For Wikipedia's negotiation policy, see Wikipedia:Negotiation. For other uses, see Negotiation (disambiguation).

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. A dialogue (sometimes spelled dialog) is a reciprocal Conversation between two or more entities. Dispute resolution is the process of resolving disputes between parties. Collective bargaining is the process whereby workers organize together to meet converse and compromise upon the work environment with their employers It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR includes Dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. The foundations of negotiation theory are Decision analysis, Behavioral decision making, Game theory, and Negotiation analysis. Those who work in negotiation professionally are called negotiators. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting Negotiations between representatives of groups or states A legislator (or lawmaker) is a person who writes and passes laws especially someone who is a member of a Legislature. A broker is a party that mediates between a Buyer and a Seller.

Contents 1 Approaches to negotiation 1.1 The advocate's approach 1.2 The "win/win" negotiator's approach 2 Emotion in negotiation 2.1 Positive affect in negotiation 2.2 Negative affect in negotiation 2.3 Conditions for emotion effect in negotiation 2.4 The effect of the partner’s emotions 2.5 Problems with lab negotiation studies 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References and further reading

Approaches to negotiation

Negotiation typically manifests itself with a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position. It can be compared to mediation where a disinterested third party listens to each sides' arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. Mediation, a form of Alternative dispute resolution (ADR or "appropriate Dispute resolution " aims to assist two (or more disputants in reaching It is also related to arbitration which, as with a legal proceeding, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their "case" and then the arbitrator decides the outcome for both parties. Arbitration, a form of Alternative dispute resolution (ADR is a legal technique for the resolution of Disputes outside the Courts wherein the

Negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis, to a straight forward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking. Cherry picking may also refer to the process of Collecting erroneous Coins Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations. Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances

The advocate's approach

In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to the negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations, unless the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is acceptable. In Negotiation theory the best alternative to a negotiated Agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations

Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption of a fixed "pie", that one person's gain results in another person's loss. This is only true, however, if only a single issue needs to be resolved, such as a price in a simple sales negotiation. If multiple issues are discussed, differences in the parties' preferences make win-win negotiation possible. For example, in a labor negotiation, the union might prefer job security over wage gains. If the employers have opposite preferences, a trade is possible that is beneficial to both parties. Such a negotiation is therefore not an adversarial zero-sum game. In Game theory and Economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other

The "win/win" negotiator's approach

During the early part of the twentieth century, academics such as Mary Parker Follett developed ideas suggesting that agreement often can be reached if parties look not at their stated positions but rather at their underlying interests and requirements to reach a decision that benefits both parties. Mary Parker Follett (1868&ndash1933 was an American Social worker, Consultant, and author of books on Democracy, Human relations, and

In the 1970s, practitioners and researchers began to develop win-win approaches to negotiation. A win-win game is a Game which is designed in a way that all participants can profit from it in one way or the other Win-win is taken from Economic Game Theory, and has been adopted by negotiation North American academics to loosely mean Principled Negotiation. Getting to YES was published by Roger Fisher and William Ury as part of the Harvard negotiation project. Getting to YES (ISBN 1-84413-146-7 is a reference book describing the principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits strategy (also referred to Win-win Roger Fisher (born May 28, 1922) is Samuel Williston Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School and director of the Harvard Negotiation The book's approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is also sometimes called mutual gains bargaining. Mutual Gains Approach (MGA is an approach to Collective bargaining intended to reach Win-win outcomes for the negotiating parties The mutual gains approach has been effectively applied in environmental situations (see Lawrence Susskind and Adil Najam) as well as labor relations where the parties (e. Adil Najam is an academic and writer of Pakistani origin based in Boston The field of industrial relations (also called labor relations) looks at the relationship between Management and workers particularly groups of workers represented g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as "problem solving". Management (covering theory practice and scope of management and Manager' (covering the people who manage might help clarify and systematise A trade union or labour union is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in key areas such as wages hours and working conditions forming

There are a tremendous number of other scholars who have contributed to the field of negotiation, including Gerard E. Watzke at Tulane University, Sara Cobb at George Mason University, Len Riskin at the University of Missouri, Howard Raiffa at Harvard, Robert McKersie and Lawrence Susskind at MIT, and Adil Najam and Jeswald Salacuse at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Howard Raiffa (1924&ndash ˈreɪfə is the Frank P Ramsey Professor (Emeritus of Managerial Economics, a joint chair held by the Business School Adil Najam is an academic and writer of Pakistani origin based in Boston

Emotion in negotiation

Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process, although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied. An emotion is a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings thoughts and behaviours Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. During negotiations, the decision as to whether or not settle, rests in part on emotional factors. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, while positive emotions facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains.

Affect effect: Dispositional affects affect the various stages of the negotiation process: which strategies are planned to be used, which strategies are actually chosen,^[1] the way the other party and its intentions are perceived,^[2] the willingness to reach an agreement and the final outcomes. Dispositional Affect, similar to Mood, is a Personality trait or overall tendency to respond to situations in stable predictable ways ^[3] Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) of one or more of the negotiating sides can lead to very different outcomes.

Positive affect in negotiation

Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence,^[4] and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy. ^[1] During the negotiation, negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics^[5] and more cooperative strategies. ^[1] This in turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability to find integrative gains. ^[6] Indeed, compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity, negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more. ^[1] Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as flexible thinking, creative problem solving, respect for others' perspectives, willingness to take risks and higher confidence. Decision making can be regarded as an outcome of mental processes ( cognitive process) leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives Problem solving forms part of thinking. Considered the most complex of all intellectual functions problem solving has been defined as higher-order Cognitive ^[7] Post negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well. It increases satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one’s desire for future interactions. ^[7] The PA aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which result in affective commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions. ^[7]
PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance, such that performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is. ^[4] Thus, studies involving self reports on achieved outcomes might be biased.

Negative affect in negotiation

Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by far the most researched is anger. Anger is an emotional state that may range from minor irritation to intense rage Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts. ^[1] These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties' judgment, narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side. ^[5] Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent’s interests and are less accurate in judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains. ^[8] Moreover, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers. ^[5] Anger doesn’t help in achieving negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains^[1] and does not help to boost personal gains, as angry negotiators don’t succeed in claiming more for themselves. ^[8] Moreover, negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility. In Economics, utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of Consumption of various Goods and services. In Economics, utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of Consumption of various Goods and services. ^[9] However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's commitment, sincerity, and needs. ^[5] Moreover, although NA reduces gains in integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such as zero-sum). In Game theory and Economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other ^[7]

Conditions for emotion effect in negotiation

Research indicates that negotiator’s emotions do not necessarily affect the negotiation process. Albarracın et al. (2003) suggested that there are two conditions for emotional effect, both related to the ability (presence of environmental or cognitive disturbances) and the motivation:

1. Identification of the affect: requires high motivation, high ability or both.
2. Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either the motivation, the ability or both are low.

According to this model, emotions are expected to affect negotiations only when one is high and the other is low. When both ability and motivation are low the affect will not be identified, and when both are high the affect will be identify but discounted as irrelevant for judgment. ^[10] A possible implication of this model is, for example, that the positive effects PA has on negotiations (as described above) will be seen only when either motivation or ability are low.

The effect of the partner’s emotions

Most studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator’s own emotions on the process. However, what the other party feels might be just as important, as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels. A group of people share a range of qualities and characteristics which signifies it from other groups When it comes to negotiations, trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect,^[2] and visibility enhances the effect. ^[6] Emotions contribute to negotiation processes by signaling what one feels and thinks and can thus prevent the other party from engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signals to keep in the same way, while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed. ^[7]
Partner’s emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator’s emotions and behavior: mimetic/ reciprocal or complimentary. ^[3] For example, disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation. Disappointment is the feeling of dissatisfaction that follows the failure of expectations to manifest Sadness is an Emotion characterized by Feelings of disadvantage loss and helplessness Compassion is a profound human Emotion prompted by the pain of others ^[7] In a study by Butt et al. (2005) which simulated real multi-phase negotiation, most people reacted to the partner’s emotions in reciprocal, rather than complimentary, manner. Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent’s feelings and strategies chosen:

• Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably. In Game theory and Economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other ^[11] It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent. ^[3].
• Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner. Pride is a lofty view of one's self or one's own Pride often manifests itself as a high opinion of one's Nation (national pride Ethnicity (ethnic pride or appearance ^[3]
• Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of him by the opponent, however it also led the opponent to place higher demands. ---- Guilt is the Fact, state or Verdict (by a Court or other Tribunal) of an Offence, Crime, Violation Regret is an intelligent (and/or Emotional dislike for personal past acts and behaviors ^[2]. On the other hand, personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved. ^[7]
• Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent. A well accepted theory of anxiety originally posited by Liebert and Morris in 1967 suggests that Anxiety consists of two components worry and emotionality ^[2]

Problems with lab negotiation studies

Negotiation is a rather complex interaction. Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an Effect upon one another Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task, let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it. For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions, and focus only on some aspects. A laboratory (informally lab) is a facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific Research, Experiments and Although lab studies have their advantages, they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions:

• Emotions in lab studies are usually manipulated and are therefore relatively ‘cold’ (not intense). Although those ‘cold’ emotions might be enough to show effects, they are qualitatively different from the ‘hot’ emotions often experienced during negotiations. ^[12]
• In real life there is self-selection to which negotiation one gets into, which effects the emotional commitment, motivation and interests. However this is not the case in lab studies. ^[7]
• Lab studies tend to focus on relatively few well defined emotions. Real life scenarios provoke a much wider scale of emotions. ^[7]
• Coding the emotions has a double catch: if done by a third side, some emotions might not be detected as the negotiator sublimates them for strategic reasons. Self report measures might overcome this, but they are usually filled only before or after the process, and if filled during the process might interfere with it. ^[7]

See also

• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Bargaining
• Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)
• Collective bargaining
• Collective action
• Conciliation
• Conflict resolution research
• Consistency
• Contract
• Cross-cultural
• Decision making
• Diplomacy
• Dispute resolution
• Expert determination
• Game theory
• Group Emotion
• Impasse
• Leadership
• Mediation
• Nash equilibrium
• Negotiation theory
• Prisoner's dilemma
• Win-win game

Notes

References and further reading

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic