Chapter 9 EN Managing Difficult Negotiations: Individual Approaches

It is not uncommon for negotiations, especially distributive ones, to become contentious to the point of breakdown. In extreme cases, conflict escalates and interpersonal enmity increases. Negotiations are “difficult to resolve” to the extent that the process of conflict resolution is characterized by the following dynamics:
The Atmosphere is Charged with Anger, Frustration, and Resentment
Channels of Communication Are Closed or Constrained
The Original Issues at Stake Have Become Blurred and Ill Defined
The Parties Tend to Perceive Great Differences in Their Respective Positions
The Parties Become More Locked In to Their Initial Negotiating Positions
People on the Same Side Tend to View Each Other Favorably

Mayer suggests that dispute resolution involves three major components in strategies for resolving impasse—joint approaches:
Cognitive resolution
Emotional resolution
Behavioral resolution

Through any number of different avenues—breakdowns in communication, escalation of anger and mistrust, polarization of positions and refusal to compromise, the issuance of ultimatums, or even the avoidance of conflict—negotiations often hit an impasse. Productive dialogue stops. The parties may continue talking, but the communication is usually characterized by trying to sell or force one’s own position, talking about the other’s unreasonable position and uncooperative behavior, or both. When these breakdowns occur, the parties may simply agree to recess, cool off, and come back tomorrow. More commonly, however, the parties break off negotiation and walk away angry and upset. Although they may privately wish there was some way to get back together, they usually don’t know how to arrange a reconciliation.

There are five major strategies that negotiators can use to get detailed negotiations back on track and return to a more productive flow of events:

Reduce tension by separating themselves from one another through cooling off periods, talking about emotions and feelings, or attempting to synchronize de-escalation of the conflict.
Improve the accuracy of communication by role reversal or mirroring the other’s statements.
Keep the number of issues under control so that issues are managed effectively, new issues are not carelessly added, and large issues are divided into smaller ones.
Search for common ground rules and effective time management, developing common expectations through a “covenant,” and reframing.
Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives for both parties by providing “yesable” proposals, asking for different decisions, sweetening offers, and using objective criteria to evaluate solutions.

The tools that we discussed are broad in function and in application, and they represent self-help for negotiators in dealing with stalled or problematic exchanges. None of these methods and remedies is a panacea, and each should be chosen and applied with sensitivity to the needs and limitations of the situations and of the negotiators involved. A truly confrontational breakdown, especially one that involves agreements of great impact or importance, sometimes justifies the introduction of individuals of agencies who themselves are not party to the dispute.