions should stand together as equals.

It might seem like brainstorming is impractical, since it is likely to produce a lot of

solutions that we will never seriously consider as options. However, surprising things

can happen when we free ourselves from the restrictions that we usually place on

our thinking. Even a solution that looks silly on the surface can contain important

insights—we may not use the solution in its current form, but it can give us original

and inspired ideas about how to solve our conflict, ideas we would never have come

up with if we had not arrived at the silly solution first.

While brainstorming can give us many useful insights into our conflict and possible

solutions, we should still remember that we can only very rarely solve our conflicts

merely by thinking intensely and creatively about possible solutions. Even if we do it

very well, brainstorming alone does not guarantee a resolution to our conflict.


We also need to do the difficult and often time-consuming work of learning about

the more basic needs and concerns involved in the conflict, and we still need to focus

on satisfying those rather than on achieving specific solutions we find particularly

attractive. In addition, we must also talk extensively with the other party about

possible concessions and commitments on both sides.

Choosing a Solution

Once we have set out an array of possible solutions to our conflict, we must choose

among them. We can narrow our initial list simply by selecting those options that

either side particularly likes. We can thus focus on the choices that are strongly

favored by at least one party; there is no point in looking at solutions that don’t really

interest either side.

However, it is unlikely that the outcomes which appeal to one party will be the very

same outcomes that appeal to the other party. So we still need to find a way to

choose among this narrower array of options.

To do this, we need criteria— we need some guidelines for deciding what counts as

a good solution to our problem—and both parties need to agree that these criteria

are the ones we will use. We need to determine our criteria before we start evaluating

our options, or else we are likely to end up creating more disagreements instead of

solving the conflict that already exists.

Similarly, we should aim for our criteria to be as objective as possible. We want to

use criteria both parties can share, rather than each party using its subjective

personal preferences to evaluate each option.

For example, it might be helpful if we could appeal to shared ideas about what is

right or fair during our discussion of possible solutions.


A response such as “I don’t think that solution is fair, for the following reasons...” is

certainly more useful to the negotiation process than a vague claim like “I just don’t

feel good about that idea.”

When we defined our conflict earlier, one of our aims was to describe it as a specific

goal that needed to be addressed. This gives us another good source of criteria. We

should ask how well each solution on our narrowed list addresses that goal. We

should also ask how satisfactory each solution will be to whoever must put it into

practice. Each party will have various views here, and each side needs to be prepared

to explain their preferences in terms that others can understand and accept. This is

why it is so important that we determine some shared, objective criteria before we

start looking at solutions.

Obstacles to Successful Integrative Negotiation

The integrative approach is a more attractive method than distributive bargaining in

some ways. With its emphasis on openness and collaboration, it seems much less

threatening and manipulative to many people. Win-win solutions are uplifting, too—

we often feel better about ourselves when we can resolve a conflict in a way that

pleases all parties. Integrative negotiation has the additional benefit of seeming less

likely to cross the line into unethical or unkind behavior, and thus probably fits better

with the way we prefer to think of ourselves. Even though these positive things are

true, there remain a number of reasons why it is often difficult to make integrative

negotiation successful.

First, there are relatively few negotiations that are—or should be—either wholly

integrative or wholly distributive. As we mentioned at the beginning of this lesson,

these methods are not mutually exclusive, and most negotiations contain some

issues that are best handled with distributive bargaining and other issues which lend

themselves to an integrative approach.


If people give precedence to the distributive elements of a negotiation, however,

conflict and squabbling can destroy the trust and mutual understanding needed for

successful integrative negotiation, as well as undermining the motivation to work on

creating a shared good.

Second, if there have been problems between the parties in the past then their

history can make them wary of the integrative approach. Someone who feels he has

previously been manipulated and mistreated by the other party is unlikely to be

receptive to the suggestion that he share his innermost needs and goals with that

person, or to believe that he can trust the other party to do the same.

Finally, the most serious obstacle to integrative negotiation is the fact that many

people are predisposed to view conflict as a competition and to mistrust the other

party, as mentioned earlier. For these people, a good solution to a problem is one

that satisfies their needs; whether it satisfies other people’s needs is a matter of

considerably less interest. This perspective may be a product of a person’s culture,

or it might simply be a feature of his personality. Whatever its source, it means that

many negotiators do not readily see the potential for integrative agreement, and thus

do not see integrative negotiation as a viable option.

Lesson Summary

This lesson introduced the student to the second main approach to negotiation:

integrative negotiation. It described how integrative negotiation’s collaborative

orientation makes it unlike the competitive distributive bargaining approach, as well

how the approaches’ divergent perspectives lead them to take widely different

stances on negotiating tactics like information sharing and concessions.

An integrative negotiator aims to capture maximum benefit or value for both parties;

this goal is far removed from the distributive bargainer’s objective of capturing as

much benefit or value as she can for herself.


Because the approaches have these divergent aims, their methods are quite

different as well.

The first step in integrative negotiation is clarifying the problem: parties must work

together to come up with a neutral, simple definition of their conflict that both sides

can accept. Once they’ve agreed about their conflict’s subject matter, their next step

is working to understand the motivations and concerns that lie behind each party’s

position. Before they can start crafting creative solutions, integrative negotiators

must make sure they have a good grasp on why each party wants what she does; this

information is essential to appreciating which alternatives can genuinely satisfy each

party. In addition, having this information can help each party to understand why the

other side’s position is reasonable and valid. While they will probably still disagree,

negotiation can proceed much more amicably if both parties see one another as

people with legitimate concerns and needs.

The last step in integrative negotiation is working creatively to solve our conflict. We

can do this by rethinking our problem in various ways (for example, trying to “expand

the pie” or looking for a tradeoff outside the conflict), or we can take the problem as

given and try to brainstorm our way to a creative solution. Once we have an array of

attractive solutions, we must decide among them using neutral, objective,

predetermined criteria. Having come this far, we don’t want our negotiation to fall

apart simply because we can’t agree on a fair way to choose a solution.

Integrative negotiation is attractive in many ways: for example, it aims to be fair, it

encourages both parties to understand and respect each other and it focuses on

solutions that maximize benefit for everyone involved. Many people find this

approach much more appealing than distributive bargaining’s selective presentation

of information and aggressive efforts to pressure the other party’s bottom line.

Even though it has some clear benefits, there are still obstacles to using integrative

negotiation successfully. The greatest impediment is that many people approach


conflict from a competitive and mistrustful perspective, and this makes it difficult for

them to see the integrative potential in a given problem. In addition, past problems

between the two parties can make it very difficult to bring them together in a

collaborative project that requires trust and honesty. Lastly, very few conflicts are

wholly integrative – or, for that matter, wholly deliberative; we need to know when

to use each method. Otherwise, we risk stalling negotiations or intensifying a conflict

by applying the wrong method to a particular issue.


Lesson 4: High-Pressure Tactics and Ethics in

Negotiations

Lesson Topics


Introduction

Why High-Pressure Tactics and Unethical Conduct are Problematic

High-Pressure Negotiation Tactics

Responding to High-Pressure Tactics

Ethical Considerations and Concerns




Summarize the purpose of high-pressure negotiating tactics, and give

examples of both the tactics and strategies for managing the high-pressure

negotiator.

Apply an ethical standard in negotiations, and explain why unethical behavior

is a potential problem in negotiation.

Describe the motives one might have to engage in unethical conduct.

Identify conditions conducive to unethical conduct.

Effectively assess outcomes in determining courses of action used in

managing unethical behavior.

Introduction

This lesson will help you to understand negotiation in the context of broader social

and cultural ideas about what it means to treat people well and fairly. If one party

leaves a negotiation feeling that he has been wronged—even if he is mistaken—this

is likely to create further conflict. This kind of defective negotiation does not solve

our initial disagreement in a mutually acceptable way; instead, it increases the

problems we have to solve. Good negotiation aims at creating outcomes that both

parties genuinely support and will carry out – these are called “stable outcomes.” This

means that good negotiators should avoid tactics that can be expected to make the

other side feel angry, manipulated, or swindled.

High-pressure negotiation strategies are one approach that tends to have this

negative result. They generally rely on deception, intimidation, or escalation of the

conflict. Some negotiation theorists prefer these hardball tactics, but they have many

potential drawbacks, including driving the other party away from negotiation,

damage to your reputation, and negative publicity. Reasons like these, in

combination with the fact that these tactics rarely produce stable outcomes, suggest

that we should be extremely careful with the high-pressure approach.


Unethical behavior can have similar effects. When two parties are competing for a

benefit or value, sometimes they are more concerned with winning the competition

than with treating each other appropriately. Negotiators must remember that they

have ethical standards guiding their interactions. Sometimes these are clearly laid

out, like a professional code of ethics, but more often each negotiator must rely on

her internal ideas about what is right and wrong to guide her behavior. Even a

professional code of ethics does not tell us precisely what to do in every situation.

Upon completion of this lesson you will know why a stable outcome is important to

a successful negotiation process. You will be able to identify the basic characteristics

of common high-pressure negotiation tactics, as well as some of their common

pitfalls. In addition, you will be able to describe strategies for dealing constructively

with the other party when they use hardball tactics against you.

You will recognize the basic motives for unethical behavior, and how they tend to

push people to behave in unacceptable ways. You will be able to distinguish the basic

criteria for picking out a good solution, and be able to separate ethical criteria from

other considerations. Lastly, you will be able to apply a simple method for

determining whether an outcome meets your ethical standards.

Why High-Pressure Tactics and Unethical Conduct are

Problematic

When we negotiate, the goal is a mutually acceptable solution. There are many ways

to get to a solution that both parties say they accept; for example, a distributive

negotiator can use high-pressure tactics to intimidate the other party into agreeing

to a deal he would not have accepted in a less hostile bargaining process. This

solution is technically “mutually acceptable,” since both parties agreed to it. However,

the person who felt pressured and intimidated is likely to resent the solution—and

the way it was achieved—once he is away from the negotiation process and has time

to reflect on it.


Effective negotiation is not about tricking people into agreeing to things they don’t

really want. When we do this, we may feel clever, and pleased that we have achieved

our own objectives. Nonetheless, if it leads directly to further conflict then our

negotiation has not actually been successful. Someone who feels he was treated

unfairly may seek revenge, or he may refuse to honor the negotiated deal. In both

cases, we have not truly resolved our conflict because we are still importantly at odds

with the other party.

We want solutions that both parties genuinely accept—outcomes in which both

parties honor the negotiated deal, and which do not immediately generate further

conflict. This is the only way to achieve a stable outcome from negotiation. This does

not mean that we cannot ever pressure people, or that we must always relinquish

our ideal objectives. However, it does mean that we must be wary of negotiation

tactics that are likely to leave the other party feeling that he has been tricked or

manipulated.

In addition, most of our personal, community, and business relationships depend on

our maintaining certain ethical standards—that is, they require us to live up to certain

benchmarks of right and wrong conduct. We cannot simply abandon those standards

when we encounter someone whose goals are in conflict with ours. Just as most of

us recognize that killing the other party is not generally an acceptable way to resolve

a clash between goals, we should recognize that negotiators are bound by other

widely-accepted rules about appropriate behavior.

When we violate these rules, we risk the same problem: unstable negotiation

outcomes. However, we also risk our reputation as ethical people, and we sometimes

risk criminal prosecution. For all of these reasons, ethics should be an important

consideration throughout any negotiation process.


High-Pressure Negotiation Tactics

The approaches discussed in this section are not strictly unethical or illegal—that is,

they do not involve violations of well-understood ethical rules, or laws. However,

these strategies are focused on pressuring the other party to accept a solution he

would normally reject. As a result, these approaches are not likely to generate a

stable outcome. Instead, they can generally be expected to leave the other party

angry and motivated to create further conflict. Even if the person using the high-

pressure tactics can argue that technically he has done nothing wrong, the other

party may still feel he has been wronged.

Some negotiation theorists focus on these tactics, painting negotiation as a kind of

wrestling match—a process of dominating and manipulating the other party. This

approach is sometimes presented as the “standard” in distributive bargaining. It is

true that these tactics only have a place in distributive bargaining (since they are

fundamentally competitive). Still, we might reasonably wonder whether even a

distributive bargainer should use them since doing so means undertaking the risk of

harming his reputation, the possibility of negative publicity, and dealing with the

other party’s anger and possible revenge. In addition, these tactics can backfire badly.

Instead of pressuring the other party into agreement they can leave the negotiator

worse off than he was before.

Because they can go wrong in many ways, we should be clear that these tactics are

presented here as cautionary examples: they are strategies that any negotiator

would do well to avoid. In addition, even if we reject high-pressure strategies, the

people we negotiate with may not, so we need to know about these strategies if we

are to be properly prepared for negotiation.


Deception

Blatantly lying to the other party about issues central to the negotiation is generally

recognized as unethical and is often illegal. However, deception can be used as a

high-pressure negotiation tactic without explicitly lying to the other party about

critical information. For example, I might open a negotiation with an absurdly high

or low figure (sometimes called a “highball” or “lowball” offer), in the hopes of

pressuring the other party to re-evaluate his own position. If I am considering buying

your house, for example, I might initially offer you a price considerably below what

you are asking. This could make you abandon negotiation with me, and so it is a risky

strategy if I actually want your house. Even if you continue negotiation, though, I am

likely to have a difficult time justifying my very low offer. This strategy is only likely to

work on an unprepared seller who does not understand the value of her home.

I can also use deception to pretend that one issue in my bargaining mix is much more

important to me than it really is. My goal here is to persuade you that this is so, and

then offer you this item as a tradeoff later in negotiation—it becomes a kind of false

concession since I am actually not conceding anything I care about. However, if you

know the truth of my position, or want an explanation for why this item matters so

much to me, I had better be prepared to do some fast and convincing talking.

Intimidation

All of the methods people use to intimidate each other in daily life can be used in

negotiation, so a negotiator can do a lot to intimidate the other party.

For example, she can bring a large team with her, she can use aggressive body

language when she presents her position, she can criticize the other party’s

appearance, or she can demean the other party’s preparation and knowledge.


Making the other party angry or afraid—or both—increases his stress level and can

make him feel less sure of himself and her position. This stress and uncertainty can

lead to making more concessions than he had anticipated, defending his position

more weakly and generally being much more accommodating to the other party than

he had originally intended to be.

Another common intimidation strategy is for a two-person negotiation team to play

“good cop/bad cop” with the other party. In this approach, one person presents

himself as tough, demanding, and basically unpleasant, while the other member of

the team tries to seem reasonable and accommodating. The goal here is to get the

other party to think the reasonable person is on her side, even though he is really

just acting as foil for the unpleasant person. Often the unpleasant person leaves the

negotiation at some point, which is when the reasonable person tries to influence

the other party’s goals, and tries to pressure her into making a quick deal before the

unpleasant person gets back.

Intimidation can work in negotiation because most people are at least somewhat

vulnerable to being intimidated. However, many overt intimidation strategies are

seen as unkind and unfair. In addition, it is generally not difficult for the other party

to see what you are trying to do. The more subtle strategies – like “good cop/bad

cop,” or the use of body language that differs from your normal behavior – often

require that the other party be fairly gullible, that negotiators be good actors, and

that negotiators prepare their roles extensively beforehand.

Escalation

Escalation strategies try to intensify or prolong the conflict. This is not generally the

negotiator’s true goal, but he hopes that the threat of a worse or longer conflict will

pressure the other party to agree to his current offer. Bluffing like this can be

dangerous; if the other party doesn’t relent, you must be prepared and willing to

follow through on your threat.


For example, let’s say I want a raise. I feel that if I simply ask for one, I will see no real

results. So instead, I tell my manager that I want a raise or else I will quit. This

intensifies the conflict: before, it was simply a matter of getting more money—now it

is matter of keeping my job. If my manager does not agree to my request, I had better

be ready to quit. If I get no raise but don’t follow through on my threat, then my

future statements about what I am willing to do to achieve my goals (particularly any

future threats to leave) are unlikely to be taken seriously.

Additionally, I should expect that my manager will not take kindly to what is clearly

an attempt to pressure her into doing my bidding. People do not generally react well

when others try to pressure them into making a certain choice, even if they might

have willingly made that choice on their own. It might have been that my manager

would have given me a raise, but is now unwilling to do so because she does not

want to give other workers the impression that this is the right way to deal with her.

All escalation strategies carry a similar risk.

Responding to High-Pressure Tactics

When we encounter high-pressure tactics, we have three basic options for how to

react:

1. We can respond with similar high-pressure tactics of our own.

2. We can ignore the other party’s attempt to pressure us.

3. We can openly discuss the tactics the other party is using.

Responding in Kind

One way to react to a high-pressure negotiator is by using hardball tactics of our own.

This is probably the least effective way of dealing with high-pressure negotiators,

since it carries all the same risks of any use of hardball tactics. However, it is a

common response because high-pressure tactics tend to make people feel cornered

and defensive.


If they do not either leave the negotiation or give in to the other party’s pressure,

people who are on the receiving end of high-pressure strategies frequently lash out

at the other party with behavior similar to his own.

We should be very careful with this way of reacting. Not only is it inherently risky, but

it is also necessary that a high-pressure negotiator be well-prepared. If we are pushed

into using hardball tactics—especially if we had not anticipated that the negotiation

would have this tone—we are unlikely to be fully ready to use them. Nonetheless,

this response can work. It can show the other party that you are equally capable of

pressuring him, and cause him to reevaluate how he will treat you.

Ignoring the High-Pressure Tactics

Another possibility is to simply ignore the other party’s efforts to pressure you. This

requires a good understanding of your own reactions, and some ability to control

them. For example, you may find it difficult not to be insulted when the other party

criticizes your understanding of the conflict. To stay calm and defeat his efforts to

intimidate you, you need to stay positive and stay focused on the real subject matter

of the negotiation.

Ignoring high-pressure tactics effectively takes some skill and often requires a great

deal of self-control. The point is not simply to grit one’s teeth and endure the other

party’s aggressive behavior. Instead, one needs to react in ways that tell the other

party he is wasting his time by using this approach, and that it will not get him what

he wants. For example, one can respond to threats by changing the subject, or

shifting the discussion back to more central issues that involve the other party.

Similarly, the party who is feeling pressured could ask for a time-out, and use it to

collect herself and plan a new direction for negotiation.


We should remember that ignoring these tactics is much different from giving in to

them. Weakness lies in allowing the other party to pressure you—not in refusing to

be drawn into his strategies.

People sometimes think that ignoring hardball tactics is a feeble response, but this

is not so. When you will not play his game, you can remain calm while the other party

wears himself out trying to bend you to his will. Likewise, it is not the case that

responding in kind is a “stronger” response than ignoring hardball tactics. If you

respond in kind, you will have to invest just as much energy in these power games as

the other party does, energy that could probably be better used elsewhere.

Discussing the High-Pressure Tactics

Rather than simply ignoring the other party’s attempts to pressure us or reacting with

our own hardball strategies, we might try taking a step back from what is happening

and openly discussing the process itself. For example, to a negotiator who has just

made a low-ball offer, we might say: “You know, that offer is a lot lower than I was

expecting. Would you tell me why your offer is so low?” or “I get the sense that your

low offer is an attempt to get me to lower my asking price. Is that true?”

When we bring the tactics out into the open we should avoid attributing bad

intentions to the other party. Discussing tactics is not a chance to launch a character

attack on the other party, no matter how much we might think he deserves it. The

goal here is to talk about the methods being used and how we would like to change

them; this should be our focus. Therefore we should not open our discussion with a

statement like “Why are you trying to lowball me?” This will make the other party

defensive and does not facilitate open discussion of the negotiation methods being

used. Instead it is more likely to prompt the other party to deny that he is doing

anything wrong.


Openly discussing the other party’s attempts to pressure you can be an extremely

effective strategy. It shows him that you know what he is doing and pulls the plug on

his high-pressure tactics, just like responding in kind does. However, it does not

require you to invest energy in playing risky power games nor does it require that

you concede anything to the other party—so this response also has all the

advantages of ignoring the other party.

In addition, it has the added benefit of allowing us to move to a more general level

in the negotiation and speak openly about what tactics we will and will not accept

during the process.

Ethical Considerations and Concerns

This discussion of ethics does not aim to tell negotiators what they should and should

not do. That is something each negotiator must work out for him- or herself, and

what counts as the right course of action often depends on particular features of a

negotiation. Most negotiators have already developed standards of right and wrong,

and this lesson does not aim to change those. Instead, the point is to provide

negotiators with some tools for thinking about the ethical challenges they may face.

We do not have to agree about exactly what actions are right to talk meaningfully

about the role ethics plays in negotiation. As long as you agree that some actions are

right while others are wrong, then there is some standard by which you make moral

judgments. It is true, however, that we do not all value ethical behavior to the same

degree, and this can cause us to react very differently to ethical considerations in

negotiation. For some people, doing the right thing is critically important. Other

people like to do the right thing, but not if it is too inconvenient or costly. We must

each make our own decisions about how much morality matters to us, and we should

remember that the other party may place a different value on a moral outcome than

we do.


Even though we may have different ethical standards, there are still many behaviors

that most of us would agree have no place in reasonable, fair negotiation. Outright

lying is one action we discussed earlier that is generally recognized as morally

unacceptable in negotiation, especially among integrative negotiators. Other

behaviors most negotiators see as unethical—and thus as out of place in any

negotiation—are:

Racism, sexism, and other language or conduct directed solely at demeaning

the other party (or the group of which he is a part).

Harmful or cruel treatment of the other party.

Taking bribes or kickbacks for accepting an outcome that affects people other

than yourself (this is ethically problematic because you receive a benefit that

is not shared with the other people affected by the solution).

Illegal or directly coercive threats (for example, it might be all right for me to

threaten to quit my job unless I get a raise, but it is not all right for me to

threaten to kidnap your child if you don’t give me a raise).

Acts or threats of violence.

Most of us would agree that these behaviors have no place in negotiation. Yet a fair

number of people still engage in this sort of conduct, especially the tamer sorts like

lying and demeaning the other party. Why?

Motives for Unethical Conduct

In negotiation, there are four major motives for unethical behavior:

1. The desire for gain

2. Competition for scarce resources

3. Perceived injustice

4. The belief that unethical behavior will not have negative consequence.


Pursuit of Gain

Negotiation is about dividing up a contested benefit or value. Sometimes this value

is monetary; in other cases, the benefit is less tangible. In all cases, though, the

parties are looking to maximize their own gain—sometimes in combination with

maximizing the other party’s gain, sometime not. Our desire for gain underwrites

most negotiation; after all, if we did not want to gain something for ourselves, we

would simply have yielded and walked away from the conflict.

It is not the case that the desire to maximize one’s benefit is unethical in itself. It

becomes unethical when we do not place limits on what we are willing to do to obtain

benefit, or when we are unwilling to impose limits on the amount of benefit to which

we think we are entitled.

Since we know this motive can push people to act unethically, we should be especially

alert for unethical behavior when acting in this way would greatly increase one or

both parties’ gain.

Competing for Scarce Resources

Many conflicts arise from competing for resources. In cases where only one

negotiator can win—like the pie-division example we discussed earlier, or when two

people are nominated for the same award—resources are limited, and scarcity of

resources tends to make them seem more valuable. When competing for valuable

and limited resources, the desire to get those resources for oneself (or to keep the

other party from having them) can motivate unethical behavior.

This is a different issue than mere pursuit of gain, because not all pursuit of gain

occurs in a competitive context. I can do unethical things to maximize my own gain—

like counterfeiting money, for example—that do not directly affect the other parties

involved in the conflict. Unethical behavior in competitive contexts, on the other

hand, focuses on outdoing the other competitors.


Perceived Injustice

The pursuit of justice and fairness is itself a good thing; it’s something most of us

recognize as an ethical goal. It can become problematic, though, when one party

believes she has been tricked, swindled, or humiliated by the other side. Her desire

for revenge or retribution can motivate her to do unethical things in an effort to

recover what she believes is rightfully hers. A negotiator may perceive injustice or

unfairness arising from various aspects of a negotiation: its outcome, the negotiating

methods, or the rules and context of the negotiation itself.

Self-serving conceptions of fairness and justice compound the problem here. It is bad

enough when genuine injustice leads people to behave unethically. However, when

we feel we are “losing” a negotiation it is easy to develop highly self-serving ideas

about what is fair or just. When we focus too narrowly on our own goals, we are easily

led to think an outcome is fair or proper for us which we would surely see as

unreasonable if the other party demanded it.

Similarly, we are often inclined to describe as “unfair” outcomes that do not give us

the amount of benefit or value we had hoped to get, simply because they do not

meet our expectations. We should remember that an unfair or unjust outcome is one

in which people do not get that to which they are rightly entitled—not one in which

people simply don’t get what they want.

Belief that Unethical Behavior Will Not Have Negative Consequences

Parties in a negotiation are more likely to behave unethically if they believe that sort

of behavior will not be detected, or will not be punished if it is detected. Some people

think it is important to do the right thing regardless of the consequences, and get

their motive to be ethical from inside themselves. However, others’ primary

motivation to be ethical is external, and comes from the threat of the bad

consequences that often follow from unethical actions.


We often like to think we are the first sort of person, but the truth is that many of us

are the second sort, at least at times.

Because this is true, we will frequently see unethical behavior in negotiation

situations that lack structures to ensure negative consequences for unethical

behavior. These structures can be as simple as both sides stating their commitment

to an ethical outcome, or as complex as an ethics review committee appointed to

evaluate the outcome independently. The point is that there must be some element

of the negotiations process that can act as an external motivation for those people

who lack internal motivations to be ethical.

Conditions that Conduce to Unethical Behavior

The previous discussion should help us see that certain contexts, and certain kinds

of conflicts, are especially prone to result in unethical behavior. In addition to

watching out for the influence of these motives, we want to be wary of negotiations

in which:

Parties are unfamiliar with each other’s behavior in past negotiations.

One party has considerably more information about the conflict than the other

party.

It is difficult for one party to determine whether the other is behaving

unethically, either because this information is not easily obtained or because

there are insufficient resources (time, money, etc.) to obtain it.

It is difficult to punish or expose unethical behavior.

Finally, it is easy to forget that we should be watching ourselves for unethical behavior,

too. We should hold ourselves accountable to the same ethical standards that we

use to evaluate the other party. In addition, we should not let the preceding

discussion mislead us into thinking that we only need to worry about ethics

occasionally. Ethical issues are at work in every negotiation, and if we care about

treating other people appropriately we must be aware of them.


If we decide, for whatever reason, to do something unethical, then we should be

honest with ourselves about the fact that we are behaving immorally. It is much more

comfortable to invent a story for ourselves about why this action is actually

acceptable in this particular situation. Generally, though, these stories are just

rationalizations and at some level we know that we have acted wrongly. If we are not

honest with ourselves about what we are doing, it is easy to get into the habit of self-

deception about our conduct. We do not want to end up lying to ourselves on a

regular basis about whether we have treated our negotiating partners—and the

other people in our lives—in a fair and just way.

Determining the Right Course of Action

Basic Considerations for Assessing Outcomes

We now have a better sense of the motives and negotiation contexts that can be

ethically problematic. However, knowing about things we shouldn’t do does not tell

us much about how to figure out what we should do. When we are deciding how to

deal with a conflict between two parties’ goals, various considerations can help us to

determine what it would mean to handle that conflict well:

Practical considerations

Prudential considerations

Ethical considerations

All of these have some place in deciding how we should deal with other negotiators,

but they are not all equally important and individuals often value them in different

ways.

Practical judgments rely on standards like “simplest,” “cheapest,” and “quickest.” They

are straightforward assessments of outcomes, and by themselves they don’t tell us

anything about what we should do in a situation.


For example, the fact that a solution is the cheapest one is only important if we care

about cost; unless we have a pre-existing interest in a specific practical consideration,

it doesn’t give us any reason to do anything. Practical conclusions are also relative to

specific situations; the course of action which is the cheapest solution in one

negotiation can be quite a costly solution in another context.

Prudence is a matter of looking after one’s own interests, and thus prudential

considerations are claims about what is best (or worst) for a particular person, group,

or organization. These claims are relative to the individual: the solution that best

serves my company’s interests might be rather bad for your company’s interests.

Since most people are concerned to see their interests protected and their goals

realized, it is usually understood that one should follow a prudent course of action

unless there are other reasons against it (for example, the course of action that best

serves my interests might also be prohibitively expensive). Prudential considerations

are thus generally taken to give us some important information about what we

should do.

Ethical judgments rely on a standard of right and wrong that is not relative to the

individual or the particular situation. In this way, ethical criteria are broader than

either practical or prudential criteria. If I say that a course of action is morally wrong,

I usually mean more than just that it would be wrong for me to do that or that it would

be wrong in only this case. Instead, I generally mean that it would be wrong for

anyone in a similar situation to act that way.

Ethical judgments are also thought to be a significant source of information about

what we should do. In general, the fact that you know an act is wrong is understood

to be a reason against pursuing that course of action, just as knowing an act is right

is thought to be a reason for doing that act.


Notice that practical and prudential criteria do not tell us anything about right and

wrong. The fact that a solution is the quickest tells me nothing about whether it

would be a morally good thing to do. Likewise the fact that a solution is the one that

best serves my interests tells me nothing about whether it is ethically right for me to

do that thing. For example, let’s say I need money right now. The fastest and easiest

thing for me to do might be to take your money. Because stealing the money is a

convenient and easy way to get the money I need, I feel it is the solution that I believe

best serves my interests. All of this can be true and yet it is still not morally right for

me to steal your money. Practical and prudential criteria can show us that one

morally good option is better than another, but they cannot make an unethical

course of action morally right.

The example helps us to see that these criteria do not always line up neatly. For

example, it may be that the cheapest and most beneficial solution is also one I believe

to be morally wrong. If it is important to me that I do the morally right thing, then in

this case I will have to choose a solution that does not do as well under the other two

criteria. In addition, people frequently confuse what is prudent (or “efficient”) with

what is right and thus sometimes believe that negotiation outcomes that serve their

interests are the same as outcomes which are morally right.

Testing Possible Outcomes against Our Own Ethical Standard

As mentioned at the beginning of this lesson, most negotiators already have

established standards of right and wrong. When we are negotiating, our main ethical

task is determining whether our acts are ones we genuinely believe to be right. All

we are trying to do here is to make certain that our acts line up with our beliefs—we

are making sure that we are behaving according to the standards we claim to

support. This is not the same as proving that our acts are right. However, if we

undertake this simpler task, we will be doing a lot more than many people do.


Thinking about these standards before we act will also spare us many regrets and

the anguished conscience that often comes with doing an act one knows to be wrong.

The easiest way to figure out whether our actions are measuring up to our ethical

standards is to ask ourselves some questions that examine the act from a broader

perspective:

Would I feel comfortable talking openly about this action? Do I feel I could defend

it to my coworkers, to my child, to the press? If I find that I don’t want other

people to know about what I’m doing, this should warn me that it may be at

odds with my ethical beliefs.

Would I want someone to do this to a person I care about? If I think it would be

wrong to treat those close to me this way, it’s probably wrong to treat most

other people that way, too.

Would there be bad consequences if everyone acted this way? If there would be

bad consequences, then I am probably making a special exception of myself

by acting this way, for no reason other than that I want to achieve my goals. If

I go ahead with this action, I am effectively saying that the moral rules that

apply to everyone else do not apply to me. The people on the receiving end of

my actions may quite reasonably ask why that should be the case.

Our answers here help to reveal our true moral evaluation of an act, which can be

different from the way we see the act in the context of our conflict. If our proposed

outcome does not pass these “tests,” we can be fairly certain that it’s an act that is

wrong according to our ethical standard. If it is important to us to do the right thing,

then we need to make this information known in the negotiation somehow.

Depending on the negotiation we might express our ethical judgment simply by

rejecting the proposed outcome, or we might prefer discussing our concerns more

openly.


If we think our actions and proposed solutions are morally right, we will have a much

easier time justifying and explaining them to the other party because we can appeal

to ethics as a more general and neutral criterion.

Notice, too, that you can use these questions to help explain yourself when you feel

someone is treating you unethically in a negotiation. The questions can readily be

turned around and put to the other party, and may well help him see—at the very

least—why you are rejecting a particular outcome, or why you object to his behavior.

At best, they may encourage him to reconsider his position and strategy entirely.

Dealing with Unethical Conduct

Dealing with unethical conduct from the other party is a complex process, much of

which depends upon particular features of our negotiation. However, we can say

some general things about our possible options for managing it. When we are

confronted with someone else’s unethical behavior in negotiation, we have the same

options as we had for dealing with high-pressure tactics: we can respond with

unethical behavior of our own, we can discuss the unethical behavior openly, or we

can ignore the unethical behavior.

Responding in kind is risky, just as it was with high-pressure tactics. It carries

additional risks because unethical behavior can do more harm than hardball tactics,

both to the person who acts and the person who is acted upon. For example, it is one

thing to be known as a fierce high-pressure negotiator, but it is something else

entirely to have a reputation as a liar and a cheat. Similarly, some of the harms

caused by unethical conduct (like racial discrimination, or genuine coercion) are also

illegal, and the person who acts in these ways faces the possibility of criminal

prosecution. In addition, if we genuinely care about behaving ethically then

responding in kind is not a real option for us no matter how the other party provokes

us.


Open discussion of the perceived problem can be very helpful, though we must be

tactful here since most people react badly to accusations of unethical conduct. If we

can get the other party to acknowledge that he is acting improperly, we may be able

to work out a solution on our own.

When the other party will not admit that he is doing anything wrong and either his

actions or the proposed outcome are likely to have serious repercussions, we should

probably look for help from someone outside the negotiation.

Ignoring another negotiator’s unethical behavior can be very difficult, and it is often

not a good strategy. We cannot disregard someone physically threatening us, for

example, in the same way we can disregard his lowball offer; there is much more at

stake. In addition, we may feel that ignoring the other party’s unethical behavior

amounts to doing something morally wrong ourselves. For example, imagine that we

are a hazardous waste processor, and a factory negotiating with us says that they will

pour their waste in a landfill rather than pay our rates. Presuming they are serious

and not just trying to pressure us into dropping our rates, many people would feel

that it was morally wrong to simply let the factory do as it wishes and ignore the fact

that their proposed solution can harm our entire community.

Ethics and State Law

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: A State Law with Side Effects

An interesting state law has been the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; it is a

strong consumer protection act.


To sustain an action under the DTPA, a plaintiff must establish the following

elements:

The plaintiff is a consumer.

The defendant can be sued under the DTPA.

The defendant committed an act that is actionable under the DTPA.

The defendant’s actions were a producing cause of damage.

The DTPA defines a consumer as “an individual, partnership, corporation… who seeks

or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services.” Obviously, this definition is

quite broad and this is no accident. Notably, the DTPA gives consumer status to

businesses, in addition to individuals.

This issue has been of most concern to small businesses. The main requirement is

that the entity must have made a misrepresentation to a consumer.

False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practice were actionable.

These acts are specifically enumerated under Section 17.46 of the Texas Property

Code and are affectionately known as the “Laundry List”. The list includes 27 separate

acts, so we are not going to list them here. However, the most commonly pursued

claims involved the following:

Representations that goods possess characteristics that they do not possess

Representations that goods are of a certain quality that they are not

Representations that goods are new when they are used

Failure to disclose information concerning goods or services that was known

at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose was intended to induce

the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have

entered into had the information been disclosed


It is important to note more things about this list. First, unlike the other causes, a

laundry list violation requires that consumers rely on the wrongful act to their

detriment. Second, the standard for acceptable reliance is quite low. An act is

actionable if it has the capacity to deceive an unthinking, or credulous person.

For many years, brokers and agents were faced with a difficult decision when

threatened with a DTPA law suit. The risks if they lost in court were huge. Sometimes

if they could settle for a decent amount, they were willing to do that to avoid the risk

even though they felt they had done nothing wrong. It opened the door to many

bogus claims from people just hoping for a settlement.

From the time the act was adopted, service providers were exempted. However, the

courts never exempted real estate service. Thanks to the efforts of the Texas

Association of REALTORS®, the 2011 Texas Legislature added a specific exemption

for Real Estate Brokerage to the Act. (Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection

Act, as amended, Section 17.01 et seq., Business & Commerce Code.)

This means that unless a Texas licensee commits an unconscionable act,

misrepresents a material fact about the property, or fails to disclose something with

the intent of inducing a consumer into a transaction, they can no longer be liable

under DTPA.

This was a tremendous win for the real estate industry in Texas. Be certain you are

well informed about the disclosure laws in your state. The time to understand is

before you are being sued, not after.

Since the Texas Real Estate License Act already required full disclosure of any

material facts about the property, day-to-day activities of licensees did not change.

Protection from bogus claims changed considerably.


Is Your Advertising Legal?

Be sure that all of your advertising complies with your state laws and with the Code

of Ethics. Good business practices demand that you always disclose your

professional status and the company/broker you work with. Never misrepresent the

property in advertising. Never promise anything you cannot deliver, and if there are

conditions on anything you are offering, be sure to include the conditions.

Let’s review what the Rules of the Texas Real Estate Commission say about

advertising.

TREC Rules §535.154

Texas Administrative Code. Texas Real Estate Commission.

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=22&pt=23

&ch=535

(a) For the purposes of this section, an “advertisement” is a written or oral

statement or communication by or on behalf of a license holder which induces or

attempts to induce a member of the public to use the services of the license

holder or service provider. The term “advertisement” includes, but is not limited

to, all publications, radio or television broadcasts, all electronic media including

email, text messages, social networking websites, and the Internet, business

stationery, business cards, signs and billboards. The provisions of this section

apply to all advertisements by or on behalf of a license holder unless the context

of a particular provision indicates that it is intended to apply to a specific form of

advertisement.

(b) The following information is not considered an advertisement or advertising:

(1) a communication from a license holder to a member of the public after

the member of the public agreed for the license holder to provide services,

provided the first communication from the license holder contains the

information required by this section; or

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=22&pt=23&ch=535



(2) real estate information, including listings, available to the public on a

license holder’s website, extranet or similar site that is behind a firewall or

similar filtering software which requires a password or registration to

access that information.

(c) An advertisement must clearly and conspicuously contain the name of the

broker, either a business entity or an individual. For purposes of this section, the

broker, or a salesperson sponsored by the broker, may use the broker’s assumed

name instead of the name in which the broker is licensed, if the assumed name

is registered with the commission under subsection (e) of this section. An

advertisement may not contain an assumed name unless a broker has registered

that assumed name with the commission. If the broker’s name or its assumed

name includes a salesperson’s name, the advertisement must include another

assumed name of the broker that does not include a salesperson’s name, or the

designated agent’s name.

(d) For purposes of this section and §1101.652(b)(23) of the Act, deceptive or

misleading advertising includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) advertising that is inaccurate in any material fact or in any way

misrepresents any property, terms, values, services, or policies;

(2) advertising a property that is subject to an exclusive listing agreement

without the permission of the listing broker and without disclosing the

name of the listing broker unless the listing broker has expressly agreed to

waive disclosure;

(3) failing to remove an advertisement about a listed property within a

reasonable time after closing or termination of a listing agreement, unless

the status is included in the advertisement;

(4) an advertisement by a salesperson which identifies the salesperson as

a broker; or


(5) advertising a property in a manner that creates a reasonable likelihood

of confusion regarding the permitted use of the property.

(e) A broker, individually or as the designated officer, manager or partner of a

business entity licensed as a broker shall notify the commission in writing within

30 days after the broker, or a salesperson sponsored by the broker, starts or stops

using an assumed name in business other than the name in which the person is

licensed.

(f) An advertisement placed by a license holder must include a designation such

as “agent,” “broker” or a trade association name that serves clearly to identify the

advertiser as a real estate agent.

(g) A broker or salesperson may not place an advertisement that in any way:

(1) implies that a salesperson is the person responsible for the operation

of a real estate brokerage business; or

(2) causes a member of the public to believe that a person not authorized

to conduct real estate brokerage is personally engaged in real estate

brokerage.

(h) Except as provided by subsections (c) and (g) of this section, a business entity

licensed as a real estate broker may do business in the name in which it was

chartered or registered by the Office of the Secretary of State.

(i) A license holder may not utilize a copyrighted trade name unless the license

holder has legal authority to use the name.


(j) A real estate license holder placing an advertisement on the Internet, electronic

bulletin board or the like must include on each page on which the license holder’s

advertisement appears any information required by this section and

§1101.652(b)(23) of the Act. For purposes of this subsection, “page” means each

HTML document of a website, which may include several screens of information

that are viewed by scrolling down to the end of the document.

(k) A real estate license holder placing an advertisement by using an electronic

communication, including but not limited to email and email discussion groups,

text messages, and social networking websites must include in the

communication and in any attachment which is an advertisement, the

information required by this section and §1101.652(b)(23) of the Act. For purposes

of advertising on social networking websites that limit the number of characters

in a communication and the required information would consume more than 10%

of the available character limit, a license holder may include a direct hyperlink

containing the words “TREC DISCLOSURE” which links to the information required

by this section and §1101.652(b)(23) of the Act.

(l) An advertisement placed where it is likely to attract the attention of passing

motorists or pedestrians must contain language that clearly and conspicuously

identifies the person publishing the advertisement as a real estate broker or

agent. This subsection does not apply to signs placed on or providing directions

to real property listed for sale, rental or lease with the broker who has placed the

sign, provided the signs otherwise comply with this section and the Act.

(m) An advertisement containing an offer to rebate a portion of a license holder’s

commission must disclose that payment of the rebate is subject to the consent of

the party the license holder represents in the transaction.


If payment of the rebate is contingent upon a party’s use of a selected service

provider, the advertisement also must contain a disclosure that payment of the

rebate is subject to restrictions.

(n) If an advertisement offers, recommends or promotes the use of services of a

real estate service provider other than the license holder and the license holder

expects to receive compensation if a party uses those services, the advertisement

must contain a disclosure that the license holder may receive compensation from

the service provider.

(o) A license holder may not advertise information regarding service providers

that ranks such providers unless the ranking is based on disclosed objective

criteria.

(p) A license holder may not advertise that such license holder offers, sponsors,

or conducts commission approved courses in conjunction with an approved

school or other approved organization unless the license holder is approved by

the commission to offer such courses.

(Source:

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=22&pt=23

&ch=535)

Safe Harbor Policy

TREC has adopted a safe harbor policy for staff and enforcement to use in directing

license holders as to what might be considered clear and conspicuous in advertising.

On a sign or other advertising media, the broker’s name or assumed name must be

at least 50 percent of the size of the largest item of contact information.




Lesson Summary

Hardball negotiation tactics and unethical behavior generally undermine

negotiations. Both approaches tend to anger the person who receives this treatment,

and he often leaves the negotiation feeling that he has been manipulated or outright

cheated. Someone who feels this way is very likely to seek revenge, and may try to

break off whatever agreement emerged from the negotiation. With results like these,

the negotiation can hardly be considered a success.

It is not surprising that those subjected to high-pressure negotiating tactics often feel

this way. Deception, intimidation, and threats of escalation all generally elicit

negative responses in the broader social and business worlds, and we should not

expect that things will be any different in the context of negotiation. In addition, this

approach to negotiation is fraught with risk, since “hardball” tactics leave us open to

bad publicity, damaged reputations, and dealing with the other party’s angry

responses. Further, this approach often takes a great deal of time and energy, all of

which might be spent more productively elsewhere.

Even though most high-pressure tactics are not overtly unethical, there are still many

reasons to think they are not a good strategic choice.

Even if we see the drawbacks of high-pressure tactics, the other party may not. In

these situations we need to have strategies ready that will allow us to engage his

hardball tactics constructively. There are three basic options open to us here:

ignoring his behavior, openly discussing his behavior, or responding in kind. The

character of our particular conflict and negotiation will often determine which

approach we choose. However, we should always remember that responding in kind

exposes us to all the same risks that we would face by opening our negotiation with

high-pressure tactics.


Unethical behavior is similarly likely to produce unstable negotiation outcomes. It

more often leads to the other party pursuing revenge or redress, since he can appeal

to broadly shared ideas about what is right to show that he has been mistreated.

Some people will accept being outwitted by a crafty high-pressure negotiator, but

relatively few people will simply give in when someone is lying to them, coercing

them, or defrauding them. Unethical negotiators also face all the same risks

described above, and sometimes the possibility of criminal prosecution as well.

Even though unethical behavior is clearly quite risky, people frequently behave this

way. There are four major motives for unethical behavior: the desire for gain,

competition for scarce resources, perceived injustice, and the belief that unethical

behavior will not have bad consequences. We must be especially watchful of both

parties’ conduct when these motives are in play. In addition, we should be on the

lookout for unethical acts in negotiations where people are unequally informed

about each other or the conflict itself, and in which it is difficult to detect or punish

unethical behavior.

Beyond just watching out for unethical acts, we also need a sense of how to figure

out when we’re acting ethically.

Toward this end, we need to be familiar with the three basic types of criteria used to

evaluate outcomes: practical, prudential, and ethical. We should also understand

how they interrelate, and be particularly aware that practical and prudential criteria

tell us nothing about right and wrong. Only ethical criteria can give us that kind of

information.


Lastly, we want to be sure that our actions are in line with the ethical standards we

claim to support. One simple way to do this is to ask ourselves a few questions that

can help us to see how our proposed action or outcome looks from a broader

perspective. If doing the right thing is important to us, we want to be sure we carry

that concern into negotiation, and that we accept only outcomes that satisfy our

moral principles.


Lesson 5: Common Problems in Negotiations and

Real World Practice

Lesson Topics


Introduction

Central Issues of the Negotiation Process

Evaluating Other Parties and Their Positions

Evaluating the Basic Character of Our Conflict

Evaluating Offers and Counteroffers

Evaluating the Final Outcome

Insight and Field Applications of Negotiation Concepts




Identify the common cognitive errors and psychological tendencies that are

the primary pitfalls of the negotiation process, and give details about the

problems these issues pose for negotiators.

Effectively evaluate your position in negotiating.

Effectively analyze the other party’s position.

Effectively compare offers and counter-offers.

Effectively evaluate the final outcome of negotiating.

Introduction

Throughout this module, we have returned to talking about various ways that

negotiation can go wrong. The last lesson talked about hardball tactics and unethical

behavior, both of which are likely to cause serious problems in negotiation.

Lesson 3 discussed the problems that sometimes stand in the way of integrative

negotiation, just as Lesson 2 covered potential problems with distributive bargaining.

Even as far back as Lesson 1, we were looking at how attribution errors can intensify

conflicts and how responding inappropriately to a conflict can make resolving it much

more difficult.

This final lesson aims to gather common problems in negotiation together in one

place and talk about them in more general terms. Many problems in negotiation arise

from breakdowns in communication between the two parties, and most of these

breakdowns come about because at least one party misunderstands some issue that

is central to the negotiation. Many of these misunderstandings are supported by the

way human beings tend to think and assess things; we fall victim to common

cognitive and psychological predispositions that can lead us into conflict instead of

helping us negotiate our way out of it.


These difficulties present themselves in many particular guises, depending on the

specific nature of a negotiation. However, if we know some general things about

them and the way they work, then we will be better prepared to spot and correct for

them in ourselves and others.

Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to identify the five basic topics that

a good negotiator must be able to understand and evaluate accurately. You will be

able to describe basic pitfalls encountered in evaluating oneself and one’s own

position, as well as the cognitive and psychological hurdles that get in the way of

understanding the other party. You will know the two general mistakes we can make

in evaluating the subject matter of our conflict, both of which can make finding a

solution very difficult. In addition, you will recognize problematic patterns of thought

that prevent us from accurately evaluating the other party’s offers and counteroffers.

Finally, you will know why reaching an agreement is not the end of possible problems

in negotiation, as well as being able to identify the two general tendencies that can

cause problems after we agree on a solution.

This module has presented a lot of detailed information about negotiation fairly

quickly. To ensure a comprehensive understanding, this lesson unifies and combines

the facts you have learned into a series of activities and case studies that require you

to apply the terminology, techniques, and principles of negotiation that were

discussed in this course.

Central Issues of the Negotiation Process

In any negotiation—distributive or integrative—there are five basic issues we must

be able to understand and evaluate accurately:

1. Ourselves and our position

2. The other party and his position

3. The basic character of our conflict


4. The offers and counteroffers that emerge during the process

5. The final negotiated outcome

Reaching a mutually acceptable solution to our conflict requires an at least

approximately correct understanding of these issues. Throughout the negotiation

process, our decisions depend upon our grasp of these five central points; making

the choices that will help us achieve our goals depends upon a thoughtful

appreciation of what is true about these issues. Successful and straightforward

negotiation will be much easier if we have this knowledge in hand.

The point here is not that there is only one correct method for making a proper

evaluation. Instead, this lesson means to point out that getting to the truth about

these fundamental topics requires us to watch out for common cognitive pitfalls that

lead us to misinterpret what is happening in our negotiation. The remainder of this

lesson describes the ways these evaluations commonly go wrong and the impact of

these errors on the negotiation process. The good negotiator should think of these

problems as traps she must avoid while she finds her own way to an accurate

evaluation of her situation.

Evaluating oneself and One’s Position

The basic difficulty in evaluating ourselves and our position is our tendency to

overestimate the positive features of our situation. This overestimation is

problematic because it often leads us to form false beliefs, like the belief that

negotiations should be simpler than they actually are, or that the other party should

be more ready to concede to us than he truly is.

We need to be especially alert to these overestimations as the negotiation process

proceeds, because if the early parts of negotiation go as we expect, then we are more

likely to think that we understand our situation correctly.


Instead of assuming we are right, we should look closely to see if we are selectively

ignoring or distorting information that does not support our view of the situation.

Earlier lessons have stressed how important accurate information is for any

negotiator; we should not let ourselves get so attached to our self-image or our

preferred outcome that these attachments destabilize the entire negotiation.

The mistaken ideas behind these overblown evaluations often result in our being

improperly prepared for the negotiating process, and may prompt us to take actions

during negotiation that work to undermine our goals. All of the mistakes described

lead people to take risks because their overestimations exaggerate the proximity and

acceptability of their ideal objective, as well as how easily it can be achieved. These

erroneous evaluations all have the same general effect on negotiation: they lead to

an inflated view of our own position, motives, and interests, which in turn leads to

counterproductive stubbornness and blindness to factors that should make us

reconsider our standpoint.

Overconfidence in One’s Own Judgment

Overconfidence in the accuracy of one’s judgments is a major pitfall in making these

evaluations—it is the basis for all the other mistakes discussed. This error takes the

form of relying heavily on one’s assumptions and opinions, rather than seeking out

information and evidence that might challenge them. Additionally, we tend to

interpret any facts that support our position as proof that our stance is valid, while

ignoring or distorting information that does not support our beliefs. When we are

overconfident in this way, we tend to overestimate the amount of information that

supports our view, which leads us to miscalculate the probability of our expected

outcome.

This kind of general overconfidence is not a sign of vanity—it is a feature of human

psychology. We tend to look for confirmation of our views, not for evidence against

them; we will actively seek confirmation even if there is no ready evidence that our

position is a good or reasonable one to take.


We selectively perceive information that supports the views we already hold, and we

tend to overestimate how important that supporting information is to an overall

assessment of our circumstances.

A good negotiator will work to ensure that she has a realistic picture of herself and

her position. If she knows that human beings tend to think in this overconfident way,

she then also knows she must actively seek out information that may conflict with

her views. This is not pleasant or easy, but it ultimately means that she is better

prepared for negotiation and an accurate understanding of her own position helps

her to see more clearly what she must do to achieve her goals.

Naïve Optimism

One troublesome result of overconfidently evaluating our position, motives, etc. is

being unrealistically optimistic about how likely we are to achieve our ideal objective.

This is a problem because the more certain we feel about attaining our target

outcome, the less willing we are to make concessions.

As discussed in Lesson 2, many negotiations require compromise and concessions

to move forward, and the most likely result of refusing to make concessions is stalled

or abandoned negotiations. Being naïvely optimistic about our chances for total

success not only interferes with reaching our ideal outcome—it may mean that we

leave negotiations having gained nothing at all.

In addition, naïve optimism can cause me to misunderstand others’ reactions to my

position. If I have convinced myself that my ideal objective is simple and broadly

appealing when it actually isn’t, then I am likely to be confused and annoyed when

the other party—quite reasonably—asks many questions and seems to want me to

change my position.


From my overly-optimistic perspective his behavior seems antagonistic and unduly

critical, and my negative interpretation of his actions is likely to make me believe I

am justified in being difficult myself. It is not hard to see how mistaken ideas about

the merits or appeal of one’s position can quickly lead to cantankerous, unproductive

negotiation.

Overestimating One’s Power in Negotiation

We can overestimate our power in a number of ways. One common error (a

particular case of the self-serving attribution error) is to attribute positive negotiation

results to our own skills and abilities—that is, to attribute them to our own

competence while overlooking the influence of external causes like luck or the other

party’s accommodating nature. In addition, the overconfidence in my own judgment,

compounded by naive optimism, can lead me to believe I am in a good position to

pressure the other party—i.e., that I am negotiating from a position of power—when

in fact I am not.

Overestimating one’s power commonly leads to taking unnecessary risks in

negotiation, because the belief that we have the power to get what we want often

makes us unwilling to settle for anything less. For example, an exaggerated

evaluation of my position’s strengths may lead me to pursue distributive bargaining

strategies only to have them backfire badly when it becomes clear that my position

is actually fairly weak.

In addition, the mistaken belief that I can control the negotiation can lead me to

underestimate the costs attached to stalling or abandoning negotiations. For

example, my belief that I am the only one who can call a halt to negotiation can lead

me to think of this event as a good thing—after all, it won’t happen unless I want it

to. This mistaken evaluation of my own powers—and of the desirability of

abandoning negotiation—can change rapidly when the other party shatters my

illusions by shutting down our negotiations himself.


This underestimation of costs connected with negotiation going badly can, in turn,

make me more inclined to be uncooperative, which is not a prudent tactical choice

unless I fully and correctly understand my situation.

Perspective Bias

We make this mistake when we are too ready to believe that our understanding of

the conflict—or its proper solution—is the only right or valid view. Overconfidence in

our own judgment contributes to this problem because it prevents us from receiving

information and insights that reveal defects in our perspective. But this problem is

more than just the belief that we have all the information we need, and all that

information supports our view. Perspective bias is the belief that my point of view is

inherently preferable—that it is more likely to be right, or to succeed, simply because

it is mine. Undue attachment to our own point of view can be a serious hurdle to

reaching a negotiated agreement, and becoming too closely identified with our

position can lead us to personalize the disagreement in ways that are likely to lead

to destructive conflict.

In addition, when we are too fond of our own perspective, we tend to think it needs

no explanation or justification—it is just obviously right or true. This kind of thinking

can prevent us from effectively explaining our position and our interests to the other

party. It can also lead us to assume that the other party shares part or all of our

perspective, which is generally a mistake. Lastly, if the other party is forgiving, he is

likely to see our overconfident judgments and excessive optimism as confusions, and

may not react negatively to them. However, perspective bias tends to come across

very arrogantly, and people are less inclined to be generous in their responses to it.


Evaluating Other Parties and Their Positions

An effective negotiator—regardless of whether she chooses distributive bargaining

or integrative negotiation—is good at placing herself in the other party’s position.

She has a working understanding of his goals and his basic interests, as well as of the

background factors that motivate his position. This does not mean that she agrees

with the other party or sees him as a friend, only that she sees both parties as

working together in a problem-solving process that aims at a mutually acceptable

solution.

Conversely, the attitudes and behaviors that keep us from accurately seeing the

other party and his position are the primary pitfalls of evaluating him. Attribution

errors—treated in Lesson 1—are clearly a potential source of problems here. Some

of these problems stem from oversimplifying our understanding of the other party,

while others arise because we are unreflectively using ourselves as a standard for

evaluating the other party.

Stereotyping and Halo Effects

When we stereotype a person, we draw broad general conclusions about her motives

and attitudes based on our belief that she is part of a certain group, all of whom

behave in certain predictable ways. Instead of listening to the information she gives

us about her position, we base our evaluation of her position on our own prejudices.

Rather than enlightening us about the other party, this method is more likely to give

us a false picture of her position, interests, and motives. This false picture cannot

ground useful evaluations of the other party or her stance in negotiation. All it does

is mislead us.

The conclusions we draw in stereotyping move from the highly general (group

membership) to the highly particular (specific individual goals or motives). Halo

effects, on the other hand, go from the very specific to the highly general.


For example, studies have shown that we tend to attribute positive personality traits

to people we find physically attractive.

If your charming smile (a specific trait) leads me to believe that you are a moral

person (a general and intangible trait), this illustrates a halo effect. Clearly there is no

connection between being attractive and being ethical; further, if my belief that you

are an ethical person is false, it may leave me vulnerable in negotiation.

Just like stereotyping, the influence of halo effects amounts to ignoring the

information that is actually being presented to me in favor of my own prejudgments.

In both cases I tend to disregard or reinterpret information that does not fit with my

preconceptions about the other party. Instead, I allow my biases and predispositions

to shape my beliefs at a very basic level, and these distorted and ungrounded

judgments cannot form the basis of solid evaluations of the other party. In addition,

stereotyping and halo effects tend to constrain our ideas about how to approach the

other party and how to influence his view.

Overestimating Similarity or Difference

When we fall into this trap, we focus on evaluating the other party and his position

relative to our own view rather than trying to see his stance for itself or trying to see

him as an individual. If I overestimate the similarity between us or our outlooks, then

the fact that I perceive relatively few differences between our positions makes me

more likely to assume his view is roughly identical to mine. Instead of concluding

accurately that we agree on several points, I go too far in my generalizations and

mistakenly conclude that we share the same view.

We generally overestimate similarity when we see someone as an ally—or a potential

ally—in negotiation. Building on our similarities and shared interests is helpful,

especially in integrative negotiation.


However, we make mistakes when we assume too much about likenesses between

our view and others’ positions—mistakes that will probably lead to

misunderstanding later in the negotiation.

In addition, when our mistakes are revealed we are likely to feel that our “ally” has

betrayed us, which can create yet more conflict.

On the other hand, we tend to overestimate difference when we see the other party

as a competitor or enemy. Here, we assign excessive importance to perceived

differences, and take statements of difference as evidence that the other party is

radically opposed to our goals. This can lead us to deny or downplay common

interests, to overlook the integrative potential in our conflict, and to assume that this

“enemy” is antagonistic toward interests we have not even discussed with him. All of

these results can intensify a conflict, rather than pointing us toward a mutually

acceptable solution.

Relying on Oneself as the Measure of Appropriate Behavior

We all tend to believe that our own attitudes and reactions are appropriate in most

contexts, so we often use ourselves as a yardstick for assessing others’ behavior. If

we use this standard to criticize the other party in negotiation, we will discourage him

from openly sharing his position. The belief that our own actions define “appropriate

conduct” similarly discourages us from looking reflectively at our own behavior. In

addition, we risk seeming pompous and intimidating when we uncritically use

ourselves as a standard in this way.

When we judge other people relative to ourselves or our views, we should be

particularly careful about interpreting agreement or likeness as positive and

disagreement as negative. A person is not bad simply because he disagrees with us

or wants a different outcome than we do; likewise, he is not good just because he

shares our view.


In addition, we have a propensity for seeing others’ disagreement with us as being

motivated by internal causes, while we often believe their agreement with us is

motivated by external facts that make our position the obviously correct one. Neither

of these predispositions helps us to arrive at accurate evaluations of the other party,

and we should work to limit their influence in our judgments.

However, none of what has been said here means that we cannot ever criticize the

other party, or that we might not rightly evaluate some of his behavior negatively.

The point is that we should be careful of assuming that a response or act is

appropriate simply because we do it, and likewise of assuming that a response is

wrong just because it’s not what we would do. In the same vein, we should be careful

of ascribing motives or character traits to the other party based on how well his

position corresponds to our own. If we want our evaluation to be credible we will

need to say (and understand) more about why we see things the way we do—we

cannot simply assume that our evaluations of our own behavior set a standard for

everyone.

Evaluating the Basic Character of Our Conflict

Truly successful negotiations result in outcomes that both parties can support. In

general, this means that effective negotiation leads to a result both parties see as a

gain. This does not necessarily mean that only integrative negotiation is effective,

because a savvy distributive bargainer could convince his opponent that his ideal

outcome was a gain for them both. However, it does mean that successful

negotiation must build on common interests, since these are what will underwrite a

mutually acceptable solution.


In most cases, the negotiating parties share at least some interests. We need to be

aware of these common concerns because they determine the scope of possible

offers in negotiation; for example, if we mistakenly see a situation as win-lose, then

this severely limits what we perceive as a viable offer since every step away from our

ideal objective looks like a loss for us. Seeing our shared concerns can be of great

help in finding possible solutions, but there are two widespread beliefs that keep

people in conflict from seeing their mutual interests.

The Belief That Parties’ Interests Are Incompatible

People frequently enter a conflict believing that both sides are fundamentally at odds

with each other—believing that their disagreement overwhelms whatever else they

may have in common. When negotiators make this mistake, they assume that the

parties to the conflict actually have no common interests.

We imagine that the other party has essentially different preferences than we do,

and thus do not look for shared concerns around which we might begin building a

solution.

For example, in a negotiation between labor and management, it is sometimes easy

to believe that each side wants something radically different. This leads parties to

forget that they share an interest in things like the continued profitable functioning

of their company. Even though these shared interests are not themselves a solution,

they can help each side to move forward toward a solution both can accept.

The Belief That Both Parties Have the Same Goal

This perspective defines the negotiation as a competition over one “thing” that both

parties want equally—i.e., the negotiation is defined as a struggle over fixed

resources, the distribution of which is the only actual issue being negotiated.

It is true that some negotiations have this character, but there is no reason to assume

that this is the nature of all negotiations.


When we take for granted that our negotiation is of this type, it is very difficult to

conceive of a win-win solution that would satisfy both parties’ interests. Before we

resign ourselves to a pitched struggle over a “fixed pie,” we should consider whether

integrative negotiation strategies can enlarge the scope of our bargaining to include

alternative outcomes.

Evaluating Offers and Counteroffers

The exchange of offers and counteroffers is the heart of the negotiation process. Any

real progress we make toward a solution—mutually acceptable or otherwise – will

happen here. However, we must be able to evaluate this stage of the process in a

level-headed way for this to happen. With this aim in mind, there are three common

problems we should try to avoid.

Being Overly Influenced by the Opening Offer

The bigger our scope is for offers and counteroffers—i.e., the larger our positive

bargaining range—the more likely it is that we will reach an agreement that satisfies

us both. The opening offer can, however, set a tone for the negotiation, which

minimizes this scope instead of enlarging it. If, for example, we start with an opening

offer that is meant to make the other party compromise substantially from the outset

(perhaps a “lowball” offer), we can expect that this offer will color his view of the

whole process.

The initial offer has the potential to create hostility or serious misunderstanding

between the parties; the exact same starting offer can lead to different outcomes

depending on how it is presented to the other party. Because this is so we should,

first, be thoughtful about the kinds of opening offers we make.


Second, we should try to limit the degree to which we let others’ opening offers affect

our broader views of them and the negotiation process. If we do these two things,

we are much more likely to find ourselves engaged in a fruitful exchange of offers

and counteroffers.

Assessing Offers in Terms of a Fixed Metric of Gains and Losses

As we would expect, people are much more ready to accept an offer that they

perceive as a gain. Conversely, when people perceive an offer as a loss they tend to

find it unappealing and would generally rather pursue further negotiation for an

uncertain—but possibly preferable—outcome. The point here is that the way we

perceive an offer plays an essential role in determining our response to it. My belief

that a certain offer represents a loss or a gain for me influences my response to it

more than the actual content of the offer.

Flexibility in negotiation allows us to reframe offers. If my real goal is to satisfy certain

basic interests, then any solution that helps me achieve that is actually a gain for

me—even if that solution differs greatly from my initial ideal outcome. If, however, I

come to the issue from an inflexible perspective, then I am likely to see any kind of

concession or change from my target objective as a loss.

The more competitive I am in negotiation, the more I am inclined to cling to a fixed

standard of gain and loss under which any offer below my target is a negative

outcome for me.

This kind of stubborn inflexibility can actually interfere with achieving our goals.

When we are locked into one way of understanding what it means for us to do well

in a conflict, we often refuse alternative solutions that make good rational sense in

terms of the future benefits they offer us. In addition, this perspective tends to make

us unwilling to compromise.


Preoccupation with Maintaining Status

For many people, an important consideration in accepting an offer is how they think

the offer makes them appear to others. These “others” may be the other negotiator,

other people affected by the negotiation outcome, or people wholly outside the

negotiation. Concerns about saving face and preserving one’s position play a subtle

and important role in the negotiations process.

From the perspective of someone highly concerned about saving face, making a

concession can seem very close to admitting that your initial position was wrong.

Similarly, making concessions might seem to say that you’ve changed your mind

about how important your goals are; a person who is strongly interested in status

may find this statement uncomfortably similar to saying that she’s changed her mind

about how important she is.

Even people who are not especially concerned with status often find it difficult to

question their own position or to admit they have made a mistake. This can make

them unwilling to modify their position, and unwilling to back down from

commitments they have made—especially if those commitments were made

publicly. This can lead to an escalation of conflict as people struggle to defend their

bargaining positions.

Negotiators can eliminate much of this tension by working to keep themselves and

others from becoming too closely tied to specific positions. When people are

identified with particular positions, backing away from or modifying that position

often seems like a loss of status; this is what happened in the previous examples,

when the negotiator felt that claims about her goals were actually claims about her

as a person. Instead, negotiators should focus on each party’s fundamental interests

and try to remain flexible about how their own interests can be satisfied.


Evaluating the Final Outcome

An important component of any stable negotiated agreement is each party’s capacity

to represent the solution (to himself or herself and to others) as a success. However,

our desire to appear successful in negotiation can lead us to put forward distorted

and self-serving descriptions of the negotiation process and its outcome. Problems

here lead to difficulties after—rather than during—the negotiation process, but they

can still significantly undermine the outcome.

In addition, if we cannot accurately evaluate the final outcome and our own role in

bringing it about, then we cannot really learn from our negotiation experiences. We

will not have a clear sense of how our own actions and decisions shaped the outcome

or the process itself. Likewise, if we are focused on building a positive self-image

rather than seeing the facts of the negotiation, we will not be inclined to examine our

own contributions critically, nor will we be able to use this event as a guide in future

interactions with the other party.

Perhaps most importantly, widely different evaluations of the final outcome can lead

to additional problems between the parties. For example, if the result is represented

to the public in a way that builds one party’s reputation at the expense of the other

party, this is apt to create further conflict. The lack of a balanced explanation of one’s

own actions and role in the process can have the same result.

Overestimating Our Own Role in Positive Outcomes

This problem is another product of the human tendency to form positive evaluations

of oneself that are not fully borne out by the facts. Self-serving attribution biases lead

us to credit successful negotiations to our own skills and talents, and egocentric

biases incline us to exaggerate the part we played in a collaborative result.

Conversely, we tend to try to shirk responsibility for negative outcomes, assigning

them to external factors or other parties.


If I am the person who thinks she has played a critical role in the success of our

negotiations, these tendencies do not make the solution unappealing to me.

However, my tendency to overrate my own role can make the solution unattractive

to the other party since I am likely to blame him for things that went wrong. An

apparently stable agreement can crumble away as each side struggles to represent

herself as a success while making the other party the scapegoat for failures or

problems.

Distorted Recollections of the Negotiation Process

We rarely recall an event in exactly the way it happened. This is because virtually

every memory is incomplete in some respects, and human beings tend to fill in the

inconsistencies or “blank spots” in their memory of events with whatever information

helps us to make the bigger picture consistent. This is a special problem in

negotiation because we tend to remember best the phases of negotiation that

support our own position or help us maintain a positive view of ourselves. This

predisposition makes it very easy for us to reconstruct negotiation and its outcomes

in ways that are flattering to ourselves.

For example, if I don’t do well in a negotiation, it is easy for me “remember” the

negotiation in a way that blames bad results on the other party’s reluctance to

compromise while disregarding or reinterpreting information that does not support

this view of the other party. Distorted recall can also increase my tendency to

overestimate my own contribution to positive outcomes.

Looking back over an event also frequently predisposes us to believe that the

probability of the outcome was higher than it actually was. We tend to add more

weight to information that supports the outcome, while discounting concerns that

made us doubtful at the time. We misremember how we reasoned about the

outcome, which can lead us to distort our accounts of how it came about.


Insight and Field Applications of Negotiation Concepts

Activity: Identifying Common Negotiation Mistakes

Below is a list of the mistakes and misconceptions that commonly lead to

breakdowns in communication between negotiators.

Mistakes and Misconceptions

Assessing offers in terms of a

fixed metric of gains and losses

Being overly influenced by the

opening offer

Belief that the negotiators’

interests are incompatible

Belief that both negotiators have

the same goal

Distorted recollections of the

negotiation process

Naive optimism

Overconfidence in my own

judgment

Overestimating difference between

myself and the other party

Overestimating my power in

negotiation

Overestimating my role in positive

outcomes

Perspective bias

Preoccupation with maintaining status

Relying on myself as the measure of

appropriate behavior

Stereotyping and halo effects

Match them with the correct examples. There may be phrases that you do not need

to use. Check Answer Key to discover the correct answers.

1: Accept a few supporting facts as proof that my position is right while ignoring a

strong argument against my view.

2: Enter negotiation sure that the other party will happily grant my ideal objective.

3: Believe that I am the only one who can call off negotiations.


4: I believe that my view is inherently preferable simply because it’s mine.

5: A focus on preconceptions and unsupported generalizations about people’s

behavior and motives.

6: See the other party as an enemy.

7: Condemn someone else’s response because it is not what I would do in his place.

8: Think that I have nothing in common with the other party, then I am likely to

misunderstand the nature of our conflict.

9: Assume from the outset that I am struggling with the other party over a fixed

quantity of benefit of value.

10: Spend the entire negotiation process trying to get even with the other party for

his lowball starting bid.

11: See every offer below my ideal objective as a loss.

12: Believe that all of the good results in a negotiation should be credited to my savvy

and skills.

ANSWER KEY

1: Overconfidence in my own judgment

2: Naive optimism

3: Overestimating my power in negotiation

4: Perspective bias

5: Stereotyping and halo effects

6: Overestimating difference between myself and the other party

7: Relying on myself as the measure of appropriate behavior


8: Belief that the negotiators’ interests are incompatible

9: Belief that both negotiators have the same goal

10: Being overly influenced by the opening offer

11: Assessing offers in terms of a fixed metric of gains and losses

12: Overestimating my own role in positive outcomes

Activity: Negotiation Fundamentals: Insight and Understanding

Below is a list of concepts, techniques, and principles relevant to negotiation.

Negotiation Concepts

Bottom line

Collaborating

Commitment

Competing

Compromising

Concession

Conflict

BATNA

Distributive bargaining

Ethical considerations

Fundamental attribution error

Hardball tactics

Integrative negotiation

Negotiation

Practical considerations

Prudential considerations

Unethical conduct

Match each term with its proper description. Check Answer Key to discover the

correct answers.

1. If neither party is interested in this, most negotiations cannot move forward.

Sometimes people think this is a sign of weakness, but it often takes the form

of a tradeoff, which can help both parties get something they want.

2. This is a fundamentally collaborative strategy for dividing up value or benefit,

which aims to maximize the value or benefit available to both parties.

3. You might abandon negotiation if all viable solutions are below this point.


4. These are judgments like “fastest,” “easiest,” and “cheapest,” which can give us

a reason to choose a particular solution if we already have an interest in

finding one of that type.

5. If we are working together to find a way that we can both achieve our goals

(ideally in full), then we have chosen this as our response to conflict.

6. These help us decide whether a negotiated solution is a morally good

outcome.

7. A negotiator’s best backup plan, in case negotiation fails or cannot provide an

outcome above his bottom line.

8. This term describes behavior that violates widely-shared social rules about

proper ways to treat other people.

9. If we are preoccupied with how well or poorly an outcome serves our personal

interests, then we are focused on these.

10. The other party may object to this sort of treatment, since it aims to pressure

him into accepting an outcome he would otherwise reject.

11. Sometimes this seems like a threat, but most generally it is understood as a

tool for defining your position in negotiation.

12. If I believe you want a high salary because you are greedy, even after you have

shown me your demanding monthly budget, then I am making this mistake.


13. This is a social decision-making process, involving bargaining between two or

more parties who reject yielding and avoiding as responses to their conflict.

14. This happens when two or more parties disagree about how some benefit

should be used or divided.

15. When a negotiator protects information about her position while trying to get

us to lower our bottom line, we can be fairly sure she is using this approach to

negotiation.

16. When a conflict makes us feel that any gain for the other party is a loss for us,

we are reacting in this way.

17. If we handle a disagreement by trying to share gains and losses between both

parties, then we have chosen this response to conflict.

ANSWER KEY:

1. Concession

2. Integrative negotiation

3. Bottom line

4. Practical considerations

5. Collaborating

6. Ethical considerations

7. BATNA

8. Unethical conduct

9. Prudential considerations

10. Hardball tactics

11. Commitment

12. Fundamental attribution error

13. Negotiation


14. Conflict

15. Distributive bargaining

16. Competing

17. Compromising

Case Studies

Here are three case studies that deal with the concepts, techniques, and principles

of negotiation we have covered in this module. You should consider the facts of the

case in combination with your newly-acquired understanding of negotiation, and use

this information to answer the questions about each situation.

Case Study 1: Negotiation Process

A husband and wife are planning to purchase a vacation home. However, as they

begin working out the details of their preferred location, it becomes clear that each

of them has very different ideas about what would be the best location for their

vacation home. The husband wants to purchase a home that is surrounded by

people with an exotic culture; whereas the wife had envisioned a mountain vacation

home with the potential of camping and hiking in close proximity of a national park.

Because they are very fond of one another and have an ongoing relationship, they

do not want to compete about this issue. They want to use integrative negotiation to

find a collaborative solution that suits them both, but they aren’t sure how to

proceed. They ask you to help them.

In what order should they undertake the following steps?

Negotiators decide whether they should try rethinking their disagreement or

simply take it as given.

Negotiators work together to clarify their conflict and define it in a way that

both parties accept.

Negotiators use the information they have gathered to think creatively about

possible solutions.


Negotiators openly share information about their goals, their concerns, and

what they hope to achieve by negotiating.

Negotiators develop the shared, fair criteria that they will use to choose an

outcome.

Feedback: The first thing integrative negotiators need to do is establish an

environment of open communication and a commitment to understanding one

another. They can do this by talking openly about their goals and concerns. Once

these are laid out, negotiators have the information they need to craft a mutually-

agreeable definition of their conflict. Once they have clarified their conflict, they can

decide whether it would be more productive to rethink their situation or to take it as

given and start brainstorming to find solutions. Whichever method they choose, their

next step is to begin searching for solutions they have not previously considered.

After they’ve generated an array of outcomes, negotiators must agree on the criteria

they will use to choose an outcome. After establishing these criteria, they can select

a solution.

Case Study 2: Dealing with Unethical Policies

You are an assistant manager at your real estate office where a woman’s application

for a job as office recruiter has just been rejected, despite her having substantial job

experience and an excellent educational background. You know that this is a

common practice in this office, resulting from an “unwritten policy” based on the

branch manager’s belief that women are not well-suited to this kind of position. The

branch manager has asked you to write a letter to the woman telling her that the

company is not interested in her application. You like your job a great deal, but you

find this policy troubling because it conflicts with your beliefs about appropriate ways

to fairly treat people.


In particular, you do not like the idea of writing this letter, since that might be seen

by others as an endorsement of the office’s “unwritten policy.” You have been mulling

the issue over; meanwhile your manager has repeatedly asked you whether the letter

has been sent.

You are worried that your manager will react very badly to your refusal to write the

letter, but decide that you cannot write it with a clear conscience. Obviously, you will

have to talk to him and find out whether he is willing to change his position on this

issue.

Which of the following activities can help you toward a successful negotiation?

Avoid your branch manager.

Research local laws about discrimination in hiring.

Decide whether you just want to get out of writing the letter or you want a

broader change in policy.

Anonymously leave a newspaper clipping about a recent sex-discrimination

lawsuit on your manager’s desk.

Open the discussion by telling your manager that his illegal behavior is likely

to land him in jail.

Find out whether this issue has been raised before, and the ways it has been

addressed in the past.

Write a letter to the job applicant explaining the truth of the situation.

Try to discover more about why the branch manager thinks women don’t

make good recruiters.

Go directly to the local paper with an expose calling your branch manager a

chauvinist.

Refuse to write the letter without offering an explanation.

Look for evidence that equal-opportunity hiring practices are in the office’s

best interest.


Think about what you will do if your branch manager refuses to negotiate

about this issue, or threatens your job.

Try to find someone else in the office who will write the letter.

Decide whether you are willing to make any concessions. If you feel your

position is a matter of principle, it might be that you are unwilling to modify it.

Answer Key:

You should:

Research local laws about discrimination in hiring.

Decide whether you just want to get out of writing the letter or you want a

broader change in policy.

Find out whether this issue has been raised before, and the ways it has been

addressed in the past.

Try to discover more about why the branch manager thinks women don’t

make good recruiters.

Look for evidence that equal-opportunity hiring practices are in the office’s

best interest.

Think about what you will do if your branch manager refuses to negotiate

about this issue, or threatens your job.

Decide whether you are willing to make any concessions. If you feel your

position is a matter of principle, it might be that you are unwilling to modify it.

Feedback

In this example, the employee wants to be relieved of a particular task. It may also

be the case that he wants a more comprehensive change in company policy. Either

way, achieving his goals will require the branch manager to change his position.

Even if we think the manager’s position is unreasonable and wrong, it is still the case

that the branch manager will have to make concessions if the employee is to achieve

his goals.


When we want concessions from the other party, we should generally try to avoid

doing anything that antagonizes or insults them. Aggressive actions (such as

anonymous mail, threats of criminal prosecution, and making public announcements

of only one side of the conflict) tend to make people hostile and defensive, attitudes

which are of no help at all when we want them to do something for us. Particularly

when the other party is in a position of power over us—as the branch manager is in

this example—we should try to avoid making him feel that he needs to use that

power to prove or assert his authority. This “proving” often works to the disadvantage

of the weaker negotiator. However, none of this means that the employee should

not confront his manager about the problem, and try to negotiate a solution.

Most of us would agree that the branch manager is doing something wrong, and that

he should not be forcing his employees to participate in it. But we shouldn’t try to

threaten or intimidate the branch manager in the hope that he will give in before we

have to negotiate with him; most likely, this will only mean that he will be angry and

distrustful when we finally do negotiate with him. Instead, we should focus on

learning about his position while seeking information that bolsters our own stance.

We want to know why he thinks the way he does, whether this conflict has arisen in

the past and what sort of support (like anti-discrimination laws) there may be for our

view. If we know why he holds the view he does, we can work on presenting our own

view in a way that appeals to him. Similarly, before we begin negotiating, we should

clarify for ourselves what we really hope to get from the process, whether we are

willing to make any concessions and what we will do if he refuses to discuss the

matter or threatens our job.

Case Study 3: A Roommate Dispute

Seth and Alan have been roommates for more than a year. They get along well, and

agree about most things. Several months ago, Seth met and began dating a woman

named Mary. Initially, Alan rarely saw Mary and was simply pleased that Seth had

met someone he liked. More recently, however, Mary seems to be in their apartment


nearly all the time—sometimes even when Seth is not at home. Alan has begun to

feel like there is a third roommate living in his apartment, and he sees this situation

headed toward a conflict.

What follows is a scene that deals with some of the principles, techniques and

problems of negotiation. Periodically, you will be presented with a question. Choose

the best possible answer from the choices presented. Click Feedback to view the

correct answer.

Alan: Seth, I need to talk to you. Mary is here all the time lately. I feel like we have a

permanent houseguest. I can’t relax in my own apartment.

Seth: I thought you liked Mary. What are you upset about?

Alan: I like Mary just fine. But I don’t recall agreeing to live with her.

Seth: (indignant) I pay half the rent here. That means at least half of this apartment

is mine to do with as I wish. I happen to enjoy having Mary around.

Alan: But I only want one roommate. This apartment is pretty small – I wasn’t even

sure just the two of us would have enough space here.

Seth: However much space we have, half of it is mine. I don’t need your permission

to have guests.

Alan: (sighing) Looks like we have a conflict here. We don’t even seem to be talking

about the same things. Let me try to explain this again.


Which of the following terms best describes Seth’s response?

Escalation

Competing

Compromise

Feedback: Seth’s response is competitive. Seth is very concerned about dividing

things up. He sees Alan’s complaint about Mary as an indication that Alan is trying to

take more than his fair share of privileges in the apartment. Seth’s comments are

focused on making sure that Alan doesn’t get more than half of the “pie” that is their

apartment.

Alan: OK. I like Mary and I’m glad you’re happy with her. I’m just saying that for

someone who is not my roommate, it seems like Mary is here an awful. For example,

I rented a movie on Monday. Every night this week, I came home to find Mary

watching our T.V. I felt like it would be rude to ask her to stop, so I just saved my

movie for another time. But now I have to return it and I haven’t even seen it. I am

not trying to tell you what to do, but I live here, too, and I would like to be able to

enjoy my own home.

What negotiation tactic is Alan trying to use here?

Manipulating Seth’s view of the conflict

Making concessions

Clarifying the conflict

Feedback: Alan is trying to explain his position to Seth—he is trying to clarify the

subject matter of their conflict. He is not making concessions, because he has not

offered to change his stance at all.


He is not trying to manipulate Seth’s view of the conflict because all he has done is

talk about himself. To manipulate Seth’s view, he would need to talk about Seth’s

position relative to his own view.

Seth: You should have just told her you wanted to watch your movie. Quit being so

spineless! You wouldn’t have anything to complain about if you would just stand up

for yourself, you big baby.

If Alan wants to achieve his goals in this negotiation, what might be a good way to

react to Seth’s insults?

Alan should respond in kind. He should insult Seth in return, to show that he won’t

put up with that kind of treatment.

Alan should just ignore Seth’s insults and move on in the discussion.

Alan should discuss Seth’s comment and try to explain himself.

Feedback: Alan should probably try to explain himself and discuss Seth’s remark.

Seth is clearly already feeling very defensive here, so responding in kind is unlikely to

produce anything other than a destructive conflict. However, it does seem that Seth

is being more defensive than the situation warrants, so ignoring his remark means

ignoring a chance to address that problem. In addition, effective negotiation does

not require the negotiator to suffer silently when the other party is verbally abusive

or otherwise unpleasant. Sometimes we might choose to do this, but it’s rarely the

case a negotiation will be ruined simple because we choose to address the matter

openly instead.

Alan: Seth, I am not being spineless. I don’t feel comfortable telling Mary what to do

because I think that would be rude of me; it’s not because I’m afraid of her. Since

Mary is your guest, you are responsible for what she does. I’m standing up for myself

by talking to you about the problem.


Seth: And I’m standing up for myself by telling you that you are not in charge of

everything around here.

You’re getting really bossy—probably because you don’t have a girlfriend! You losers

without girlfriends always seem to be telling the rest of us what we’re doing wrong.

Or maybe your bossiness is why you don’t have a girlfriend.

Seth is clearly being difficult here. What are some mistakes that a good negotiator

should try to avoid?

Being inflexible without offering any explanation

Selectively presenting information

Pressuring the other party

Stereotyping

Making concessions

Refusing to take responsibility for one’s own role in the conflict

Concealing information about one’s preferences

Insulting or intentionally antagonizing the other party

Disregarding or distorting information from the other party

ANSWER KEY:

Being inflexible without offering any explanation

Stereotyping

Refusing to take responsibility for one’s own role in the conflict

Insulting or intentionally antagonizing the other party

Disregarding or distorting information from the other party

Alan: I’m just trying to explain the problem I see. Look at it this way: how would you

like it if I invited my sister to come stay with us for the next two months without

asking you? And not my nice sister—I mean Elaine, the crabby one, the one who calls

you “Beth.”


Seth: (evasive) That would be fine with me.

Alan: Oh, come on. The last time she visited you went to stay in a motel.

Seth: (defensive) Only because she was always using the shower and my towels, and

playing that horrible folk music on the stereo and leaving dirty glasses in the sink

and... OK. OK. I see your point. But Mary doesn’t leave dirty dishes lying around.

Alan used an analogy here, to help Seth see things from his point of view. Often this

kind of role-reversal can be very helpful in negotiations. What is the primary positive

result of Alan’s strategy?

Seth now has a better understanding of the real issues in their conflict.

Alan has successfully intimidated Seth, making him back off from his stubborn

initial position.

Alan has persuaded Seth that he should accept a solution that satisfies Alan.

Alan has shown Seth that Seth’s negotiating position is weak.

Feedback: Alan’s analogy has helped Seth to see what it is about Mary’s constant

presence that bothers Alan—Seth now better understands the real issues in their

conflict. Alan has not intimidated Seth, because he didn’t present his sister’s visit as

an actual threat. Alan’s analogy says nothing at all about any solutions, and so cannot

persuade Seth about the solution he should accept. Similarly, the analogy does not

convey any information about which position is stronger—that is, it says nothing

about who has the most to lose or who has the resources that will help him achieve

his goals. The analogy supports the validity of Alan’s complaint, not the relative

strength of his position.

Alan: That’s true. Mary is very tidy, I will give you that. But she does use the shower,

and she uses my towels, and she eats my food and plays weird music on my stereo.

When she’s here a lot, I feel like none of that stuff is actually mine.


Seth: All right. That makes sense to me. I’m sorry if I overreacted earlier. It’s just that

I really like having Mary around.

Alan: I can understand that. But when I come home—especially when you’re not

here—I like to have some time to myself. It’s difficult for me to do that when Mary is

here so much. Maybe this is my problem, but I can’t really relax when there are guests

in my house.

Seth: What should we do? I want to have Mary here at least sometimes.

Alan’s analogy about his sister has clearly had a positive effect on Seth’s attitude as a

negotiator. What are some techniques and behaviors a negotiator can use to make

negotiation more productive and harmonious?

Clarify the goals he hopes to achieve

Present information selectively

Pressure the other party

Acknowledge the validity of the other side’s perspective

Mislead the other side about his real concerns

Try to respond to the conflict appropriately

Make steadfast commitments to a particular outcome

Involve the other side in joint problem-solving

Explain the underlying interests behind his position

ANSWER KEY:

Clarify the goals he hopes to achieve

Acknowledge the validity of the other side’s perspective

Try to respond to the conflict appropriately

Involve the other side in joint problem-solving

Explain the underlying interests behind his position


Alan: It’s fine with me if Mary is here some of the time. But the rest of the time, I want

to be able to watch my movies, throw my dirty laundry on the floor, and listen to my

own music.

Seth: I know what you mean. I think I might actually like some of that myself.

Alan: I think we are going to have to find a compromise, then. Maybe some kind of

schedule would work.

Seth: Ick. That sounds complicated.

Alan: It doesn’t have to be. We could agree on a reasonable amount of time for Mary

to be here, and then I would know in advance when she’ll be at the apartment and

you would know that I wasn’t secretly fuming about her being here.

Before we do that, though, why don’t you talk this over with Mary? Whatever solution

we choose will affect her, too, plus she may have some different ideas about how to

solve our problem.

Seth: Something simpler than your weird schedule, I hope. (exit Seth)

Lesson Summary

In any negotiation, there are five basic topics that we must understand and be able

to evaluate accurately:

Ourselves and our own position.

The other party and his position.

The subject of our conflict and our negotiation.

The offers and counteroffers that emerge during the process.

The final negotiated outcome.


These are the issues around which all negotiations revolve, and confusion or

misunderstanding here can defeat our attempts to communicate with the other

party and make it more difficult to solve our conflict. Negotiation would be a lot

simpler if we could overcome these problems simply by paying more attention to

these issues. However, many of our misunderstandings here are a result of the way

human beings naturally tend to think and assess things, i.e., cognitive and

psychological predispositions that can lead us into conflict instead of helping us

negotiate our way out of it.

When we evaluate ourselves and our own position, we are apt to see things entirely

too positively. We tend to overlook problems with our own stance, and to

underestimate the other party’s reasonable questions and complaints.

Overconfidence in our own judgment leads us to think our view or proposed

outcome is clearly the right one, and to believe that we have substantially more

power to control or influence negotiations than we actually do.

These overblown ideas about our own skills and goals can lull us into entering

negotiations unprepared. In addition, we tend to seek out information that confirms

or supports our view while overlooking or reinterpreting facts that are at odds with

it.

In combination, these problems lead us to take inappropriate risks in negotiation;

they also decrease our willingness to make concessions, encouraging a stubborn and

inflexible stance that is likely to lead to stalled or abandoned negotiations.

When we evaluate the other party and his position, we often make the mistake of

letting our thinking be guided by stereotypes or the halo effect. These cognitive

biases usually give us false information about the other party and interfere with

accurately understanding his motives and behavior.


In addition, we are prone to painting the other party as an ally or foe based on

whether we believe his position is like or unlike our own. When we do this, we rarely

accurately perceive the other party’s position; instead we exaggerate likeness or

difference, an erroneous understanding that can intensify the conflict.

Another pitfall in our perception of the other party is our tendency to judge others in

light of our own behavior. We generally use our own actions as standards of what is

reasonable or right, and when the other party’s responses are unlike our own, we

often see this as grounds for criticizing him. These difficulties prevent us from

accurately understanding the other party, and without a faithful picture of his goals

and motives we are going to face serious problems coming up with a mutually

acceptable solution to our conflict.

There are two basic mistakes we tend to make when assessing the subject matter of

our conflict. The first error lies in assuming the other party wants the same “thing”

we are after – that is, assuming that we are in a conflict that one of us must lose. This

perspective tends to intensify our conflict and to make it difficult for us to see the

integrative potential in our conflict. The second mistake consists in assuming that the

parties’ interests are fundamentally opposed. This is a serious mistake because any

successful outcome will be built on common interests.

If we assume from the outset that the parties have no shared concerns, then crafting

a mutually acceptable solution is going to be extremely challenging.

When evaluating offers and counteroffers, we frequently fail to focus on the actual

content of the offer. Instead we get caught up in the “meaning” of the offer.

For example, we might concentrate on how accepting a certain offer would affect our

status. Similarly, in a negotiation that has ruled out our ideal objective as a possible

outcome, we might find ourselves stuck thinking about all offers below our target as


a loss – even if we would happily have accepted those offers in a different context.

We can also be unduly influenced by opening offers, allowing them to color our

understanding of the entire negotiation.

None of these tendencies help us to accurately evaluate offers and counteroffers.

This can be a serious hindrance to negotiation, since the process of making offers

and counteroffers is where negotiation actually makes progress. We must evaluate

this phase of negotiation in terms of what the opportunities it presents for satisfying

our basic interests; this is the real issue, and it should be our focus. If we focus on

more tangential concerns, we risk prolonging negotiations, or having to abandon

them entirely.

Our evaluations of final outcomes can determine whether a negotiated agreement

can actually be put into effect. They also determine what we can learn from a

negotiation, about both ourselves and the other party. Two basic mistakes tend to

distort our final evaluation of a solution. First, we are inclined to overestimate our

own role in creating a positive outcome. Second, our recollections of how the

negotiation process actually proceeded tend to be distorted.

These errors are problematic because they affect the way we present the outcome

to ourselves and others. Each party is inclined to give herself credit for the positive

parts of negotiation while attributing problems and failures to the other party. This

can create further conflict between them, and it tends to prevent us from critically

assessing our performance in a negotiation.

Please return to the course player to take the interactivity and then the lesson quiz.

tx marketing ii: negotiation techniques - … marketing i: negotiation techniques 2 module three:...

Documents