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.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Chapter 8 EN Global Negotiation Summary
This chapter examined various aspects of a growing field of negotiation that explores the complexities of negotiating across borders. We began the chapter with a discussion of the American negotiating style, from both American and non-American perspectives. While there is a great deal of consistency in perceptions of the American negotiating style (e.g., Americans are straightforward, impatient), it is important to remember that there is also a lot of variability within cultures (i.e., not every American negotiates in the same way).
Next, we examined the results of a research program by John Graham and his colleagues that compared American negotiators with negotiators from several countries. Graham and his colleagues found that regardless of where negotiators were from, they negotiated the same level of outcomes on a standard negotiation task. The process of negotiation differed across countries, however, suggesting that there is more than one way to attain the same negotiation outcome. Finally, this research program also suggested that negotiators seem to use different strategies when negotiating with people domestically and internationally.
We then examined some of the factors that make cross-border negotiations different. Phatak and Habib suggest that both the environmental and the immediate context have important effects on global negotiations. We then discussed Salacuse’s description of the environmental factors that influence global negotiations: (1) political and legal pluralism, (2) international economics, (3) foreign governments and bureaucracies, (4) instability, (5) ideology, and (6) culture. We added one more environmental factor—external stakeholders—from Phatak and Habib. Phatak and Habib’s immediate context factors were discussed next: (1) relative bargaining power, (2) levels of conflict, (3) relationship between negotiators, (4) desired outcomes, and (5) immediate stakeholders. Each of these environmental and immediate context factors acts to make cross-border negotiations more difficult, and effective international negotiators need to understand how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to make sense of global negotiation outcomes in light of the multiple factors that can simultaneously influence them.
Next, we turned to a discussion of Hoftede’s work on culture, the factor that has been most frequently used to explain differences in negotiations across borders. Hofstede defines culture as the shared values and beliefs held by a group of people, and is the most comprehensive study of cultural dimensions in international business. He concluded that four dimensions could summarize cultural differences: (1) individualism/collectivism, (2) power distance, (3) masculinity/femininity, and (4) uncertainty avoidance.
We then examine how cultural differences can influence negotiations. Foster, adapting work by Weiss and Stripp, suggests that culture can influence global negotiations in several ways, including (1) the definition of negotiation, (2) the selection of negotiators, (3) protocol, (4) communication, (5) time, (6) risk propensity, (7) groups versus individuals, and (8) the nature of agreements.
This chapter concluded with a discussion of how to manage cultural differences when negotiating across borders. Weiss presents eight different culturally responsive strategies that negotiators can use with a negotiator from a different culture. Some of these strategies may be used individually, whether others used jointly with the other negotiator. Weiss indicates that one critical aspect of choosing the correct strategy for a given negotiation is the degree of familiarity (low, moderate, or high) that a negotiator has with the other culture. However, even those with high familiarity with another culture are faced with a daunting task if they want to modify their strategy completely when they deal with the other culture.
Next, we examined the results of a research program by John Graham and his colleagues that compared American negotiators with negotiators from several countries. Graham and his colleagues found that regardless of where negotiators were from, they negotiated the same level of outcomes on a standard negotiation task. The process of negotiation differed across countries, however, suggesting that there is more than one way to attain the same negotiation outcome. Finally, this research program also suggested that negotiators seem to use different strategies when negotiating with people domestically and internationally.
We then examined some of the factors that make cross-border negotiations different. Phatak and Habib suggest that both the environmental and the immediate context have important effects on global negotiations. We then discussed Salacuse’s description of the environmental factors that influence global negotiations: (1) political and legal pluralism, (2) international economics, (3) foreign governments and bureaucracies, (4) instability, (5) ideology, and (6) culture. We added one more environmental factor—external stakeholders—from Phatak and Habib. Phatak and Habib’s immediate context factors were discussed next: (1) relative bargaining power, (2) levels of conflict, (3) relationship between negotiators, (4) desired outcomes, and (5) immediate stakeholders. Each of these environmental and immediate context factors acts to make cross-border negotiations more difficult, and effective international negotiators need to understand how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to make sense of global negotiation outcomes in light of the multiple factors that can simultaneously influence them.
Next, we turned to a discussion of Hoftede’s work on culture, the factor that has been most frequently used to explain differences in negotiations across borders. Hofstede defines culture as the shared values and beliefs held by a group of people, and is the most comprehensive study of cultural dimensions in international business. He concluded that four dimensions could summarize cultural differences: (1) individualism/collectivism, (2) power distance, (3) masculinity/femininity, and (4) uncertainty avoidance.
We then examine how cultural differences can influence negotiations. Foster, adapting work by Weiss and Stripp, suggests that culture can influence global negotiations in several ways, including (1) the definition of negotiation, (2) the selection of negotiators, (3) protocol, (4) communication, (5) time, (6) risk propensity, (7) groups versus individuals, and (8) the nature of agreements.
This chapter concluded with a discussion of how to manage cultural differences when negotiating across borders. Weiss presents eight different culturally responsive strategies that negotiators can use with a negotiator from a different culture. Some of these strategies may be used individually, whether others used jointly with the other negotiator. Weiss indicates that one critical aspect of choosing the correct strategy for a given negotiation is the degree of familiarity (low, moderate, or high) that a negotiator has with the other culture. However, even those with high familiarity with another culture are faced with a daunting task if they want to modify their strategy completely when they deal with the other culture.
Chapter 7 EN Ethics in Negotiation Summary
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. They differ from morals, which are individual and personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Ethics proceed from particular philosophies, which purport to (a) define the nature of the world in which we live, and (b) prescribe rules for living together.
Explanations and justifications are self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct. First, they allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conduct that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. The adequacy of these explanations to others has a strong effect on mitigating the impact of deceptive behavior to themselves as well. We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more judgments about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgments about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Negotiators with these characteristics will probably be unsuccessful over time unless they are skillful at continually staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct.
The primary factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical—we believe that negotiation process raises several critical ethical issues. Much of what has been written on negotiating behavior has been strongly normative about ethics and has prescribed “shoulds” and “should nots”. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually make decisions about when and where to use specific tactics. To understand this process better, we have approached the study of tactic choice from a decision-making framework, examining the ethical overtones of these choices. We also briefly discussed the ways in which negotiators can respond to another party who may be using deceptive tactics.
We began by considering several negotiation cases, show how ethical questions can be critical to the selection of particular strategic and tactical options.
We proposed that negotiators who choose to use an unethical tactic usually decide to do so to increase their negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information in the negotiation, getting better information about the other party’s plan, or undermining the other party’s ability to achieve his or her objectives. We then presented a simple model of ethical decision making.
Research on negotiators ethics and on various aspects of this model leads us to the following conclusions:
While individual negotiators may disagree as to which negotiating tactics are ethical and which are unethical, the research reported here suggests that there is much more convergence than might have been expected.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic can probably best be understood through a decision making model. It is clear that many individual differences and situational variables are also likely to affect that decision.
In deciding to use a deceptive tactic, a negotiator is likely to be more heavily influenced by (a) his or her own motivations, (b) expectations of what the other negotiator and the other party.
Negotiators who have considered the use of deceptive tactics in the past or who are considering their use should ask themselves these questions:
(a) Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
(b) How will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
(c) How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics my get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness in the long run..
Explanations and justifications are self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct. First, they allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conduct that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. The adequacy of these explanations to others has a strong effect on mitigating the impact of deceptive behavior to themselves as well. We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more judgments about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgments about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Negotiators with these characteristics will probably be unsuccessful over time unless they are skillful at continually staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct.
The primary factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical—we believe that negotiation process raises several critical ethical issues. Much of what has been written on negotiating behavior has been strongly normative about ethics and has prescribed “shoulds” and “should nots”. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually make decisions about when and where to use specific tactics. To understand this process better, we have approached the study of tactic choice from a decision-making framework, examining the ethical overtones of these choices. We also briefly discussed the ways in which negotiators can respond to another party who may be using deceptive tactics.
We began by considering several negotiation cases, show how ethical questions can be critical to the selection of particular strategic and tactical options.
We proposed that negotiators who choose to use an unethical tactic usually decide to do so to increase their negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information in the negotiation, getting better information about the other party’s plan, or undermining the other party’s ability to achieve his or her objectives. We then presented a simple model of ethical decision making.
Research on negotiators ethics and on various aspects of this model leads us to the following conclusions:
While individual negotiators may disagree as to which negotiating tactics are ethical and which are unethical, the research reported here suggests that there is much more convergence than might have been expected.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic can probably best be understood through a decision making model. It is clear that many individual differences and situational variables are also likely to affect that decision.
In deciding to use a deceptive tactic, a negotiator is likely to be more heavily influenced by (a) his or her own motivations, (b) expectations of what the other negotiator and the other party.
Negotiators who have considered the use of deceptive tactics in the past or who are considering their use should ask themselves these questions:
(a) Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
(b) How will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
(c) How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics my get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness in the long run..
Chapter 6 EN Finding and Using Negotiation Leverage
There are three major sources of leverage: information and expertise, control over resources, structural position, and the location within an organizational structure (which leads to either formal authority or informal power based on where one is located relative to flows of information or resources). Imbalances in these power sources across the table are inevitable, but effective negotiators can take steps to alter the power dynamics before and during negotiation.
By leverage, we mean the process of gaining or using various sources of power in order to obtain and use temporary advantage over the other negotiating party.
Kolb and Williams identify three strategic levers available to help people navigate the shadow negotiation:
Power Moves
Process Moves
Appreciative Moves
Negotiators may also want to alter party’s beliefs about the importance of his own objectives and convince him that his concessions are not as valuable as he first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the party’s position, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence.
Influence is based on an approach developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo that suggest that there are two general paths by which people are persuaded . The first path occurs consciously and involves integration of the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual, frameworks, etc.)
In order to examine a very large number of influence (leverage) tools that one could use in negotiation, these tools were considered in two broad categories: influence that occurs through the central route to persuasion, and influence that occurs through the peripheral route to persuasion.
Our discussion of peripheral routes to influence will consider three sets of strategies: message aspects, attributes of the persuader, and elements of the influence context.
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
We consider how the receiver—the target of influence—either can shape and direct what the sender is communicating, or can intellectually resist the persuasive effects of the message. Effective negotiators are skilled not only at crafting persuasive messages, but also at playing the role of skilled “consumers” of the messages that others direct their way.
By leverage, we mean the process of gaining or using various sources of power in order to obtain and use temporary advantage over the other negotiating party.
Kolb and Williams identify three strategic levers available to help people navigate the shadow negotiation:
Power Moves
Process Moves
Appreciative Moves
Negotiators may also want to alter party’s beliefs about the importance of his own objectives and convince him that his concessions are not as valuable as he first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the party’s position, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence.
Influence is based on an approach developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo that suggest that there are two general paths by which people are persuaded . The first path occurs consciously and involves integration of the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual, frameworks, etc.)
In order to examine a very large number of influence (leverage) tools that one could use in negotiation, these tools were considered in two broad categories: influence that occurs through the central route to persuasion, and influence that occurs through the peripheral route to persuasion.
Our discussion of peripheral routes to influence will consider three sets of strategies: message aspects, attributes of the persuader, and elements of the influence context.
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
We consider how the receiver—the target of influence—either can shape and direct what the sender is communicating, or can intellectually resist the persuasive effects of the message. Effective negotiators are skilled not only at crafting persuasive messages, but also at playing the role of skilled “consumers” of the messages that others direct their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)