14 Conflict and Negotiation LEARNING OBJECTIVES for siudying this caper, you sbould be able oe 14-1 Oeibememeerypesot 14-4 App te eps ofthe eof andthe ee loco reason pen confit 14-5 Stow how india diereces 14-2. Outine he cnet sae. intone egos, 1-3 Conrado at 14.6 Peeetna let na arcs ot 14S Socom ooann 46 spemysennstoneConf: and Neyotion CHAPTER 4523, Ils Matrix (ESM) sot | comer | Anti | — rom | tapi | ied | ce | Cae Stach | onze | “Cine” | comma | "ace | timan | tosis | tars crac Tike Yiviviviv Communication | J v v cum | Y | VY | Vo vi[vilv gps v Yiviviviv "sa septa v v v BARGAINING CHIPS hat gives someone the ability to negotiate? Power? Money? Rela- tionships? Can someone with seemingly no power, little access to {the outside world, and almost no economic resources stil have the power to bargain? Yes. Ramesh Goel (name changed) seemed to have nothing to ‘negotiate with. This Rohtak’s Sonaria Jail inmate and undertrial for mur- der along with thirteen others were upset that even theic meager rights of going for 2 walk every day, exercice in the fresh air, making daily chort call o family, meeting ‘amily members, and being given sheets to spread to sleep were suspended for seven days when the infamous Baba Ram Rahim ‘wos in jail. Similarly, jail inenates in Rajsmundhry were cistressed when {heir jail superintendent was particularly crue! and harassed them, rations ‘were meager, and the quality of food served was very poor. Residents ofthe ‘prison felt that they were being subjected to crue! treatment. Many inmates ‘were kept in lockdown for days at atime, despite laws that require time for ‘exorcise and other recreational activities. Physical conditions asoneeded to ‘be improved in the facility. Many of the inmates had serious mental health issues and would throw feces and urine in thei cells This led to unsanitary ‘conditions, inchiding infestations of roaches rats, spiders, and fie. ‘The inmates tried to negotiate by using the only bargaining chip they hhad: their stomach. The inmates refused to eat, knowing that health ‘problems from starvation would draw press and state officials’ atten- tion, The tactic proved successful. Within 2 day the officials responded in Rajamundhry, and the jal offical was transferred. Promise was made toImprove facilities. The strike of the fourteen inmates lead to restoring of normal rights of the inmates in Rohtak as well. A hunger strite may seem extreme, but itis a relatively common strategy when prisoners want to negotiate better conditions. They occur frequently in prisons across the word. Similarly, many inmates were striking at a state prison in Leakes- ville, Mississippi. Like Rajamundhry Jail. they complained about conditions as well as incredibly low prison wages that they felt violated antislavery laws in the US. The same tactic was being used by Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons. Hundreds of inmates in 2017 were also taking part in a hun ker strike in Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. Inmates at the Washington prison were especally winerable because they were undocumented immigrants without the same legal rights as prisoners who are citizens. Unlike the strikes in American prisons, the Palestinian hunger strike was especially political in nature. Led by a prominent Palestinian fig- lure, Marwan Barghouti, the strike was meant to draw attention to perse- cution of Palestinian citizens in lereel. Besides leading the hunger strike, Barghouti was also punished for smuggling estays on Palestinian resistance to the New York Times. Hunger strikes highlight many of the concepts we will cover in this chapter. First, they highlight a response to conflct. In the cases above, the conflicts between inmates and prison officials were dys- functional. As you will earn from this text, however, some conflict is bene- ficial, and even necessary, because it enhances creativity and drives change in organizations. Second, the negotiation process tended to alleviate the conflict. By using their health a¢ a bargaining tool, inmates in Missicsinpi were able to gain better conditions. Would the same tactic always be suc- cessfulin every context? Not necessarily. We will also explain many factors, from emotions to personality, that influence the success of negotiation techniques across situations. Sources: Based on “Dera cet in Jal 13 prisoners on hunger srk, alge suspension of "ights” accessed on 17 September 2018 at btps/wwuhindustantimes.com; “Certral [al inmates call off hurge str” accessed on 17 September 2018 at htps:/wwwingl= avewscon; Fer, “Over 1,000 Palestinian Prisoners in rac Stage Munger Strke” ‘New Yor Times, el 17,2037, ats amnytnes com/2017/04/17/wark/middleesst/Descrbeshethee 14-1 trecranae edie eo oreo, confict A process at beens when ne party perceives tat nother Bary NSsrmgatveh allectes ors abot to ‘egal fect smetir thatthe fist parycares stout functional conflet Cove tht ‘apport the goal of the group and Improves gerfomance eystunctional enflet Corti: that hinders rou performance, taekeconlit Conf rer content nd goasol he work, (elatonshipconfler Conte Gases on mterpenond reltiorses. process conflict Confet oer tow sworkeets core onfcs and Nopetiton CHAPTER 28 A Definition of Conflict ‘There has been no shortage of definitions forthe word confi! but common to most isthe idea that confit isa perception. If noone is avare of a conic, then itis generally agreed no confit exists. Also needed to begin the conic ‘proces are opposition o compatiblity and iteration ‘We define confit breadly asa process that begins when one party pet= ‘cchves that anothcr party has alfected or abou wo negatively affect something the fir party cares about Conflict dseribcs the point in engoing activity when interaction becomes disagreement. People experince a wide range of conflicts in organizations over an incompatibity of goals, diferences in interpretations ‘of facts, disagreements over behavioral expectations and the like. Our defini- tion covers the fll range of conflict levels, fom overt and violet acs to subtle forms of disagreement ‘There is no consensis over the roe of confit in groups and organizations Inthe past, searches tended to argue about whether confbet was uniformly ‘good of bd. Such simplistic views eventually gave way toapproaches resogniz: ing that not al conflicts are the Same and that diferent types of eoniict have ferent effets Contemporary perspectives differentiate types of conflict based on their effets, Functional confit supports the goals ofthe group, improves its per- formance, and is thas 2 censtrctive form of confit? For example, debate ‘among members of a work team about the most efficient way to improve pro- ‘action can be fanetional i unique pints of view are discussed and compared ‘openly. Confit that hinders group performance is destructive or dysfunctional ‘conflict highly personal struggle for central ia a team that distracts from ‘the task at hand is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview depicting the effect of ves of conflict. To understand diferent ypes of conflict, we will “discuss next the npes of conflict and the loc of colic. Types of Conflict ‘One means of understanding conic sto identity the ype of disagreement, (or what the conflict is about Is it x disagreement sbout goals? Is k about People who just do not get along well with one another? Oris it about the best way to gt things done? Although each confit is unique, researchers have clasified conflicts into three categories: task, eatinship, oF process “Task conflict rats to the content and gouls ofthe work. Relationship com- Act focuses on jnterpersonal relationships Process confit is about how the work gets done? ‘Studies demonstate that relationship confit, atleast in work settings, are ‘almost alvays dysfunctional” although they may improve creativity under some ‘ecumstances)” Why? It appears tht the frtion and inerpesoaal hose tis inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes an decease ‘mutual! understanding, which binders the completion of erganizational tasks: OF the thre types, relationship conflicts aso appear to be the most psychologi- cally exhunting for indivitale® This type of eoafict can tao be very prob- lematis for employees wh are new tothe organization because newcomersrely on coworkers to lea information about the job* Because they tend to revolve around peroalites, you can see how relationship conflicts can become ‘destructive. Af ll, we cant expect to change our cowerkers’ personalities, and we would gencrilly take offense at criticisms directed at who we are as ‘opposed tohow we behave. ‘While scholars agree thit relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is ‘consdembly less agreement about whether task and proves conflicts are fune= tional. Early research suggested tat task confit within groups corelated to higher group performance, but a review of 116 studies found tha: generalized tusk conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance. However, there ‘wor fastor of the conflict that could ecate aeltioasip between confit and performance. Ore sich Factor was whether the confit ineluded top manage iment or occured lower in the arganization. Task conflict smang top mnanage- ‘ment teams was positively associated with performance. whereas confit loweryale conflict Conc tht ours {etasen tro poole Intragroup conflct confit tt Intereroup conflet Conic be ‘een erent groups or ears. CConfice and Negotiation CHAPTER $27 inthe organization was negatively associated with group performance, perhaps because people in top postions my not fel as threatened in their onganiza- ‘tonal roles by conflict. This review also found that it matered whether other {types of confit were occurring at the same time. If task and relationship con~ ict occurred togeter, task confit was more likely negative, whereas iF tsk ‘conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive. Also, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, ‘people aren really engage or addressing the important issues. If tak confit is to high, however, infighting quickly degenerates into relationship conflict. Moderate levels ofask conflict may thus be optimal. Supporting this argument, ‘one study in China found that moderate levels of tsk confit in the early devel ‘opment stage increased creativity m groups, but high levels decreased team ‘The personalities ofthe teams appear to matter. One study demonstrated that teams of individuals who are, on average, high in opeaness and emo- tional stability are beter able to tur tak confit into increased group perfor= smance.!? The reason may be that open and emetionally sable teams can put task confit in perspective and focus om how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem rather tha leting it degenerate into relationship conflicts. ‘What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts are about delegation and roles, Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the perception of some members as shrking, and conflics over roles can leve some group members feling marginalized. Thus, process coaflcts offen become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. ts also true, of eourse, that arguing about how to do Something takes time vay from actually doing it We've all been part of groups in which the argue iments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere Loci of Conflict Another way to understand confit i to consider its lac, or the Gamework within which the confit occurs, Here too, there are the basic types. Dyadic conflict is conilict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a 10up or team. Intergroup confit is conflict benveen groups or teams!” ‘Neatly all the literature on task, relationship, and process conflict considers intragroup conflict (within the group). That makes sense given that groups and ‘cams oft exist only to perform a particular task However it doesn tnecessar- ily tll us all we need to know about the context and outcomes of conflict. For ‘example, research has found that for intragroup task conflictto influence perfor= ‘mance with the team positively, ts mportant thatthe team has a supportwe ‘climate in which mistakes aren" penalized abd every team member “[hs) the ‘others back" Similarly, the personal aces of group members may determine when task conflict has a positive impact on performance. Ina study of Korean work groups, tak confit was beneficial for performance when members were high on the need for achievement. '* Batis this concept applicable to the eects of intergroup confit? Think about, sy, the teams inthe Ranji Trophy. As we said, for a team to adapt and improve, pethaps a certain amount of intragroup conflict (but not too much) jis good for team performance, especially when the team members support‘crus sey'ssudeen mort rom the chimanchip of aa Sane soca the coponte world in teber2015. ‘The actalresion or he sama (sot own tu ia that he Deardmenbes were rnaapr wth Mists deers vrs some of ofthemajefrtos. ts abo sad at sty reactance ve ap MSN ‘ieralip and te pda ino ‘Shp ay have contributed othe on- ‘et wth he boars member cone another. But would we care whether members fom ove Rani team sup- Ported members fom another cam? Probably not In fat if groupsare compe Jing with ne anche so that oaly one tam can “win,"interteam confit seems almost inevitable. Sill, it must be managed. Intense nterereupcorflit can be Guite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact. (One study found for example, the high vel of eonfict between teams caused sndivicuals to focus on complying with norms within the teams.” 1c may surprise you that individuals becorse most important i intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup coafit found an interplay bbenseen an individal'spostion within a group andthe way tht individual man- aged conflict beween groxpe, Group members who were relatively peripheral in thee own group were better at resolving conflicts hetween thei group and another one. Bu this happened oaly when those peripheral members wer: sil sccountable to their group !* Ths, being atthe core of your work group does not necestarly make you the best person to manage conflict with oer greups. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact with or butferone another. Assume, fr example, that Zalak and Murthy are inthe same team. What happensif they don't get along iterpersonally (dyadic colic) and their eam also has high task conflict? Progress might be halted. What happens to ther team if two other team members, Suits and Ranjeet, dogetalong well? ‘The tcam might all be dyafurctional, or the positive lationship might preva “Thus, understanding functional and dysfunctional conic requites not only that we identify the rpe of confit weal need to know wher it occur. Hs possible that while the concepts of tak, relationship, and process conflict are ‘useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conic, they are less tefl in explaining the elects of intergroup conflict. But how do we make conflict as productive as posible? A better understanding of the oniict proces, discussed next, wll provide insight about potential cotrllable variables,14-2 catenin conflet process 2 proves tha Nase sages peter eppesien oF ncrmpatty, copia ‘perenatatio, tations, ban, Sneuteomes Cou and Negosnion CHAPTER 14830 The Conflict Process ‘The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompat- ibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit 14-2). ‘Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility ‘The fist stage of confit is the appearance of conditions—causs or sources — ‘that cca opportunities for ito arise. These conditions may not lead directly to ‘conflict, but one of them is necessary ifit sto surface. We group the conditions {no tree general categores: communication, structure, and personal variables. ‘Communication Sonia had weckod is a supply chain management com- ‘pany in Delhi for three years. She enjoyed her work largely because her manager, Me Khurana, was a great bos. Then Me. Khurana was promoted and Mr Rao took his lace. Six months ater, Sonia sys her ois frustrating. “Mr. Khurana and I er onthe same wavelength. k's not that way with Rao. He tls me some= thing, and 1 doi Then he tes me I dl it wrong I thin, he means one hing, but says something else. It's been like this since the day he arrived. I don’t think a ‘day goes by when he isn't yelling at me for something, You know, there are some people yu js find it easy to communicate wih. Wel, Rao 8 ne of those” ‘Senias comment ilustate that communication can be a source of conflict. Her expericace represents the opposing forces that arise from seman= tic dificalin, minundertanding, and “nose” in the communication chanel (eo Chapter 1). Thess factors, slong wih jargon and insuicien information, ‘cam be aries ocommusication al ray be potential antecedent condition to ‘confit. The potential fr conic as also heen found to increase with oo ite of foo much communication. Communication is functional up to a point, after which ts possbleto overcommanicate, increasing the potential fer confit, Structure Gectais salesperson and Pallvi isthe company credit manager at large regional vel Furniture Mat, a large discount furniture retailer The worse hhave known each other for years and have much in common: They live two bocks Sroge! Sroge Stage mt sony omy ‘Potertiol opposition Cognition ond Intentions a=saeeS20 PART? The nda spar, and ther oldest daughters attend the same school and are best friends. If Geeta and Pallavi had diffrent jobs, they might befriends, but they constantly dis agree at work. Gecta’sjob iso sel furniture, and she does it well Most of her sales are made on credit. Because Pallwvi jb is to minimize credit losses, she regularly has 1o turn down the credit applications of Geeta’ customers. It nothing personal between the women; the requirements oftheir obs just bring them into conflict. ‘The conflicts between Geeta and Pallavi are structural in nature. The term structure inthis context includes variables such asthe size ofthe group, degree of specialization in tasks assigned 12 group members, jurisdictional clarity, ‘membergoal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and degree of dependence between groups. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of confit. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the longer a person stays with an organization, the less likely conflict becomes. Therefore the potential for conflict is greatest when group members are younger and when tumover is high. Personal Variables Have youcver met someone you immediately disliked? Even insignificant characteristes—someone’s voce, their ficial expressions, «their word choice—may have annayed you, Sometimes our impressions are scgative. When you have to work with people you don't ike, the potential for conilict arises. ‘Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal variables, ‘which include personality, emexions, and values, People high inthe personality trait of disagrecableness,scurticiam, or self-monitoring (sce Chapter §) are rove to tangle with other people more ofter—and to reset poorly when con- Acts occur”! Emotions can cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. An employee who shows up to work ate from her hectic morning com- ‘mute may carry that ange into her workday, which can result in atension-iled meeting.” Diflerences in preferences and values can generate higher levels of| conilict. For example, a study in Korea found that when group members dia’ agree about their desired achievement levels there was more task confit; when sToup members didnt agree about their desired interpersonal closeness, there ‘vas mare relationship confict and when group members didn have sirsilat desies for power, there was more conflict over status * Stage Il: Cognition and Personalization If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares bout, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized fine second age. [As we noted la on defaton of conf one or mare ofthe parts mist be vate ht antecedent condiions cust. However, just becase a dsagsecnca is perevedconfet swannesby 1 peeved conf dows tot mean is ponoralized. ta the ft cot Dacor mer patese he exsence oi. eermanpactenl «level, when individuals become emotionally involved that they experience occorfte'o ase ty, tension, frustration, or hostility. ‘Stage II is important because i's where conflict issues tend to be defined {elt conflict Emetionaliwole: where the parties decide what the conflict is about. The definition of conilict Teese macau important because it delineates the et of possible setlemens. Mos evidence suggests that people tend to default to cooperative stategies in interpersonalIntentions Dectionstoact Imagen nay competing & dere toca o's meres, reas ofthe pact on| the oer party tone ores. colboratingAstuatininwhih Stay fate covers oa partes avoiding. The dsteto witheran Tremor Sunpressacofie. accommodating _thewingressot ne pata sean te pac te op: ‘ents teres abore sorrow Conic ant Negotiation CHAPTER 4 S31 interactions wnless there is a clear signal that they are faced with a competi- ‘ve person, However, if our talary disagreement is a zero-sum situation (the increase in pay you want means there will be that much less in the raise pool forme) Lam going to be far less willing to compromise than if ean frame the ‘conflict asa potential win-win situation (the dollars in the salary pool might be increased so both of us could get the added pay we want) ‘Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions.** Negative emo- tions allow us t0 oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpreta- ‘ons on the other party's behavier Ia contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among elements of a problem, tke a broader view of the situation, and develop innovative solutions.” Stage III: Intentions Intentions intervene between peoples perceptions and emotions, and their ‘overt tehavier. They are decisions to actin a given way.” Tentions area diane stage because we have to infer the other's intent to know how to respond to behavior. Many conflicts escalate simply because one [party attnbutes the wrong intentions to the ether. There is sippage between intentions an tehavier. so behavior dees not always reflet @ person's inten= tions accurately ‘We can also think of confict-handling intentions as fling along two dimen sions. These two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree 1 which ene party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns) and covperativeness (the degree {to which one party attempts to stisty the other partyS concerns)—can help us identify five conflit-handing intentions: competing (assertve and uncoopera- tive), collaboratag assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and unco- ‘operative), accommodating (unassetive and cooperative), and compromising ‘midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness)™ Competing When one person seeks to satis his or her own interests reparde less ofthe impact onthe other parties in the conflict, that person is competing. ‘We are more apt to compete when resources are scarce. ‘When partes in conflict each deste to fully satisfy the con- ‘cems of all partes, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial ‘outcome. In collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying df= ferences rather than by accommodating various poins of view. If you atempt ‘to find a win-win soltion that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, tha’s collaborating. Avoiding A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to with- ‘draw from or suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying o ignore a con- flict and keeping away from others with whom you disagree. Accommodating A party who seeks to appease an opponent may be will- ing w place the opponent’ incrests above his or her own, sacrificing to main tain the relationship. We refer to this intention as accommodating, Supporting someone clsc’s opinion despite your reservations about :t, for example, is secommodating.compromising Astuaten nwncn Compromising In compromising, there is no winaer or loser. Rather, ‘cxhparyio acontictiewiingto there isa willingness to rationalize the object of the conflict and accept a solu. he uesoneting rie te sees schncton of both partes “The dinnnecis sae characteristic of compromising therefore is that each party intends to give up something Stage IV: Behavior When most prople think of conic, they tend to focus on Stage IV because this is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes statements, actions, and reactions made by confictng parties, usualy as overt attempts 1o implement their ova ination. As result of miscalculation oe unskilled cnactmcnt, overt behaviors sometimes deviate fom orginal intents Stage IV is « dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make 2 demand on me, Lrespond by arguing, you threaten me, I threaten you back, and son, Exhibit 143 provides a way of visualizing conflict behaviee. ll eonicts exist somewhere along this continuum. At the lower end are conflicts chirac- terized by subtle, indirect, and highly contolled forms of tension, such as a student challenging «point the instuctor has made. Conflict inteasites escalate 2s they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. ‘Strikes, cts, and wars clearly fll in this upper range. Confit that reach the upper range ofthe continuum are almost alvays dysfunctional. Functional com ‘ics are rypically confined the lower range ofthe continuum. lnncotions tha ar brought into a conflict ar eventually translated into behay= tors. Competing brings out active attempts to contend with team members, and tore individual effort to achieve ends without working together. Colakorating creates imvestigation of muiiple solutions with other members ofthe tear and trying to find a solution that satisfies all partis as much as posible. Avoide ance is sen in behavior like refusal to discuss issues and reductions in effort toward group goals. People who accommodate put thei rlatonships ahead of the issues in the conflict, deferring to others’ opinions and sometimes ating as 4 subgroup with them. When people compromise, they both expect o (and do) Stan nireencoatecarcntaretetona? ne tama hen bal cooper to wich the negotiation produced an Amerkans negotate in teams they (ested that tame negotite more optimal outcome for beth ides. US. become lus icined to focus on ins ‘lecively than individuals negott- teams di better than solo dvduls vualinteress ard thereore can each Ing alone. Some evidence indicates in both studies. nTawan, sl indv+ —soutons. ‘oat team negatatons create more uals id beter than teams. ‘Ovral, these fncngs sugges that “ambitious goals and that teams con- Why id hs happen? Therestarc- _negotatingIndivdually works Best in ‘murcate more with each eter thane determine than Taiwan, norms collect cultures, are negotiating Indl nogotintor de. ‘specing harmony andy exc, and In teams works bott in ndiduakste ‘Common sense suggests that if negotiating tears coy arolfis ctures. ‘hiss indeed the case, ti especlly that tendency. This poses a problem ‘vue in collectistic cultures, where because tears “sate” (ste for a Indhiduls are more Bly tink of ststctry but less than optimal sole ‘aleve goals and be more comer ton) to wo conic: when norms for “Pua Cater Contes terracing able working in teams. A study of the cooperation are exceptionally Ni. Cates loncn Sarna oped ‘negotiation of wars ie the United Wher Tawanese Indiduals negotiate Pychloay 98 2018, Dini: and Art ‘States and in Taiwan, howevet sug- solo, at least they can ceartyrepresent 5. Nese nd EM Posen ‘eststhat thi common seneeiswrorg. theirown interes Incorras, because fone jeu sf uommeel ‘The resenchers conducted two tudes the United State is idhadualti, solo Pyclgy 25 QOMOy ASI? 1 ‘Apply the five steps lof the negot: process. be creative.* Consider a classic example in which two siblings are arguing ‘over who gets an orange. Unknown to them, one sibling wants the orange 10 drink the juice, whereas the other want the orange peel to bake a cake. Ione capitulate and gives the other the orange, they will not be forced to explore their reasons for wanting the orange, and thus they will never find the win-win solution: They could each have the orange because they want different parts. The Negotiation Process Exhibit 14-8 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotiation 2¢ made up of five steps: (1) preparation and planning, (2) defini- tion of grousd rales, (3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining aad probe Jem solving, and (S) closure and implementation Preparation and Planning Before you stant negotiating. do your home ‘work. What's the nature of the conflict? Whats the history leading up to this negotiation? Who's involved and what are ther perceptions of the conilie®? ‘What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? If you'r a sup- ply manager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is o get a significantATNA. Thebot atratvto _anogstistd agreerest the ast “apaty na negottion should ee Conte and Nepotstion CHAPTER 14 S41 ‘cost reduction fiom your keyboard supplier, make sure this goal stays para- ‘mount in discussions and doesr't get overstadowed by other issues. It helps 10 ‘put your goals in writing and develo a range of outcames—irom “most hope {ur to"minimally acceplae”—to Keep your attention Focused, ‘You stould aso assess what you think are the ther party's goals. What is he ‘or she likly to ask? How cnttnched is his or her position likely to be? What intangible or hidlen interests may be important to him othe? On what ight he othe be wiling to setle? When you cen anticipate your opponents posi tioa, you are better equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position Relationships change asa resalt of negotiation, so take that into consider- ation, Ifyou could "wis" negotiation but push the oer side into resentment ‘or animosity it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style. I preserv- ing the relationship wil make you seem easily exploited you may consider 2 mere aggressive style. Asan example of how the tone ofa eatonshp in nego- tations matters, people who fee! good about the process of a job oflernegotia tion ate more satisfied with thee obs and ae es likely wo leave the job a year later egandless of thei actual outcomes fom these negotiations. ‘Once you've gathered your information, develop a strategy. You should “determine your and the other side's hest alternative to & negotiated agreement (BATA) Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for ‘negotiated agreement Any offer you recsve tht ishigher than your BATNA is ‘etter than an impasse. ‘In acaly all cases, the paty with superior alternatives will do beter in 8 negotiation, so experts advise negotiator to solidify their BATA prior tony ieraction. There isan imterestng exception to this general rule—aegotiators With absolutely no alternative to a negotiated agreement sometimes “go for broke” because they don't even consider Wat would lappen ifthe negotiationS42 PART?2 The Indiv 14- Show how indi- ‘vidual differences Iofivence negotiations, falls through.** Think carefully about wha the other side is willing to give up. People who underestimate their opponent's willingness to give on key issues before the negotiation even stars end up with lower outcomes." Converse, you shouldnt expect success in your negotiation effort unless you'Te able 10 sake the other side an offer finds more attractive thaa its BATNA. Definition of Ground Rules Once you've done your planning and devele ‘oped stateey, you're ready to define with the other party the ground rules and. procedures ofthe negotiation itself. Who will do the negotiating? Where wll it take place? What time constraints, if any, wil appl? To what issues will egote ation be limited? Will you follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? Daring this phase, the parties will exchange thir inital proposals cr demands Clarification and Justification When you have exckanged initial posi- tions, you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and jus tify your original demands. This step needn't be confrontational. Rather, isan ‘opportunity for educating each other onthe issues, why they are imporar, and hhow youarrved at your initial demands. Provide the other party with any docu ‘mentation that supports your postion. Bargaining and Problem Solving The essence ofthe negotiation pro= cess is the actual givesindstake in trying to hash out an agreement. Thisis where both parties need to make concessions, Closure and Implementation The Final step inthe negotiation process is formalizing your agreement and developing procedures necessary for imple~ ‘menting and monitoring it. For major negotiations—from labor-management negotiations to bargaining over lease term—this requires hammering ost the specifics in formal contract For other cases, closure of the negotiation process isnothing more formal than a handshake. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness ‘Are some people better nogotators than others? The answer is complex. Four ‘actors influence how effectively indwviduals negotiate: personality, mood/ ‘emotions, culture, and gendex. Personality Traits in Negotiations Can you predict an opponent's nepo~ tisting tactics ifyou know something about his or her personality? Because per- sonality and negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, atest, sort of Most research has focused on the Big Five tnt of agreeable- ness, for obvious reasons—agrocable indwviduals are cooperative, compliant, kind, and conflict-averse. We might think such characteristics mae agreeable individuals easy prey in negosiatons especially distributive ones, The evidence suggests, however, that overall agrccabloncss is weakly related to negotiation ‘outcomes. Why is this so?Conf and Negotiation CHAPTER S43 ‘appears thatthe degree to which agrecableness, and personality more gen cally affects negotiation outcomes depends onthe situation. The importance of being extraerted in nogtiatons, fr example, very much depends on how the ‘ther party reacts to Someone who is asertive and enthusiastic. One complicat~ ing factor for agrecableness is that ithas two facets: The tendency tobe coopent- tive and compliant is enc, but sis the tendency to be warm and empathetic. It ray be that while the former is «hindrance to negotiating favorable outcomes, ‘the latter helps. Empathy, afterall isthe ability to ake the pempective of another ‘person and gain insight into and an understanding of him of her We know per spective taking benefits integrative negotiations, so perhaps the nll effect for ‘azrecableness is due tothe two tendencies pulling against one another. If this ‘the case, then the best negotiator is competitive but empathetic one, and the worst isa gentle but empathetic one. Recent rescarch also sugges that personal- ity tits such as agreeableness and extraversion do have an effet, but the effect ‘depends on personality similarity between partis, not overall levels. For exam ple, if both partis are disagreeable, they will negotiate with cach other more ‘effectively than if one pary was dsagrecable and the other were agreeable.” “The type of negotiations may matter as well. In one stu, agreeable indi viduals reacted more positively and fek fess ses (measured by this cortisol Jevels) in imegrative nogetiatons than in distributive ones. Low levels of sess in tur, made for more effective negotiation ouicomes! Siilaly, in hand- ‘edged distributive negotiations, where giving away information leads toa dit advantage. extraverted nezotiators do less well because they tend to share more information than they should = Self-efficacy is one individual-dfference variable that seems to relate con sistently to negotiation outcomes." This is afaily intuitive finding—it isnt ‘too surprising to hear that those who believe they will be more successful in ‘negotiation situations tend to perform more effectively. Maybe mdividuals who ‘ae more confident stake out stronger clams, ae less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit confidence that intimidates overs. Although the ‘exact mechanism i ne yet clear, it docs scem that negotiators may benefit from ‘uying to get a boost in confidence before going to the bargaining table. Research suggests ineligence predicts nezotiation effectiveness, but, as with personality, the effects aren't especially strong." In a sense, these weak links mean you're not severely disadvantaged. even if you're an agree- able extavert, when its time to negotiate. We all can learn to be better ‘negotiators. ‘Moods and Emotions in Negotiations Do moods and emotions influ- ‘ence negotiation? They do, but the way they work depends on the emotion as wells te context A negotiator who shows anger can induce concessions, f0F instance, because the other negotiator believes ao further concessions from ‘the angry party are possible. Onc factor that governs this outcome, however, is power—you should show anger in negotiations only if you have at leat ‘ac mich power as your counterpart Ifyou have less, showing anger actually stems to provoke hardball reactions from the other side Eveking emotions, suchas sympathy. or expressing other emotions like sadness may also be used to persuade others”