You are on page 1of 12

Negotiation

1

Negotiation
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people
or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve
point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of
dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of
action, to bargain for individual or collective
advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests
of two people/parties involved in negotiation process.
Negotiation is a process where each party involved in
negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by
the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at
compromise.
Signing the Treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920. Albert Apponyi

Negotiation
occurs
in
business,
non-profit
standing in the middle.
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. 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.

Negotiation strategies
Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization
or position in a formal setting, to an informal negotiation between friends. Negotiation can be contrasted with
mediation, where a neutral third party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement
between the parties. It can also be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding. In arbitration, both
sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator decides the outcome.
Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation. Different theorists use different labels
for the two general types and distinguish them in different ways.

Distributive negotiation
Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach
negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme
position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and brinksmanship
in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a
process of distributing a fixed amount of value.[1]
The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being distributed or divided among the people
involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a “fixed pie.” There is only so much
to go around, but the proportion to be distributed is variable. Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called
win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain results in another person's loss. A distributive negotiation
often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the
near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.

and the agreement(s) reached at the end. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions.[1] The word integrative implies some cooperation. Sara Cobb at George Mason University. approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle. Gerard E. Adil Najam and Jeswald Salacuse at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.) A number of different approaches to integrative negotiation are taught in a variety of different books and programs. behavior and substance.[2] 2 . and John D. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a “fixed pie”) to be divided between the parties. process. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation. Strategy comprises the top level goals . and so should not be omitted. the issues (positions and . Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the forming of a relationship. Holly Schroth and Timothy Dayonot at UC Berkeley. and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Mutual Gains Approach. tools. Negotiation tactics There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation.Negotiation Integrative negotiation Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled negotiation. Len Riskin at the University of Missouri. Howard Raiffa at Harvard. integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation (“expand the pie”).within certain limits . See.to regard the other side more as an adversary than a partner and to take a somewhat harder line.interests). Watzke at Tulane University. the tactics used by the parties. asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success. the options. and tactics. but with him. One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process. so it may be quite appropriate . (See Win-win game. principled criteria as the basis for agreement. What is gained is not at the expense of the other. Robert McKersie and Lawrence Susskind at MIT. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations. It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions. Processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles taken in both preparing for and negotiating with the other parties.more helpfully . The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda. for example. Adversary or partner? The two basically different approaches to negotiating will require different tactics. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual gains. the communication between them and the styles they adopt. Another view of negotiation comprises four elements: strategy. Getting to YES. Gould Negotiation and Mediation Teaching Program. Program on Negotiation. In the distributive approach each negotiator is battling for the largest possible piece of the pie. but optimum gain. Males. But a cooperative attitude will regularly pay dividends.typically including relationship and the final outcome. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties. A good agreement is not one with maximum gain. Scholars who have contributed to the field of negotiation include Roger Fisher and William Ury. This does not by any means suggest that we should give up our own advantage for nothing. the parties to the negotiations. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation techniques. and insists upon adherence to objective. This would however be less appropriate if the idea were to hammer out an arrangement that is in the best interest of both sides. Some add to this persuasion and influence.

Reissued in 1991 with additional authorship credit to Bruce Patton. They can. The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent. Shell identified five styles/responses to negotiation. Accommodating: Individuals who enjoy solving the other party’s problems and preserving personal relationships. 3. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal. 1. Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. however.[4] Negotiation styles R. Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy.[3] The Getting to YES approach Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is a best-selling 1981 non-fiction book by Roger Fisher and William L. they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic. The advocate attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states.[5] Individuals can often have strong dispositions towards numerous styles. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties. feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship. 4. The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being considerate and understanding. to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking. and verbal signals of the other parties. competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships.G. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept. the style used during a negotiation depends on the context and the interests of the other party. The book suggests a method called "principled negotiation or negotiation of merits. however.Negotiation Employing an advocate A skilled negotiator may serve as an advocate for one party to the negotiation. generating a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating. In addition. When negotiating. Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic. styles can change over time. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process. body language. unless the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is acceptable. Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don’t do it unless warranted. focusing on interests. 3 ." This method consists of four main steps: separating the people from the problem. Bad guy/good guy is when one negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. create problems by transforming simple situations into more complex ones. then adjusts their demands accordingly. Ury. They can. however. Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis. to a straightforward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions. however. Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations. not positions. compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly. 5. 2. the book made appearances for years on Business Weeks "Best Seller" list. and insisting that the result be based on some objective standard. among other factors.

[20] Post negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well. such as flexible thinking. or Hamas's position on the state of Israel. On the other hand. show less contentious behavior.[17] and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy.[11] Emotion in negotiation Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process. or a model of information processing.Negotiation Bad faith negotiation When a party pretends to negotiate.[15] their willingness to reach an agreement and the final negotiated outcomes. one political party may pretend to negotiate. 4 .[10] A state is presumed to be implacably hostile. but have no intention to do so.[20] PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance.[17] Thus. but can also be instrumental in attaining concessions. but may be instrumental in attaining concessions. although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied.[16] Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) of one or more of the negotiating sides can lead to very different outcomes. positive emotions often facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union. for example. It increases satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one's desire for future interactions. which result in affective commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions.[14] This in turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals.[14] Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes. Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to reason to reach settlement.[9] It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.[13] Affect effect Dispositional affects affect the various stages of the negotiation process: which strategies are planned to be used. Positive and negative discrete emotions can be strategically displayed to influence task and relational outcomes[12] and may play out differently across cultural boundaries.[19] Indeed. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. with no intention to compromise. negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more. and contra-indicators of this are ignored. the decision as to whether or not to settle rests in part on emotional factors. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness.[14] During the negotiation. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior.[20] The PA aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship.[14] the way the other party and his or her intentions are perceived.[6][7] Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology Bad faith in political science and political psychology refers to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise. such that performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is. respect for others' perspectives.[8] The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his model of information processing. and enhance the ability to find integrative gains. willingness to take risks and higher confidence. the party is considered to be negotiating in bad faith. but secretly has no intention of compromising. compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity. negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more. Positive affect in negotiation Even before the negotiation process starts. creative problem solving. for political effect. use less aggressive tactics[18] and more cooperative strategies. people in a positive mood have more confidence. and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down. During negotiations. which strategies are actually chosen. studies involving self reports on achieved outcomes might be biased.

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. that the positive effects PA has on negotiations (as described above) will be seen only when either motivation or ability are low.[15] and visibility enhances the effect. and needs. manner. rather than complementary.[21] Moreover.[18] Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent’s interests and are less accurate in judging their interests.[20] In a study by Butt et al. 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. most people reacted to the partner’s emotions in reciprocal.[21] Moreover. both related to the ability (presence of environmental or cognitive disturbances) and the motivation: 1. disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation. 2. Albarracın et al. (2005) which simulated real multi-phase negotiation. narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side. although NA reduces gains in integrative tasks. clouding parties' judgment.[20] In his work on negative affect arousal and white noise. as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels. even before the negotiation starts. or otherwise lose control) are more likely to make errors: make sure they are in your favor. the ability or both are low." Negotiation may be negatively affected. for example. During negotiations.[19] 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. it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such as zero-sum). (2003) suggested that there are two conditions for emotional affect. what the other party feels might be just as important.[14] These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. sincerity.[24] A possible implication of this model is. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes. According to this model. anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust. When it comes to negotiations. and when both are high the affect will be identify but discounted as irrelevant for judgment.[23] Conditions for emotion affect in negotiation Research indicates that negotiator’s emotions do not necessarily affect the negotiation process. Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either the motivation. by submerged hostility toward an ethnic or gender group.[18] Opponents who really get angry (or cry.[20] Partner’s emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator’s emotions and behavior: mimetic/ reciprocal or complementary. However. negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility. Seidner found support for the existence of a negative affect arousal mechanism through observations regarding the devaluation of speakers from other ethnic origins. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less. Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent’s feelings and strategies chosen: 5 . because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences. Identification of the affect: requires high motivation. expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's commitment. by far the most researched is anger. as angry negotiators do not succeed in claiming more for themselves. trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect.[22] However. high ability or both. while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed. in turn. thus achieve lower joint gains. it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers.[18] Moreover.[16] For example.Negotiation Negative affect in negotiation Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process.[3] Anger does not help in achieving negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains[14] and does not help to boost personal gains.

but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably.[20] Team negotiations Due to globalization and growing business trends. personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved. they are qualitatively different from the ‘hot’ emotions often experienced during negotiations.[15] Problems with lab negotiation studies Negotiation is a rather complex interaction. and increases familiarity in a negotiation. are specific roles team members must satisfy. There is more knowledge and wisdom dispersed in a team than in a single mind.Negotiation • Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation. however it also led the opponent to place higher demands. but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent. but they are usually filled only before or after the process. Real life scenarios provoke a much wider scale of emotions. "Negotium" (from "Nec Otium") means literally "not leisure".[27] Etymology The word "negotiation" originated from the Latin expression. and focus only on some aspects.[20] • Coding the emotions has a double catch: if done by a third side. Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task. which effects the emotional commitment. Teams can effectively collaborate to break down a complex negotiation. Although lab studies have their advantages. For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions. Although those ‘cold’ emotions might be enough to show effects. they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions: • Emotions in lab studies are usually manipulated and are therefore relatively ‘cold’ (not intense).[26] • In real life there is self-selection to which negotiation one gets into. The capacity base of a team reduces the amount of blunder.[20] • Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent.[16] • Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner. and if filled during the process might interfere with it. listening. However this is not the case in lab studies. "negotiatus". 6 . negotiation in the form of teams is becoming widely adopted. let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it.[20] • Lab studies tend to focus on relatively few well defined emotions. and talking.[15] On the other hand. Self-report measures might overcome this. some emotions might not be detected as the negotiator sublimates them for strategic reasons. motivation and interests. past participle of negotiare which means "to carry on business".[16] • Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of him by the opponent. Writing.[25] It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent.

each time the offer goes to a decision maker. Common examples of flinching are gasping for air. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.” This tactic is easy to spot because of its frequent use. When people know that they may lose out on something. difficult to identify and used for multiple purposes. Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus in on taking as much value off the table as possible. easier to work with. Brinkmanship is a type of “hard nut” approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the “brink” or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. The power of dialogue. Below are a few commonly used tactics. “I’m shocked. Spoilers. 7 .[35] Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying. The “good guy” will appear more reasonable and understanding. The good guy will appear more agreeable relative to the “bad guy. Chicken: Negotiators propose extreme measures. the other side would see right through them and they would not be effective. In essence.[36] This tactic is named after a police interrogation technique often portrayed in the media.[34] The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations. More often than not they are subtle. the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance.” Good Guy/Bad Guy: The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team negotiations where one member of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial. they will want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on.[31] Bogey: Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance to him or her is very important. or a visible expression of surprise of shock.Negotiation Barriers to negotiations • • • • • • • • Die hard bargainers. Defence in Depth: Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority. they also want to win. Structural impediments.[33] In other words. pit them against one another.[29] Many negotiation tactics exist. Cultural and gender differences. Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point at which the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. and therefore. just to win. Auction: The bidding process is designed to create competition. The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously. look at me. Communication problems. This method uses time to apply pressure to the other party. later in the negotiation. Taking advantage of someone’s competitive nature can drive up the price. Informational vacuums and negotiator's dilemma. that decision maker asks to add another concession in order to close the deal.[28] Negotiation tactics Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process. and the other offers a more rational approach. it is using the law of relativity to attract cooperation. Lack of trust. Flinch: Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal.[32] Then. Deadlines: Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision. But tactics don't often jump up and down shouting "Here I am.[30] When multiple parties want the same thing." If they did. to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. often bluffs. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.

and which facts are diversions.[41] • If possible.[38] Examples of non-verbal communication in negotiation Non-verbal "anchoring" In a negotiation. Look the person in the eye with sincerity. • First Impression: Begin the negotiation with positive gestures and enthusiasm. If you cannot maintain eye contact. you establish the position from which the negotiation will proceed. Conveying receptivity They way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other may influence how receptive each is to the other person's message and ideas. When this happens.[32] This method takes advantage of the other party’s desire to close by adding “just one more thing.[39] Reading non-verbal communication Being able to read the non-verbal communication of another person can significantly aid in the communication process. a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing his/or her position first. it may be helpful for negotiation partners to spend time together in a comfortable setting outside of the negotiation room. This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort. • Positive words but negative body language: If someone asks their negotiation partner if they are annoyed and the person pounds their fist and responds sharply.[37] Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert. Effective negotiation requires that participants effectively convey and interpret information.” Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that he or she has difficulty determining which facts are important.[36] Another advantage is that the person giving the extreme demand appears more flexible he or she makes concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. By understanding how nonverbal communication works. Participants in a negotiation will communicate information not only verbally but non-verbally through body language and gestures. 8 . Knowing how each partner non-verbally communicates outside of the negotiation setting will help negotiation partners to sense incongruity between verbal and non-verbal communication within the negotiation setting. The Nibble: Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven’t been discussed previously just before closing the deal. Give a solid handshake. the other person might think you are hiding something or that you are insincere. • Personal Space: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power. By being aware of inconsistencies between a person’s verbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time. This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negative attitude.Negotiation Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying. negotiators will be able to come to better resolutions. it may be good to probe with questions to discover the person’s true feelings. Nonverbal communication in negotiation Communication is a key element of negotiation. Examples of incongruity in body language include: • Nervous Laugh: A laugh not matching the situation. a negotiator is better equipped to interpret the information other participants are leaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate. Negotiators can repel this strategic advantage by positioning allies in the room to surround that individual. By “anchoring” your position. sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high. one can “anchor” and gain advantage with non verbal (body language) ques. or ridiculously low opening offer that will never be achieved. The theory is that the extreme offer will cause the other party to reevaluate his or her own opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement). In a like manner. “what makes you think anything is bothering me?”[40] • Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/her hands in this position reveals frustration even when he/she is smiling.

The handbook of social psychology. Negative Affect Arousal Reactions from Mexican and Puerto Rican Respondents. Volumes 1-2. [21] Allred. 17 (1) 65-77. S. K.C. (1998) "On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and behavior". Maryland: University Press of America. cfm?abstract_id=1730725). J. William Ury. 175–187. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Volumes 1-2. Shell. [22] Davidson. 1-13. and Kissinger. M. 2000 (Page 40) [3] [4] [5] [6] Churchman. Guilt. S. counterpart emotion. On the other hand. University of Colorado. edited by Daniel T. org/ pss/ 3791139) [10] “…the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one’s opponent. com/ definition/ bad+ faith) [9] The “Inherent Bad Fatih Model” Reconsidered: Dulles. 124–142 [16] Butt AN. example of use of "bad faith" from definition in Oxford Online Dictionary. pointing away from the speaker. 26(6). 1993. 3. net/ 2027. gov/ ERICWebPortal/ custom/ portlets/ recordDetails/ detailmini. L. 1991). 37. (2004) I laughed. Matsui. ISBN ED346711 http:/ / www. Susan T.". edited by Daniel T. R. (1986) "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation" (http:/ / hdl. (1997) "The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance". When standing. D..KW. Gardner Lindzey [12] Kopelman. (2006) "Supplication and Appeasement in Conflict and Negotiation: The Interpersonal Effects of Disappointment. non-receptive negotiators make little to no eye contact. Michelle "Emotions" (http:/ / www. p.S. Special Issue on Emotion and Negotiation in Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN). Research on Negotiation in Organizations. I cried. "negotiating in bad faith". Rosette.A. 7. The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 56.704 [17] Kramer. Choi JN. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. J. Pg 13. 681 . B. com/ definition/ bad+ faith) [7] "Bad Faith Negotiation". eric. P. Gregory Brazeal. In M. E. D. P. Fulmer. Roger Fisher. & Van Kleef. De Dreu. Mallozzi. Kennedy. 565–577. Raymond. CA: Stanford University Press. G. S."the Republicans accused the Democrats of negotiating in bad faith". Fiske. (1993) "Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: Effects of self-esteem and mood". com/ 2008/ 12/ 03/ bad-faith-negotiation/ ) [8] example of use .. Posted: July 2005 downloaded: 30. Non-receptive negotiators stand with legs crossed. Gilbert. Eds. Harvard Law & Policy Review (Online)..Negotiation • Face and eyes: Receptive negotiators smile. M. Oxford Online Dictionary. unbutton their suit coat with their body tilted toward the speaker. The three faces of eve: Strategic displays of positive neutral and negative emotions in negotiations. and Thompson. and Bruce Patton. jsp?_nfpb=true& _& 9 . Gardner Lindzey [11] “…the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one’s opponent”.. M. The Expert Negotiator. [23] Seidner. beyondintractability. J. Worry. A. C.08.. [20] Barry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. David. Journal of Organizational Behavior. I. & Manstead. org/ essay/ emotion/ ) Beyond Intractability. make plenty of eye contact. [14] Forgas. L. Negotiation Tactics. they distribute weight evenly and place hands on their hips with their body tilted toward the speaker. or rubbing the back of their neck. Stanford. (http:/ / www. Conflict Research Consortium. Receptive negotiators tend to appear relaxed with their hands open and palms visibly displayed. ssrn. The handbook of social psychology. Brett (Eds. Cultural variation in response to strategic display of emotions in negotiations. Susan T.. Gilbert. R. Jaeger A (2005) "The effects of self-emotion. (2006). Their eyes may be squinted... & Isen. Fiske.. C.. Newton. and Regret".. crossed. NY: Penguin Books. [42] Notes [1] Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation (http:/ / papers. I settled: The role of emotion in negotiation. & Pommerenke. and Rosette. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Stanley S. com/ sol3/ papers. P.S. & Greenhalgh. vol. [18] Maiese. ed. N. • Torso: Receptive negotiators sit on the edge of their chair. 70. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (New York: Penguin. This conveys the idea that there is more interest in the person than in what is being said. Union Voice (http:/ / unitas. (http:/ / oxforddictionaries. 3–26. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (2006). G. Bargaining for advantage. 42/ 26263). Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP). New York. [2] Saner. G. [15] Van Kleef. A. 71–94).: ERIC. 99 (1). and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics". A. A. wordpress. jaw muscles clenched and head turned slightly away from the speaker • Arms and hands: To show receptivity.R. (1999) "The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race". Boulder. F. Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr.2007 [19] Carnevale. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. 81-101. (2008). jstor. L.. & Raia. 1 (2009). A. Washington. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. handle.. (http:/ / oxforddictionaries. 91(1).G.). 74. Non-receptive negotiators may lean back in their chair and keep their suit coat buttoned. positioned in front of their mouth. [13] Kopelman. Gelfand & J. (1991). negotiators should spread arms and open hands on table or relaxed on their lap. • Legs and Feet: Receptive negotiators sit with legs together or one leg slightly in front of the other. M. Negotiators show poor receptivity when their hands are clenched. J. S. 110-133. P. Political Psychology.

The Negotiation Book. Negotiations.Especially You!.. 240. De Dreu. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Michael C. Essentials of Negotiation. medewerker. [30] Gates. . and Sheila Heen. 1998. Negotiation Training Solutions. Penguin USA. [35] Gates.Negotiation ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED346711& ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no& accno=ED346711 [24] Albarracin D. uk/ articles/ negotiation-tactics/ ). • Douglas Stone. Curhan. Saunders. google. ISBN 0-14-015735-2. The Negotiation Book.. a. ISBN 0-471-08072-1 • David Lax and James Sebenius. ISBN 0-07-231285-8.J. Inc. ed. G. Publication. A. Houston. & Valley. Essentials of Negotiation. Tingqin Zhang. (2003) "Affect as Information in Persuasion: A Model of Affect Identification and Discounting". ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9. LTD. hardcover. S. ISBN 0-07-231285-8. J. The Dynamics of Effective Negotiation (second edition). [28] Harvard Business Essentials. & Kumkale. pp.W. D. Alberto L.. pp.. Moore. unrevised..mpepil. Massachusetts. Essentials of Negotiation. [34] Coburn. co. Steve (2011). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law • Ronald M. 1981.. 2005. 82. Revised 2nd edition. C. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in. D. hardcover. Mimi (1996). Minton (2001). 161 pages. D. References and further reading • Roger Dawson. Steve (2011). R. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd. "Negotitaion Tactics" University Press of America. [33] Gates. Zhou. Minton (2001). Saunders. trade paperback. pp.ca/bibliography/bib1negotiation. Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People.M. calumcoburn.W. "Neutralising Manipulative Negotiation Tactics" (http:/ / www. ISBN 0-14-028852-X • Catherine Morris. B. The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins . Saunders. 279–314. ISBN 0-553-37131-2. Settling For More: Mastering Negotiating Strategies and Techniques. 84(3) 453-469. Houghton Mifflin. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.J. 1999. ISBN 0-395-31757-6 10 . Houghton Mifflin. • Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro.T. Washington. Barbara and Alan (2006). J. • Howard Raiffa. J. R.. April... 1999. Jankowski. N. com/ books?id=vsNU1fjgCi8C& printsec=frontcover& source=gbs_ge_summary_r& cad=0#v=onepage& q& f=false). Inc. Belknap Press 1982. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9. 1st edition under the title. Alvin (1991). Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. [39] Body Language Magic (http:/ / books..com/sample_article?id=/epil/entries/ law-9780199231690-e985&recno=15&).W. Bantam. R. The Negotiation Book.Inside Secrets from a Master Negotiator" Career Press. 3D Negotiation. ISBN 0-674-04812-1 • David Churchman. pdf). Canada: Peacemakers Trust. Steve (2011). Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. Retrieved 1 October 2012. The Difinitive Book of Body Language. K. J.Y. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9. H. Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton. A. foreword by Roger Fisher. vankleef/ bestanden/ Van Kleef et al. W. 1991. "The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations" (http:/ / home. Harvard Business School Press. [40] Donaldson. ISBN 0-553-07274-9 • William Ury. "Secrets of Power Negotiating . DC: The Bureau of National Affairs.: Hungry Minds. 83.M.M. "Body Language in Business Negotiation". . [31] Goldman. uva. pp. [41] Pease. Viking/Penguin. M. (2004). Indianapolis. D. revised second edition. 200 pages. The Art and Science of Negotiation. D. 1993. ISBN 9781568848679. Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. Minton (2001). G. January 1. [38] Hui. (2004a JPSP). ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9. Calum. [29] Gates. International Journal of Business Management 3 (2). [42] Donaldson. Bruce Patton. R. 51. [25] Van Kleef. Negotiation. A. Inc. 86. Inc. 245. 57–76. trade paperback. [27] Sparks. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. [36] Lewicki.J. Annual Review of Psychology.peacemakers. K. nl/ g. Bantam. The Negotiation Book. (1993). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. New York. Negotiation (http://www. Secret (http://www. Donaldson. ISBN 0553804723. Penguin. Shapiro and Mark A.. 246. ISBN 0-07-231285-8. 2006. [32] Lewicki. [37] Lewicki. Victoria. Negotiating for dummies. September. 232. NY: Bantam Dell. 1991. & Manstead. John Wiley & Sons. [26] Bazerman. 1993 ISBN 0-8191-9164-7 • William Ury. Indiana: Wiley Publishing. New York. pp. United Kingdom: A John Wiley and Sons. The first edition. 81.html) in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Publication. 86. R. pp. Publication. ISBN 0-395-63124-6. (2000) "Negotiation". L. • Davérède. Steve (2011). pp.. Publication. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 0-87179-651-1. ISBN 1118068084. Boston. hardcover. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Michael C.Texas: Gulf Publishing Co. 1992.

• Leigh L. Barnes and Noble. ISBN 0-7735-2596-3.au) • Charles Arthur Willard.Negotiation • The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has advanced a distinction between negotiation and conversation and criticized those methods of conflict-resolution which give too much weight to the former. American Bar Association (2006).org/essay/emotion/) from the ‘’Beyond Intractability’’ Database • Gerard I. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen's University Press. Lausanne 2005. which applies that philosophy to the Canadian case. University of Chicago Press. • Charles Arthur Willard. CEDIDAC 62. (http:// www.2005. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy.Guide pratique. cgi?book_id=4586 ). 1992. American Negotiating Behavior: Wheeler-Dealers.com. • John McMillan "Games. ISBN 0-8047-4586-2 • Emotion and conflict (http://www. Thompson. 1982. ISBN 0-19-829688-6. 1989. Prentice Hall 0ct. 2004. 1996. ISBN 1-56619-816-X • Andrea Schneider & Christopher Honeyman. Strategies.amazon. ISBN 0-19-507403-3. ed. • Nicolas Iynedjian..scotwork. and Managers" Oxford University Press.htm) Effective Negotiating Tips • Richard H. 357 pages. The Negotiator's Fieldbook. ISBN 2-88197-061-3 • Michele J. draws on interviews with more than 50 practitioners • Charles Arthur Willard. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.beyondintractability. The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains.sup.com/dp/1590315456) • Dr. See his From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First. Gelfand and Jeanne M. and Preachers (United States Institute of Peace Press. identifies four mindsets in the negotiation behavior of policy makers and diplomats. Brett.. ‘’Handbook of negotiation and culture’’ (http://www. 2010). Solomon and Nigel Quinney.com/kar_eng/tipofthemonth. ISBN 1-59031-545-6 (http://www. Nierenberg.org/book.karrass. • Short definition of negotiation (http://www. 195 pages. A Theory of Argumentation. eds. Legal Eagles. hardcover. Négociation . 2000. (1995). 2003.negotiations. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator 3rd Ed. Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge University of Alabama Press. a work of political philosophy. Chester Karrass (http://www. University of Alabama Press. and his Shall We Dance? A Patriotic Politics for Canada. Bullies.com/definition/negotiation/) 11 .

Stevage. Alan Au. Pashute. Amdrummer80. Radon210. 2602:304:891B:2999:4CD9:1D4D:3A13:520B. Thinking of England. Nizzz. Ohnoitsjamie. Marek69. Karada.0/ 12 . SvenAERTS. Wikipedian2. PPdd. Warp9wb. Rchan7. Astigmo. SchuminWeb. Bosoxboy144. Abeg92. The Thing That Should Not Be. Hooperbloob. BarretB. Pharaoh of the Wizards. Some jerk on the Internet. Lmatt. Sgrabel. Jdemetrius. 7&6=thirteen. Cbrown1023. Archer904. Cromis. Thiessen. BrettAllen. Reaper Eternal. Jwm 65. Cmdrjameson. Humdedum99. Conan. Rexroad2. Monsterrain. Lwiner. Mindmatrix. Mohitmuk73. Lee Horn. ST47. JonBernstein. Hu12. Rey328. SpiderJon. Riana. Levineps. From That Show!. That Guy.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Digitalized by User:Cserlajos License Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.org/w/index. Loadmaster. Mbc362. Catherine Morris. To be myself completely. Craigharmon. Deodar. Brian Kendig. Closedmouth. Jigordon.wikipedia. Rorro. Vchimpanzee. Consistency28143335. PedEye1. AlexWaelde. Ixfd64. Amithchandhran. Michael Gary Scott. FT2. VoteFair. Cbcraver. Porqin. Jennica. J. Lateg. Conversion script. Oliver202. Geanerodger. Sue Gardner. Bookandcoffee. DCDuring. Entuluve. Joie de Vivre. Ianmcdevitt. Tfine80. Gnrwiki. Thseamon. Losroman27. F. Vary. Moonriddengirl. SoccerD. Writingwitwords. SQGibbon. Werdan7. Flex. Arthena. Intgr. HybridBoy. Neelapradeep. Looagent. Xyzzyplugh. Softlavender. Liangzhigou. Siliconov. Bubblegumbobby. Harac. 544 anonymous edits Image Sources. Jersyko. Negotiations. Greekin12. Barbieee000. Will Beback Auto. Senator Palpatine. Themepark. Heyyymegan. Isjoyce. Naddy. Haroldlei. KeithD. Ot. Jazzy13. Siroxo. Rgamble.peter. Ybn. Eric Shalov. Caper13. Amdrummer90.org/licenses/by-sa/3. Skippybassplayer. Clueless. F.jpg  Source: http://en. RogDawson.delanoy. Vendeka. Action potential. Bogdangiusca. Rfamico. 4wajzkd02. Clerks. Cimon Avaro. Jeltz. Nivi. Bogey97. Myanw. Neurolysis. Alansohn. Negotiator. Manjus79. Niels Kim. Caesura. Yelrebmik. NewFru23. Jpurnell. ESkog. KnowledgeOfSelf. RainbowOfLight. Juanis4lovers. Yonatan. DrTemperance. Borgx.php?title=File:Treaty_of_trianon_negotiations. Synergyyawp. Anikamorshead. Milant. Wafulz. KenHershey. Phoenix-forgotten. Elassint. Xcentaur. Jason is Awesome. Tylhall. Jacob Friedland. Kuru. Pdf84. Colonies Chris. Crkey. Sun Creator. LawSetsValence. The Merciful. Noddybelle. Transferofpower. Dr who1975. Philip Trueman. Tassedethe. Roygarmison. Barneca. Maniac7333. Scottryan. MaxHund. Lewis. Psychofizzy. Stephen Bain. Pcarbonn. Kimas06. Lokatz. Msasscts. Harperes. Majorly. LizGere. Mixedbreedgirl. Psychobabble. Khazar2. Maxperl. Excirial. Patrickgsullivan. Prestonmag. Gchinkle. Dschrute1. Martynas Patasius.php?oldid=534482788  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney. Triwbe. R'n'B. Seraphimblade. Michael Hardy. Akendall. Gregbard. Swish1592. Neilc. Pravincumar pek. Andycjp. Lfarr. Pmac2382. MaBellRecreated. Dreadstar. Fram. Cst17. Gmprunner.wikipedia. Briaboru. SalineBrain. Morris. Rjensen. DeadEyeArrow. AbsolutDan. Patrick. Tomdobb. Mileyfan3494. Rich Farmbrough. Sam Korn. Mydogategodshat. Niceguyedc. Maurreen. Aquarius Rising.org/w/index. Flowerpotman. Nads brighteyes. Dsmonk. Erud. CJSC. Twooars. Orangeshirt. Dan005. Robin S. Matt4077. Eleland. Officiallyover. Stuuuuuu. Stanley the manly. Navss. Interwebs. Dgw. Abhishekmechdutta. Sunray. Hemlock Martinis. Versus22. Swizzie024. Jd027. Socrtwo. Missmarple. Dcooper. Ronald11. Lee Horn. Natrajdr. Andonic. Davidarnaud. Maher27777. Leather. Tiller54. Phynicen. Azitmishmish. TJFrazier. JSpung. Misterx2000. Instinct. Spellmaster. Firien. Stemonitis. Edward. New Thought. Jbm747. Requestion. Jake Wartenberg. Car authority. Elkadi. Tricky Victoria. Yhinz17. Licenses and Contributors File:Treaty of trianon negotiations. Jelsova. Samildemir. MKoltnow. Dr. Nono64.Article Sources and Contributors Article Sources and Contributors Negotiation  Source: http://en. Evrythngichngisrong.0 Unported //creativecommons. John C. Whit7226. Trainer Bubble. Sanjeevrc. Aapo Laitinen. Casey J. Ksoileau. Edd Poor. Jdixter. You're With Me. Slowking Man. Kraybilr. Ohmyn0. Neitherday. Fred Bauder.