Effective Negotiation from Research to Results PDF

Effective negotiation from research to results (fourth edition) BATNA -- Best alternative to a negotiated agreement Chapter 1 What is negotiation? - Is a process by which two parties with differences that they need to resolve to try to reach an agreement through exploring options and e...

Effective negotiation from research to results (fourth edition) BATNA -- Best alternative to a negotiated agreement Chapter 1 What is negotiation? - Is a process by which two parties with differences that they need to resolve to try to reach an agreement through exploring options and exchanging offers -- and an agreement. - It is a sequence of activities or tasks that need to be worked through - It is a 'mixed motive' interaction - A good negotiator will have a preferred path -- script or storyline -- that they would like the negotiation to follow - Negotiators may not always succeed and through that the management of the process is needed to be conducted carefully - The notion of 'agreement' sounds positive but nothing about the negotiation guarantees that an agreement is a positive outcome, both parties might agree, but only reluctantly DNA of negotiation: - Elements that are hard-wired into the process of reaching an agreement and hold the negotiation together. They are integral to the strategies that negotiators can employ - The two strands of the DNA can be viewed as the key elements that give life and structure to a negotiation -- reciprocity, trust, power, and information exchange - Reciprocity is a feature of social interactions (negotiation) - Trust is an expectation that the other party will act in a beneficial rather than exploitative way. Building trust is an essential part of a process in negotiation - Information, is central in reaching an agreement, and so forms another link in the negotiation DNA - Power, the power that negotiators have relates to the alternatives open to them -- ways other than negotiators achieve their desired objectives - Negotiation can be viewed as a process whereby the alternatives that negotiators think they have been changed The lack of power, reflected in concern about having only a poor alternative, brings negotiators to the negotiating table. The level of trusts between the parties determines the quality of the agreement they will then achieve. Competitiveness and cooperation -\> negotiation Competitive negotiation -- not budging an inch while pressuring the other party to agree. Picturing the negotiation as being like a boxing match. One party wants more than the other is willing to give. If the parties are negotiating around target points and trying to focus on the other party's resistance point, then clearly the negotiation will be a competitive one that involves pressure and concession making. Competitive view of negotiation tends to be our default script, because negotiators tend to approach an issue as being a zero-sum (win-lose) issue and negotiate accordingly, that is competitively.  Cooperative negotiation script -\> helping each other out to find common ground in which they both can agree on and are satisfied. Negotiators break out of the existing parameters of the issue and go down a completely different route Negotiation phases: A negotiator may describe a negotiation as, 'We had a fairly robust debate but once we understood each other it was quite easy to reach an agreement.' This suggesting two phases in the negotiation, the first broadly competitive and the second more cooperative  Week 2 -- Chapter 2: Negotiators are people not robots - A negotiation is not a riddle or a problem, it is two sided - Each negotiator has their own personality, perceptions, and style, and it would benefit us to analyse both ourselves and our counterparts in order to make sense of what is happening around us. An understanding of ourselves allows us to consciously and strategically monitor our own behaviour - Friendly: being friendly and make a cooperative opening mood, a negotiator can be stating their opening position while at the same language through language and demeanour show a willingness to find a solution - Firm and match the other's behaviour: If the other negotiators simply reiterate their previous position, then you should repeat yours and not feel obligated to reduce your position in an attempt to overcome the impasse - Forgiving: if rules 1 and 2 don't work, do not seek to punish the other party for their lack of cooperation. Patience is key as the other party is probably thinking about their plans and ideas about the cooperation. - Facilitating: talk about the process and provide other ways of proceeding. Not embark them onto the solution until the other negotiator shows signs of reciprocating.  - Approach on the left is a good first step. The difficulty lies with the presumption that the other party will follow a similar approach, not recognising that they also have choices. They may feel that working through a document is the best way to resolve outstanding issues. If this happens without being anticipated, our negotiator -- who, rightly, wants to follow an interest-based approach -- can easily become frustrated that the other party is not negotiating 'properly', and this will colour their judgements and reactions. The negotiations can become competitive because of this. - A core principle for negotiators is always considering everything from the other party's perspective. Not meaning to concede to accommodate the other party but explicitly consider what the needs and wants are for them. Assessing yourself in the other party's perspective and practicing this will help to adapt your plan if things go sideways - Ambition and likeability produced a greater negotiation performance from three occupations -- marketing managers, lawyers, and construction supervisors (Sharma et al., 2018) Table 2.2 The HEXACO personality dimensions and some suggested implications for negotiation behaviour A white and green list of words Description automatically generated with medium confidence  - The authors discovered that negotiators improve their value-creation abilities from repeated experience as opposed to those with less experience. Although experience may also lead to less value creation if it is only based on competitive negotiations - Tendencies and biases -\> the way we think and the approach we take will affect the negotiation process (Bazerman & Neale 1983; Pinkley, Griffith & Northcraft 1995). The tendency of regarding the issue as win-lose situation when they are not can lead to negotiations to be understood as a contest between winners and losers. Leading to a lack of creation to develop as a result the other party may walk away from the negotiation - if we think negotiation is a win--lose affair, and we believe that the other party is extreme in their demands, we will draw on a competitive rather than a cooperative stereotype. These biases can also prejudice cross-cultural negotiations. E.g., When negotiating with someone from China, say, we might instinctively assume that we are negotiating with a Sun Tzu strategist rather than a Confucian gentleman (Fang 1999). A bias towards a win--lose view of negotiation taints both our preparation and our interpretation of the other party's words and actions.  - Attribution error -\> if someone is late -\> the person is unreliable, therefore we have attributed the cause of the event and the personality of the person. Neglecting the other factors that apply and the work ethic or actual personality of the individual A chart with green and white text Description automatically generated - Encountering innate bias -\> firstly emerges from a lack of critical thinking -\> if negotiating alone, talk through you preparation with a trustworthy person who is prepared to challenge your thinking. Second, biases and prejudices can stem from our ignorance of the other party. Ensure that full attention is given to the other party and take time to be understanding. It is also an aspect that could be a lesson and a reflection on the mistake that has been made as the result of being biased. Is important to be open minded and flexible. - Gender during negotiation - there are no definitive links between gender and negotiation behaviour (Kray & Babcock 2006). It is more the case that the situation influences how negotiators approach their task, particularly in shaping their expectations and goals (Kray & Babcock 2006). Bowles, Babcock and McGinn (2005) also found that gender differences lessened as the negotiation context became more structured. - Negotiations do not occur in isolation, but -- particularly within organisations -- are part of a broader 'negotiated order' (Strauss 1978) where the role expectations of the organisation provide a context that shapes how individuals approach the task of resolving differences (Kolb & McGinn 2009). Male negotiators are seen as being more flexible in choosing between competitive and cooperative strategies, and this accounts for some of their negotiating success. Women tend to stick to being cooperative but the reason for this -- at least in an organisational context -- is that men tend to have more status, and therefore more options open to them (Miles & Clenney 2010). - Halpern and Parks (1996) found that female negotiators defined a situation more broadly than their male counterparts, such as considering who might be affected in the future, reflecting a more relationship-driven motivation. - Women will exchange information, but likely with the aim of understanding the situation better rather than to secure a good outcome for themselves (Deal 2000). Negotiation is less clearly separated from other conversations (Kolb & Coolidge 1991), with one consequence being that women can find themselves in situations where men are negotiating but they are not doing so themselves. - Women tend to have a more external locus of control than men and considering that people with an internal locus of control spontaneously undertake activities to advance their own interests more than people with external locus of control, this can be one explanation for why men actively pursue negotiations more often than woman. We might point out that this research addressed the context of work-related negotiations, where negotiations served the negotiator directly rather than another beneficiary. It may well be the case that where women negotiate on behalf of a constituent, in particular their children, their locus of control may be different. - Hong and Van, der Wijst's (2013) Women who were primed with the experience of having power made better first offers and negotiated better outcomes than women who were not. Men's first offers and negotiation outcomes appeared not to be affected by power Negotiating with the other gender -\> tips: - Look for similarities, not differences - Female negotiators: check whether your goal is high enough - Male negotiators: check whether you might lose by winning Emotions impact on negotiations: - Expression of emotion can be useful or damaging in a negotiation. If we are completely controlled/ wooden faced, lead to high suspicion of the other party - Our emotions serve as a useful purpose in establishing social relationships (Keltner & Haidt 1999) - Negotiations with positive attitude -\> most likely to find a solution - Too eager to find a solution may result to a failure to - To focus on the issue instead of getting swayed by emotions, anger may help as well as pressure - Though anger can eat away trust and may harm the negotiation by putting it at risk - Hunsaker's (2017, p. 230) review of the effects of anger on negotiation: that it hurts a negotiator as well as helping. A concession may be gained now, but longer-term benefits are foregone. - Signs of throwing or storming out during a negotiation could be recognised through tension -\> sharper voices, more interruptions, dismissive comments, signs of exasperation - Anxiety is another emotion that is often experienced in negotiations some may find it confronting and uncomfortable when stakes are high, or someone is watching them particularly an audience. This is likely to affect the performance of the negotiator while self-efficiency can mitigate the effects of this, it is clear that it may benefit the negotiator to employ self-calming strategies to avoid anxiety-driven-decision-making - Emotional intelligence -\> being aware of the emotions of self and others, having control over one's emotions and being cognisant in the management of other's emotions (Goleman, 1995). Could be a skill in social networking. Shell (2006) identified three schools of bargaining ethics: 1. The Poker school regards negotiation as a 'game'. The rules of this game are set by norms, laws or industry expectations, and anything within these rules is acceptable while actions that fall outside of these rules are not. 2. The Idealist school will prioritise a fair process above personal gains and will adhere to strict codes of right and wrong. 3. The Pragmatists will act in accordance with their interests, analysing whether a relationship with the other party is of interest and, if so, will take care not to jeopardise that relationship. Where a relationship is of no importance or relevance, behaviours that are considered unethical, such as lying, are not seen as harmful. - Negotiators ethical preference will determine the extent to which they will limit their own behaviour and allow themselves to win at the expense of another party. It will also affect how they will judge unethical behaviour to other parties to the negotiation, and how exposed unethical behaviour will affect trust between the parties - Good negotiators need to exchange information about their situation, their interest and reasons for the positions they are taking in the negotiation. In making it fair and reasonable the level of trust for the information should be truthful. Providing false information leads to a false impression and an unethical and unlawful negotiator. - preparing for the negotiation will suggest that you are patient and would deter the other negotiator from attempting any tactical misinformation - Becoming an effective negotiator is to be aware of the impact we personally may have, to have control of our emotions and to appreciate that sometimes it is not the other negotiator who is being 'difficult. Week 3, Chapter 3 -\> Establishing what can be achieved by negotiating - Helpful to envisage a negotiation as having the purpose of addressing both parties' needs rather than simply having the goal of getting the other party to agree with us - Hierarchy is involved in negotiations -\> top level: interests -- defining the motivation of the investigation. Below interests -\> list goals (agreements) -\> Below goals (targets or positions that allow us to reach our goals) - Assessing the power balance -\> negotiations -\> power is defined in getting other people to do what you want them to do and having them like it. It is at the heart of any negotiation because having to negotiate is an acknowledgement that you don't have enough power to achieve your interests without the involvement of others. - Power in negotiation -\> An early representation by French and Raven (1959) identified power by its sources: expert knowledge, an ability to reward or punish another, one's position of authority or respect conferred by others. - 'Information is power' (Dawson 1999, p. 222; Lewicki, Minton & Saunders 2006, pp. 188--9; Winkler 1981, p. 141) can lead negotiators to withhold information in the belief that to do so makes them more powerful, whereas to release information makes them more vulnerable. - Chamberlain and Kuhn (1965, p. 170) define bargaining power as 'the ability to secure another's agreement on one's own terms. - A negotiation that is 2 sided -\> first attempt is to understand the interests of other parties -\> formulate specific goals but don't be entirely fixated, being able to be flexible -\> considering alternatives Week 4, Chapter 4 -- Strategically managing the negotiation process - The Differentiation phase -\> two parties with differences. It Is important to sort out the differences during the negotiation to proceed without any issues after the negotiation and onwards - Exchanging phase: in competitive negotiations, almost the whole negotiation process may have been an end game as each side, from the outset, has pressured the other to agree - In practice, negotiators switch -- often instinctively -- between contending and looking for a compromise, which is why, when looking at the research, the final stage of a negotiation is often less clear than the other stages Week 5, Chapter 5 -- Differentiation: Managing the exchange of information Negotiation skill tips: three steps to developing trust Trust has to be earned, not presumed: - Maintain your integrity and predictability - Talk process -- about how the negotiations are currently unfolding and how they might go differently; use inclusive language ('we,' 'us') - Build the other party's confidence -- make it clear that you will reciprocate Cautious rather than open information exchange: - Not expect the information exchange to be complete - Negotiators may feel that when exchanging information, it could convey their weakness rather than generating cooperation -\> in this situation, the power of reciprocity might be harnessed. Another approach is to drip-feed information, a practice that draws on the gradualism of the GRIT strategy. - Drip-feeding information: Rule 1 -- be friendly, provide only limited information. Rule 2: be firm, until the other party reciprocates information back. If necessary, talk about the deadlock situation and the need for more openness (Rule 4: be facilitating) Negotiation skill tips: Standing firm -\> it is important to stand firm on (contend) what is important without being positional - Make sure your goal is a 'yes-able' proposition - Have on or two key reasons to justify the stance you are taking, and make sure these are explained well - Present your key concerns as factors that must be considered, not as solutions to the negotiation - Allow the other negotiator to stand firm too; don't try to undermine their statements Things to avoid: - Talking only in big-picture generalities, saying nothing definite - Saying what you want but not why you want it - Repeatedly emphasising the common interest (this is an irritation) - Interrupting the other party - Being judgemental about what the other party says - Telling the other party what the outcome is going to be - Making threats, particularly ones you can't implement - Imposing a false deadline Grasp the Big Picture: - Start by talking about the broader context of the negotiation - Explain the issues in broad terms, not in detail; why they are important and need to be addressed - Express some appreciation of the other party's situation, but want to understand more fully - Keep the details -- events, costs, implications etc -- until later Gleaning information: be specific about how information will be exchanged: - Write down the questions you need to ask the other party - Assuming you don't get a full answer, what further questions might you ask - How do you plan to share (or not) information the other party requests Good listening: - Be relaxed and focus on the speaker - Take notes, or have someone present who will - As a way of checking understanding, reflect on what the other negotiator has just said Good speaking: - Stick to a few key points made in different ways - Explain the why as much as telling the what - Leave the detail until later  - The usefulness of summarising: summarising their position as a negotiators what both parties have currently agreed on. Can be used to slow down the process of the negotiation allowing each parties to discuss back to the main points and issues/ either create time or thinking space - Handling interruptions -\> interrupting the other party, and going into too much detail too early, can quickly turn an open discussion into a defensive one. Because of this, some negotiators often use interruptions as a competitive tactic to settle another negotiator and control the discussion. Prevention -\> keeping the information short to deter interruptions by not going into too much detail early into the discussion Week 6, Chapter 6: Exploration: Finding a better outcome - Creative space for creative negotiating: building on the foundations of good preparation and information exchange the challenges the negotiators will have to uncover or develop potential solutions that were not previously obvious. This requires creativity in two different dimensions. First, the negotiators still have their difference to resolve so they have to be more open about possible solutions, in effect, they need to create some space in the bargaining mix for new solutions to emerge. Secondly, they have to be more open to what other negotiators are saying and suggesting; in effect they need to create some space at the bargaining table so that they can trial their ideas and see where they might lead. It might not be an actual solution may not creative or innovative but the fact that the negotiators have opened up the bargaining mix and their discussions to explore all the possibilities probably means that whatever solution they do end up with is a good one. - If the parties have come to understand each other's differences, it then seems rather counter-productive to keep restating these differences when trying to find new solutions - Creative ways to generate new ideas -\> brainstorming or Nominal and Delphi techniques - A whiteboard can be effectively partly because it allows for visual presentation and for new linkages between issues and possible solutions to be seen (which is why it is unhelpful to be neat and tidy when putting points on the board -- they should be scattered points, not lists) - Putting more than 2 options of offers allows for a discussion to compare them, and may reveal more insights into preferences and perhaps lead to a better solution - Is important each proposal gets unpacked. Keeping criticism to a minimum -- a key element of the brainstorming process -- will help to create a more open environment - Sometimes it is more helpful to leave an unacceptable proposal on the table because there might be an element in it that links with something else later, so it becomes useful  - It is better to explore the value that lies within the proposal, and how it will accrue, when and to whom. This means looking for the benefits rather than the losses, though it is equally important to explore the downsides or potential problems associated with a proposal - Handling rejection -\> the first reaction is to go through the proposal again to emphasise its benefits -- in essence, to contend, or to stand firm on, the proposal. The critical task is to find out why the proposal has been rejected. It is helpful to get the other party to explain their reaction to the proposal again, the second time around, further insights might be gained that will help in either reshaping the proposal or crafting arguments in defence to it - In putting together an offer, a negotiator must check three things at all times: their goals, their BATNA, and the other party's expected approach - Process of making multiple offers help negotiators to identify the best outcomes    Week 8, Chapter 8 -\> Strategically managing deadlocks The term 'deadlock' or 'impasse' implies that nothing more can be done to negotiate an outcome. There is also a sense that to have reached a deadlock is something of a failure -- the whole purpose of negotiating is to reach agreement so to come away without one easily leads to disappointment and self-criticism. Why do deadlocks occur? Negotiations deadlock for many reasons. One or more parties are unrealistic in what they want to achieve; one negotiator said something that the other really didn't like; something was said that was misunderstood; or perhaps one party wanted the negotiations to fail because of events that were happening elsewhere Issues related to deadlock: the parties are unable to find a solution that is mutually beneficial, and they both realise that they are better off not making an agreement rather than making a poor one. The Negotiation skills tips: dead locks can occur for many reasons - Negotiators going toe to toe in an act of brinkmanship and ego gratification - Being in too much of a hurry to settle - Trying to smooth over differences in order to get to an agreement - Losing sight of the key goals and arguing over minor issues - Not knowing when to stop talking and listen o the other side Process-related deadlocks: deadlocks occur as a result of the poor management of process where negotiations need active managing, particularly when the negotiators are trying to different things that put them out of phase. This can occur when one of negotiators is going too fast or slow. A good process would be following the three phases of differentiation, exploration, and exchange. Action-related deadlocks: deadlocks may occur because of an individual's action, not necessarily offensive or obstructionist behaviour but the other negotiator constantly interrupting the other individual. Or when both negotiators get closely involved in the detail of the issue and so lose a sense of what is important and find themselves arguing over minor points. Making effective use of a deadlock: There are ways to tell when a negotiation is heading towards a deadlock phase when there is a lot of tension and frustration involved with a lack of progress can be resolved with making concessions that the other party wants. Making a concession may be appropriate but a strategic negotiator will look to the causes of the deadlock before deciding upon an appropriate response. When finding yourself in a deadlock, the first step is to manage your own actions, then look to managing the process, which gives you time and mental space to then think more closely on the issue. Managing oneself in a deadlock: The easiest strategy is to be cooperative and make a concession, but this may only have the effect of encouraging the other party to seek further concessions. Johnston and Fells (2017) found 4 other ways in which negotiators respond to a deadlock situation. 1. The 'lone wolf' -- this response is built upon the frustration with how the negotiations are not proceeding. Though because it is a reactive response, it is considered as negative. The negotiator tries to take control and 'make something happen' but usually just makes it worse. 2. Team players -. Is more considered because on of the negotiators calls for an adjournment and they develop a collective response. In effect, they develop an ad hoc script for the resumption of the negotiations. The third way to handle a difficult or deadlock situation in a negotiation is to be a 'process manager'. 4. A negotiator can be a process leader, this occurs where both parties have, at the outset of their negotiation, discussed between them how they think the negotiations should be proceeded. Managing a process that has deadlocked: It is important to put a situation 'on hold' when one party is still trying to understand the issues and priorities while the other is intended to propose solutions in resolving the issue. Using the light touch intervention this will perpetuate the deadlock, and so a different approach is needed. Or to get the parties on the same page by going back to the key priorities of each individual's position and interests. Negotiation skill tips: view deadlocks as an opportunity -\> deadlocks provide negotiators with an opportunity to review the negotiation - Take time out to think process - Consider your alternatives - Be clear on what is really important to you - Reconsider their perspective - Summarise; talk about underlying interests - Keep exploring their offer for benefits Taking adjournments: only needed if there is a deadlock that might occur, prior preparation for this is important as a negotiator should think through what might need to be done if it is needed. If it is a teamwork negotiation, then team members need to establish clear signal whether an adjournment should be called. Negotiation skill tips: keep thinking = issue-process-action It is useful to write 'Issue, process, action' at the top of your notepad to help you think clearly about what needs to be done. - What are we doing about the issue? - What are we trying to achieve at this point in the negotiation? - How are we going to do it? - - What do we expect the outcome of this action will be? Ways to manage tension in a negotiation -\> talk about facts and common ground, summarise, signal an adjournment etc. Chapter 9 -- Overcoming Deadlocks through meditation The usefulness of mediation: recognising the mediation works, many commercial contracts now contain a mediation clause that requires the parties, if they are in dispute, to go to mediation before considering any court action. Essence of mediation: the essence of mediation, is its voluntariness: the parties retain the right to and responsibility for the final outcome. This voluntariness is what distinguishes mediation from conciliation: although the mediator and the conciliator ma be conducting their meetings in the same way, a mediator is there to help the parties reach their own agreement, whereas conciliator has to ensure that what the parties agree to is consistent with the requirements of the law under which the original complaint was made Types of mediation: Mediation process can take many forms (six different types of mediation) -\> expert advisory; settlement; facilitative; wise counsel; tradition-based; and transformative Facilitative mediation is the mediator helping the parties through the process; in evaluative mediation, the mediator is more actively involved in the issue by providing their assessment of the parties' positions. Negotiating is a process in which two parties with differences need to resolve in trying to reach an agreement through exploring options and exchanging offers. (mediation is the involvement of an independent person whose role is to assist the parties find a solution to their dispute through helping them clarify their real differences and what is needed to be resolved). The mediator undertakes this role through helping the parties to explore and create more options, assisting them when exchanging offers and make sure they are comfortable with their agreement. The logic for mediation is that it is important to understand the problem -- the nature of the differences -- before moving on to finding solutions. It is structured to this end and, since the mediator is in control, they will endeavour to take the parties through the process step by step, and not move on to the next stage until the current one has been completed. Mediators need to be good at the following: empathy, gaining people's confidence; investigation through asking good questions to find out what the issues are and why there are problems; invention; and able to find new ways to look at the situation and identify new solutions; and distraction -- the ability to manage tension, often by recounting relevant/ or humorous anecdotes. Telling of stories is a way a mediator can let the parties know of how their differences could be resolved without it being an outright suggestion that the parties might feel obligated to accept. It is important for a mediator to gain the trust of the parties, once they have its mediators are less effective If they place more emphasis on maintain their relationship with the parties than they do in pushing a solution forward. Mediators, like negotiators, have to manage the process if a joint outcome, rather than walking away, is to be achieved. A mediator works to a script the provides a point of reference when deciding what to do next similar to how a negotiator would prepare on how the negotiation should be unfolded. The mediation diamond: Reflecting the idea that the mediator will first broaden out of the disputing parties' discussion of the issues and of possible solutions before bringing the parties closer and closer to a point of agreement. The mediation starts the minute a decision to resort to mediation has been made. If parties have not experience mediation before, or if there have been no real negotiators over the issues, then the first task of the mediator is to gain the confidence of the parties and build their confidence in mediation as a process that will help them to resolve their differences. The mediator will still talk to each party individually and take them through a process in explaining their situation and asking them to consider possible solutions. This prepares the parties for when they later meet for the formal mediation session even though it has started. The mediator will open the joint session with a short statement about their role and purpose of mediation. This is another step in reinforcing the parties' commitments to work with the mediator and each other to find a solution to their difficulties. Issues from both parties will then be outlined. From this the mediator's purpose is clear by summarising and making sure the points that the first party has made are clearly understood before inviting the second party to state their points. An agenda of these issues will be established or perhaps written down by the mediator in ensuring that these items are clear and mutual between the parties. Purpose of this is to encourage both parties to discuss the issues cooperatively whilst the mediator is also listening to the conversation. If no open discussion has been made, then the mediator will encourage both parties to talk for a better understanding of each other. This is more open discussion as it is controlled by the mediator leading to parties to see their situation in a different light and become more accommodating. If not, then the mediator may need to talk to each one separately. Their purpose here is twofold. First, a private meeting giving each party an opportunity to openly provide information and opinions that was not revealed in front of the other party. The mediation will be looking for an indication of what the party will be willing to accept as a settlement. Second, a private meeting is an opportunity for the mediator to ease the party away from its initial positions. This is often done by reality testing by getting the party to think through how what they are saying looks and sounds from the perspective of the other party -- as well as by getting the party to think about what would happen if agreement were not reached through mediation. Mediator's styles will differ in its approaches where one may open a private meeting after each party has made its opening statements, whilst another will choose to draw both parties into a process of identifying a list of agenda items. Mediators seem to be inclined towards being either facilitative or evaluative. Mostly a facilitative approach is successful. A strategic use of mediation: since mediation is an alternative dispute-resolution process, it is one of the factors negotiators should consider when evaluating what their best alternative to a negotiated agreement might be. The prospects of a satisfactory settlement through mediation should be assessed alongside the prospects of a favourable court decision or seeking a new supplier, or whatever other alternatives are available. If both parties are stuck over putting together a deal, mediation option is appropriate. Since negotiation is 2 sided, and the other party always has choices they may sense a weakness and refuse mediation but instead become firmer, contending themselves. A tactical use of mediation Improving the mediation's chance of success  A good mediator will always foreshadow the next steps in the process. Chapter 11 -- Negotiation in practice: managing negotiations in the workplace The constituency structure and the collective nature of workplace negotiations also mean that the process of reaching agreement can be more complex than the more straightforward reporting-back process across different layers within an organisation. Asymmetry in workplace negotiations: management-union negotiations are often competitive, even when the parties realise that there are potential benefits to be gained from a more collaborative approach. Information exchange is often seen as a key element in having some successes in a negotiation however, in the workplace, management holds the important information about costs, markets, and the technology and is often reluctant to share this within the workforce In the workforce, the management can communicate directly with union membership, but union negotiators cannot easily communicate directly with managers who are not part of the negotiating team. Management may have the option or even the intention to not negotiate at all, and unilaterally offer employment conditions to the employees; a union does not have a similar 'no negotiation' option. The impact of asymmetry on negotiation behaviour -\> management holds most of the pertinent information while the union would not have little further information of what the management has thus cannot reciprocate but react in a competitive approach. Other competitive aspects of workplace negotiations: the outcome of management-union negotiations has two main elements -- the substantive terms of pay and other employment conditions and the social contract, and the nature of the relationship between management and union. In some workplaces relations systems, the legislative framework -- although designed to resolve disputation -- creates a framework that encourages an adversarial negotiation dynamic, which adds to the inherent competitiveness of the workplace itself. The notions of distributive and integrative bargaining -\> Distributive bargaining Is a hardline positional bargaining approach whereas integrative bargaining is an information-based problem-solving approach. For workplace negotiations, both start with information but in distributive negotiation information is envisaged as a source of power and is used to defend one's position and undermine the other party. Distributive -\> information exchange then threats/ industrial action to pressure one side to realise a concession is needed to be made Integrative -\> information exchange with no threats in building common interests to jointly work together in finding a solution Integrative strategies are similar to a sequential strategy recommended by Lax and Sebenius -\> to first negotiate cooperatively to create value and then competitively claim value  A workplace negotiation audit: 1. The negotiation structure -\> describe and review the structure of the negotiations (who is involved -\> two unions, manager) 2. The negotiation process -\> review the sequence of events -- a timeline diagram will help (the process of the negotiation followed e.g., critical incidents) 3. Individual negotiator's actions -\> collectively and individually, think about how to make a constructive impact on the process 4. Negotiation outcomes -\> take a two-sided approach to reviewing the outcome. This audit process relates to workplace negotiations but can also be followed in other contexts where the negotiations are periodically repeated. Both union and management parties will seek to rewrite the current agreement to reflect their own positions. This invites a clause-by-clause approach, inviting a win-lose dynamic on each point, irrespective of its importance. Chapter 13 -\> Cross-cultural negotiations: much the same but different Purpose of understanding cross-cultural negotiation is twofold: to manage these negotiations more effectively, and equally importantly, to draw from the diversity to improve our own way of negotiating. 1. Gain cultural awareness, while recognising it is very easy to generalise and so make errors of judgements. 2. Consider how the person's culture might affect how they view a negotiation and how they might conduct the tasks of negotiation -- perhaps they don't do them very differently after all. 3. Consider what actions we can take in response to improve the process and the outcome. Culturally, we cannot assume the idea that all people from one culture behave similarity, as each individual's upbringings are different therefore their reactions will be different. As the negotiation unfolds, it is easy to attribute any behaviour -- particularly behaviour that is different from your own -- to culture, and so ignore the many similarities. Negotiators should be alert when cultural differences are overly emphasised as a tactic to secure further concessions. People from cultures with a fluid understanding of time will deliberately delay meetings with the intention of making more time- focused on the negotiator to feel uncomfortable in enabling unnecessary concessions. Dimensions of cultural difference: Lewis provides a different perspective on cultural difference, organising the cultural characteristics of countries into three groups: multi-actives, linear-actives, and reactive. Linear-active are organised and deal focused, looking towards a written contract, whereas the multi-actives work from grand plans, are relationship oriented and, although they will sign a contract, believe that their spoken commitment is what matters. Reactive are more harmony-oriented in putting together a deal, so rely more on broad principles and would therefore view any contract as renegotiable should circumstances change. Summarises the three categories as linear active: 'time is money'; multi-active: 'negotiation is an art'; and reactive: 'building trust.' Four aspects of cultural differences to consider: 1. Are they likely to have an individualistic or collective orientation? (Collective orientation negotiators adjust to changed circumstances more readily than individualistic negotiators; they tend to accept the world as it is, whereas the individualists feel they can still change things and so might take more risks in a negotiation to achieve their goals  Brett argues those who are individualistic by nature or culture will tend to view negotiation as being between two independent parties, while those with a more collective perspective might think that they must first organise the two parties into one, and then they can start sorting out their differences. Individualism (Independence) and collectivism (interdependence) Collective culture negotiators will be more situational and will view trust in terms of an expectation of mutual benefits in longer term. Individualistic or collective negotiators can either be competitive or cooperative. Collectivists are cooperative but within their own group. 2. Are they likely to communicate in a low- or high-context manner?  - Westerners will try to persuade through examples of practical application whereas those from a culture with more Mediterranean influence might prefer to build a framework of concepts first - A high-context communicator expects the listener to discern the key message while a low-context one delivers the key message explicitly 3. Are they likely to view the exercise of power in decision-making (including dealing with conflicts) in a hierarchical or egalitarian manner? Hierarchical manner -- people who are senior by rank or age are granted respect and are looked to for guidance; their preferences are accommodated and their decisions accepted Egalitarian manner -- there is a greater acceptance of open participation, discussion, and challenge The hierarchical or egalitarian characteristics of societies and organisations impact on some key aspects of negotiations: how decisions are made, how power is exercised, and how conflict is managed Negotiators in a more hierarchically influenced group would not want to act outside of their superiors, with the consequence that they may appear inflexible and unresponsive 4. Are they likely to feel that time is important? 'Time is money.' -\> Negotiators from these cultures will be punctual, will not have too much time for social chit-chat, and instead will immediately start working through the agenda, one item at a time, will be totally focused on the issues and will finish on schedule -- all of it reflects a monochronistic approach to time.  - There is a broad divide between cultures with Anglo-Saxon or northern Europe roots, who are generally monochronistic and people from the rest of the world, who are more polychronic (placing little value on time) Managing a cross-cultural negotiation: Preparation is the key to any negotiation. It is naïve to enter into a business negotiation in another country without first having thoroughly researched the situation and developing a sound business case. The appraisal must extend beyond whether the proposal is technically and economically sound to consider the full context in which any eventual agreement will be implemented, including the risks involved. Cross-cultural sensitivity will not compensate for you being unaware that your agreement Metaphors in providing insights into the cultures of different countries The rock 'n' roll approach to negotiation -\> western negotiator's desire to get on with the task straight away, to lay everything on the table and open up all the issues -\> very intended on getting their message across, full emphasis with not too much subtlety or concern for relationship-building and trust. Negotiation as a banquet -\> A banquet provides a good image of what negotiating is like in Asia and in many parts of the non-western world. When participating in a banquet, the point is not the food but the social interaction. It is the same with an invitation to negotiate. The primary purpose of this invitation is not to seek your involvement in a formal business meeting but to participate in an opportunity to understand each other. The banquet is a reflection how information is often conveyed in a Chinese negotiation: some talk about the big picture, the possibilities and the prospects for the relationship, and then separate details and insights are offered from time to time, not as a neat package of information - Comparisons can be made between those with a collective orientation who tend to be most comfortable with high-context forms of communication and those who have an individualistic orientation and prefer to communicate in a more direct, low-context manner. This again risks dividing the world's negotiators into two broad categories -- the west and the non-west, a workable division.  Collective and hierarchical culture negotiators find it difficult in presenting a solution (making a new suggestion or offering a first response to a proposal) from the start without exploring as they are more comfortable conveying the party line. They will prefer interparty rather than interpersonal exchanges. High-context negotiators prefer to put an offer on the table early and work around that, an action that may be regarded by a low-context negotiator as anchoring the issue and precluding any further exploratory discussion German (low context) Chinese (high context)  Non-Western negotiators' hierarchical, collectivist, high-context perspective helps them take a broad view of the situation, so by working through, over and around the issues they can help more issue-focused negotiators to see the broader possibilities. These same cultural characteristics tend to inhibit open creativity and make it difficult to present new exploratory proposals. The western negotiators should try not to rush things so early in the negotiations. They need to be attentive to and accepting of the alternative ways of putting issues in their wider and historical context. Similarly, they should try to broaden their own presentations. Non-western negotiators could contribute by bringing emphasis to their key points -- perhaps through summary and checking understanding, and by responding with direct information Negotiation progress -- western negotiators can maintain an exploratory approach by viewing positions and offers as opportunities for discussion while non-western negotiators should be willing to give their reaction to proposals, confident that they will be taken only a preliminary reactions, and equally importantly, that their own party will not see this as disloyal The egalitarian, individualistic and low-context approach of Western negotiators bringsdifferent benefits and difficulties. These people find it easier to be openly creative and to explore what might be achieved. But the Western focus on achieving an outcome can be frustrating for non-Western negotiators, who will want to take more time to consider issues and proposals, particularly within their broader goals. Preparation should focus on the other party as much as on one's own goals and preferred approach to negotiation. A person's cultural background will affect how they negotiate, but culture is not the only determinant of how a negotiator behaves; the issue and the context -- and the other party -- all have an effect of how a negotiation unfolds.