MGMT 4300 ( Read CH 1 AND ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS IN LAST CH 1)

An Introduction to Negotiation H istory marks the dawn of civilization at the point when humans dis­ covered that farming and domesticating animals offered a better way to sustain life than hunting and gathering. Permanent communities were formed to plant and reap crops and domesticate animals. Individuals, who might have previously observed each other only at a safe distance or as enemies on a battlefield, began to rely upon one another for survival. That survival not only involved joining together for mutual protection from outsiders, but also required internal agreement on the distribution of work and the allocation of resources. Some agree­ ments would have flowed naturally: Men, because of their strength and endurance, would hunt and protect; and women, who would bear and raise children, would also plant and nurture the farms. Other agree­ ments would have come by necessity: Those men and women who were most successful in fulfilling their roles would naturally wield the most influence and would therefore decide how work and resources were to be distributed. Later the reliance on mores and myths, as well as the establishment of rules and laws, all contributed to the evolution of a society that united individuals for a common goal and made them dependent upon each other for success. And while such dependency did not eliminate disagreements, self-preservation did require these individuals to find ways to resolve internal conflict without weakening their ability to with­ stand external threats. In other words, they had to find ways to resolve conflict that did not involve destroying each other. Millennia later, not much has changed. Conflicts continue to arise on both a grand and smaller scale. Most parties find ways to resolve such conflicts through an agreement of some sort. Many people today reach agreement through negotiation. However, many others avoid negotiating situations and some even fear them I Why? They may lack the simple skills, techniques, and experience to prepare and succeed at negotiations. The focus of this book is on understanding how negotia­ tion works and what skills, knowledge, and abilities are necessary to 2 succeed. If you avoid or fear negotiating situations, realize you are not alone and that negotiation skills can be learned. Negotiation Skills In this chapter we present five negotiation skills that can be learned and developed by the novice negotiator, and applied to the end-of­ chapter Learning Exercise, "House For Rent." Skill 1. 1 Recognize the five essential elements in a negotiation. Skill 1.2 Be able to model bargaining behaviors used by skilled negotiators. Skill 1.3 Learn to recognize bargaining styles and how such styles impact bargaining behaviors and strategies in a negotiation. Skill 1.4 Learn how to set collaborative goals to successfully resolve a conflict. Skill 1.5 Recognize and avoid cognitive biases that hinder successful negotiation. CHAPTER CASE: ZONING CHANGE Robert, who had just recently passed the Bar exam, has been approached by a con­ dominium developer, Sophia, who is seeking a change in zoning on a piece of prop­ erty adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes. She would like to hire Robert because her current lawyer is charging her $300 per hour and she believes that a beginning lawyer would charge less. She is also of the opinion that the legal work involved in the zoning change is minimal, so the fact that Robert has very little experience in this area does not concern her. Robert is eager to have Sophia as a client because this type of work-zoning representation-can be a very good specialty for a lawyer. He is a little concerned about never handling a zoning case before, but he knows that a great deal of the work will involve negotiating and he has had a lot of experience negotiating.

At their initial meeting, Sophia was impressed by Robert's preparation. He knew a great deal about her company and specifically about the neighborhood where the condominium was to be built. When she brought up his fees, Robert, who knew what her last lawyer's firm usually charged per hour, suggested that his fee be a structured fee that reflected the kind of tasks involved. He was willing to discount his hourly rate of $150 by $75 for time spent on legal research because, as he admit­ ted to Sophia, he would be doing some on-the-job learning that would benefit him as much as it benefited her. He would discount his hourly rate of $150 by $50 for time spent at meetings of the Zoning Commission and its subcommittees when he attended those meetings to gather information-but Robert felt his full hourly rate was appro­ priate for any appearances before the Zoning Commission and its subcommittees on Sophia's behalf and for any legal documents he would prepare. Sophia, who had Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation a been through the zoning process many times before, countered Robert's proposal by agreeing to the fees he suggested for research and drafting legal documents but wanted to specify that the time spent at meetings when Robert was waiting to appear before the Zoning Commission or subcommittees also be discounted. Such meetings could go on all day, and paying Robert the same to sit there as she paid him for "doing something" was a problem for her. Robert's initial reaction to her counter was annoyance because Sophia seemed to be saying that his time was not valuable. He decided, however, that he would give Sophia these rates in order to get her business, so the deal was made.

The zoning approval process involves three basic steps: staff approval, neighbor­ hood notification, and Zoning Commission approval. Robert and Sophia's first meeting with the Zoning Commission staff went well They made a very thorough presentation and worked through the issues raised by the staff. Sophia agreed to add a tree line along one side of the development to shield it from the neighborhood and to limit the number of condos to 65 rather than the 70 she had originally proposed. Even though her plans for parking met the zoning standards, the staff wanted the number of parking spaces increased. Sophia would not agree to do that, however, because she would have to eliminate another five condos. Because 65 was her break-even number, she told the staff that the development could not be built with more parking spaces than the rules required. The staff dropped this request and completed its review, making a recom­ mendation for approval to the Zoning Commission. Robert was feeling very good about the process so far, when the notice of the zoning change was published in the local paper as required by the Zoning Commission.

The adjacent neighborhoods of single-family homes, whose residents first learned of the development from the newspaper, started flooding the Zoning Commission with phone calls and e-mails. The staff directed all of these comments to Robert, and his phone began to ring off the hook. Many of the neighbors were misinformed about the project, not familiar with the zoning process, and misunder­ stood their legal rights as to how the property was to be developed. Robert and Sophia attended a meeting to discuss the condominium plans with the neighbors.

The meeting did not go well. The residents were not interested in hearing what Robert and Sophia had to say. They were there to express their objections to the pro­ ject in no uncertain terms. Their list of objections included the pOSSibility of increased traffic through their neighborhood, a negative impact on their property values, a fear of subsidized condo owners (i.e., those who qualified for government assistance), and noise. After about an hour of listening to angry complaints and being interrupted when they tried to address the concerns, Robert and Sophia sim­ ply left the meeting.

After conferring with the Zoning Commission's staff, Robert suggested to Sophia that a three-party meeting be arranged at which Sophia, the zoning staff, and representatives of the affected neighborhoods would sit down and try to resolve some of the neighbors' complaints. Robert was afraid that if Sophia did not address their concerns, the neighbors would convince the Zoning Commission to tum down her zoning change. The parties agreed to the meeting to resolve the conflict.

Negotiation is a way to resolve issues without resorting to actions that hurt or destroy relationships. Not every interaction between two parties is a negotiation. Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 3 4 However, every negotiation requires an interaction between at least two parties who have a relationship. The parties must be motivated to negotiate. That is, each party must need or at least perceive that he or she wants or needs something that the other party has or can control. Furthermore, both parties must be able to propose options, make decisions, and deliver on their agreement.

There are three basic types of negotiations: deal-making negotiation, decision­ making negotiation, and dispute-resolution negotiation. When people think of "negotiating" they are usually thinking of a type of deal-making negotiation, such as the purchase or sale of a home or a car, collective bargaining between a company and its employees, or entering into a contract for construction or legal services, as Robert and Sophia did in the Chapter Case. Itis generally an exchange of something of value between the two parties. Decision-making negotiation is when the object of the negotiation is to arrive at a mutually beneficial decision. It occurs in numerous settings such as the exchange between Robert and the Zoning Commission staff, or within a workplace between co-workers who must jointly decide upon a course of action. Dispute-resolution negotiation occurs when an issue has reached an impasse and the parties are attempting to resolve the dispute. In the Chapter Case, there is the possibility that ifSophia is granted her zoning change but cannot satisfy the concerns of the neighbors, the issue might land in litigation. Settlement negotia­ tions in litigation are a common type of dispute resolution.

For purposes of this text, rather than focus on the difference between these types of negotiations, we will focus on the five elements common to them all: (1) at least more than one party or interest, (2) interdependency, (3) common goals, (4) flexibility, and (5) decision-making ability or authority. THE FIVE ELEMENTS OF NEGOTIATION Not all conflict situations can be resolved through negotiations. As noted in the pre­ ceding paragraph, the elements that must be present for negotiations include multi­ ple parties or interests, interdependency, a common goal, flexibility, and the ability to make a decision. In the Chapter Case, there are multiple parties and interests involved in the proposed zoning change: Robert, Sophia, the zoning staff, the neigh­ bors, and the Zoning Commission. They are certainly interdependent because with­ out approval of the Zoning Commission, Sophia could not proceed with her project and Robert would not have a client or an opportunity to learn how to handle a zon­ ing case. The neighbors need the Zoning Commission to stop Sophia's development or at least to make changes in it that they can live with. Sophia needs the assistance of the Zoning Commission staff to help her satisfy the neighbors' concerns, or else she will risk not getting the zoning change. The parties have a common goal in having the zoning request decided-although at this point their individual goals on how the request is decided may be in conflict. The parties probably have sufficient flexibility in how they address the competing interests, although Sophia's decision to go for­ ward may be limited by the feasibilities of developing a profitable project. Finally, it remains to be seen if the parties can make the decisions necessary to move the Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation decision forward. Representatives of the neighborhood, for example, may not be in a position to speak for all of the neighbors, and the zoning staff's role is limited to making a recommendation to the Zoning Commission, which has the final say. Let's explore these elements to a negotiation in more detail. The Parties and Their Interests The parties to a negotiation can be friends trying to agree on what movie to see, co­ workers trying to come up with a solution to a work-flow problem, a business owner and her vendors, world leaders trying to avoid war, or a developer and dis­ gruntled neighbors as in the Chapter Case. Conflicts occur when the parties believe that their goals and/or needs cannot be satisfied at the same time. This perception can come from the parties' beliefs about their own goals and needs, beliefs about the other parties' goals and needs, a belief that they lack viable solutions. Conflict resolution experts Robin L. Pinkley and Gregory B. Northcraft explain that dis­ putants have a certain orientation by which they view a conflict situation. That ori­ entation, or frame, leads them to focus on some characteristics of the conflict and ignore others. These conflict frames are relationship / task, emotional! intellectual, and cooperate/win. 6 and the other party, thus enabling the agent to be more aggressive than the client would be while pursuing a better deal. Non-independent agents are inside parties, indi­ viduals who are identified with and who act on behalf of the principal party. A Human Resources director will often negotiate union contracts on behalf of the employer. The ability of an inside agent to put distance between the boss and the other party is more limited.

The challenge in being an agent of a principal party who is not in the negotiations is to make sure the principal party is aware of how the negotiations are progressing. Bargaining is a process that includes gathering general information, learning the pri­ orities of the other side in the specific negotiation, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. Ifthe principal is not a direct part of that process, the agent must discuss the information gathered at the negotiating table and get direc­ tion from the principal about how to proceed. 2 Traits of Skilled Negotiators Negotiators can aid or impede the progress of a negotiation. In a study of "successful/l negotiators, researchers were able to identify behaviors that can make the difference between the success or failure of a negotia­ tion. 3 The negotiators were observed bargaining and were identified as "successful/l in the following circumstances: After the negotiations, differences also surfaced between the skilled and the average negotiators. Two-thirds of the skilled negotiators reviewed the process after­ ward to see what they could learn, whereas fewer than half of the average negotia­ tors bothered to do so.

Thus, in general, skilled negotiators differed from average or less successful negotiators in nine behavioral areas, summarized in Table 1.1. Developing Negotiating Skills Throughout this text, you will find skills that you can learn and practice to become a better negotiator. The following points give you an idea of what to focus on as you begin to build these skills. 5 Negotiations are rarely pure win-lose or win-win propositions. The typical win-lose negotiation involves a strictly distributive result-for instance, in buying a house, more money paid to the owner represents less money for the purchaser. A win-win negotiation is when both parties' interests have been integrated into the result-as when an elderly homeowner is relieved of the obligation of keeping his house up to code and the purchasers could afford the house because they can do home improve­ ments themselves. However, in reality most negotiations are mixed-motive situa­ tions where one party benefits more than the other, although both have some of their interests satisfied. A skilled negotiator remains flexible in order to respond to the changing dynamics of a negotiation. Negotiations take place under conditions ofambiguity and uncertainty. Negotiators are constantly faced with the choices of accepting what's been offered, breaking off the negotiations, or continuing to negotiate in hopes of forging a better agreement. This decision must be made when the parties cannot be sure that they have all the infor­ mation or that they have explored all of the possible areas of agreement. Both sides have likely attempted to shape the other side's perceptions by framing the issues, Table 1.1 Contrasts Between Skilled and Average Negotiators SlOLLED NEGOTIATORS AVERAGE NEGOTIATORS Considered a wide range of outcomes Considered a narrow range of outcomes or options or options Gave three times the attention to common Considered one-third as many common ground areas ground areas Anticipated twice as many long-term areas Anticipated half as many long-term areas Developed upper and lower limits for Planned goals around fixed settlement points possible settlement points Were flexible on the order of issues to discuss Addressed issues in an inflexible, predetermined order Used neutral phrases when proposing offers Used judgmental phrases when proposing offers Took time to consider. proposals before Offered counterproposals immediately countering Gave only one or two key reasons why their Gave numerous reasons why their position was better pOSition was better, quality over quantity Reviewed the negotiations afterwards for Did not review negotiations afterwards improvement Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 7 8 selectively providing information, invoking principles of fairness, and perhaps mak­ ing threats or promises. A skilled negotiator learns to navigate through the ambigui­ ties and uncertainties by preparing for the negotiation as thoroughly as possible and by being vigilant during negotiations in paying attention to the other side's real interests. Most negotiations involve existing or potential sources of conflict that impede reaching agreement. A negotiator isoften called upon to diagnose such sources of conflict and to playa mediator's role in managing the conflict between the sides or within one's own side. By doing this, a skilled negotiator establishes and sustains a productive working relationship with a bargaining partner. Negotiations are chaotic and seldom pass sequentially through distinct phases such as pre-negotiation, deal structuring, detailed bargaining, and agreement. Skilled negotiators are imaginative and creative in order to cope with the chaos. They have a firm grasp of their goals but are flexible on how to get there. Negotiations involving multiple parties and complex issues challenge a negotiator. A skilled negotiator knows when and how to create coalitions in multiparty negotia­ tions, and how to structure the negotiation so that the right parties are at the table and the right interests are being addressed. Most negotiations are linked to other negotiations. Negotiations are seldom self-con­ tained or stand-alone processes. Even a simple negotiation like the purchase of an automobile can involve more than just the purchaser and seller, because there are competitors who might affect the dynamics of that exchange. Certainly, the parties to a negotiation may have a long history with each other or with the same third party or other types of linkages that can influence the negotiations. Skilled negotiators seek to advance their interests by creating or neutralizing those linkages depending upon the desired result.

Negotiating progress comes in stops and starts. Movement toward or away from agreement occurs in surges rather than an even flow. The parties make choices when they lack more attractive alternatives but know that doing nothing is not an option.

Skilled negotiators employ techniques to build such momentum toward agreement­ including establishing ground rules that prevent backsliding, making unilateral con­ cessions to pressure concessions from the other side, and setting deadlines. Most complex negotiations take place between agents ofgroups and not the groups them­ selves. Often the skilled negotiator is called upon to work within his or her own group to shape their negotiating goals and expectations. Good negotiators playa leadership role in managing the multiple, interacting levels of negotiations within the group itself and between the group and the other side. Complex negotiations often involve a team approach. A skilled negotiator knows when and how to use a team approach to negotiations For example, complex negoti­ ations requiring a diverse set of knowledge, expertise, and abilities and with the potential for integrative solutions are ideal for teams. Negotiations involving diverse constituencies and interests, such as labor negotiations, lend themselves to a team approach. The skilled negotiator shows trust and respect for team members and takes the time to organize and coordinate the team effort. 6 Negotiating skills can be learned. Although certain people may have more inherent ability, everyone can learn to be a better negotiator. Research suggests that the differ­ ence between a novice and an expert negotiator includes the ability to see familiar Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation patterns, such as coalition alignments, in negotiationsi to filter out irrelevant clutter in order to grasp threats and opportunities in a timely manner; and to develop action and contingency plans on the spot that anticipate reactions, and to refine or discard those plans as necessary. Bargaining Styles People have different bargaining styles-relatively stable, personality-driven clusters of behaviors and reactions that arise in negotiating encounters? A popular way of describing bargaining styles is the dual concern model described by noted educators Dean G. Pruitt, Jeffrey Z. Rubin, and Sung Hee Kim. s The dual concern model, pictured in Figure 1.1, explains how one's behavior while bargaining or during a conflict is based on two concerns: the desire to satisfy oneself and the desire to satisfy the other party.9 The bargaining styles associated with the dual concern model stem from two personality dimensions: assertiveness and cooperation. Assertiveness measures the attempt to satisfy oneself, and coopera­ tion assesses the attempt to satisfy the other party. These two dimensions yield five negotiation styles commonly designated as follows: A negotiator with a strong predisposition to accommodating derives satisfaction from solving someone's problem. This negotiator is a good team-builder and is sen­ sitive to others' emotional states and body language. The accommodating style is useful in joint decision making negotiations, sales-based deal making, and conflicts when emotions are running high. The tendency to emphasize the relationship over the content of a negotiation, however, may cause an accommodating negotiator to make unwise concessions.

Competitively inclined negotiators see negotiations as an opportunity to win what they view as a game or a sport. These negotiators, with a predisposition to competing, thrive on winner-take-all situations. Self-interest-that is, achieving one's goals at the other's expense-is the primary motivation. They have excellent instincts for pressure tactics such as creating leverage through the use of deadlines and threats or taking advantage of positioning techniques such as initial offers and ultimatums.

Collaboration as a negotiating trait is the cornerstone of integrative bargaining.

Negotiators with a strong disposition to collaborating enjoy negotiations because they enjoy participating in the joint solution to a problem, recognizing the interdepen­ dence of the parties and the need to satisfy the interests of both. As a positive trait, collaborative negotiators bring both parties to the same side of the table so they can confront the problem on the other side. They instinctively probe beneath the surface of conflicts to discover the real interests of the parties.

Finally, a negotiator with a predisposition to compromising is eager to conclude the negotiation based on fair standards or established fonnula. As a positive trait, . compromising negotiators are at their best when time is short and the stakes are small. 1o What determines one's bargaining style: Is it personality driven, or does it come from the bargaining situation itself? And can we relate a negotiator's bargaining style to bargaining behavior-or do behaviors come also from the bargaining situation itself? In a recent study conducted with 138 undergraduate students using a negotia­ tion simulation, researcher Zhenzhong Ma sought to determine whether personality factors could predict an individual's bargaining style and whether one's bargaining style adequately predicts bargaining behaviors. Using the Five Factor Model (FFM) (also called the "Big Five" personality dimensions, which are detailed in Table 1.2), Ma determined that people high in neuroticism, who you might think would find conflict threatening, did not display a preference for any of the negotiating styles.

Likewise, openness and conscientiousness were found not to relate to any specific behavior preference in a conflict situation. The personality dimensions that did relate were agreeableness, which was positively related to compromising and negatively related to competing, and extroversion, which positively related to competing or col­ laborating, negatively related to avoiding, and not particularly related in either way to compromise or accommodation. His study did find that conflict styles can predict actual bargaining behaviors: Assertive styles, such as competing and collaborating, led to more competitive behaviors; a collaborating style also showed a positive rela­ tionship to compromising behavior; avoiding was negatively related to the assertive styles; and, surprisingly, accommodating and compromising styles didn't predict compromise behavior.ll 10 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation Table 1.2 The UBig Five" Personality Dimensions DIMENSION OPPOSING Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Anxious, depressed, worried, insecure Sociable, assertive, talkative, active Imaginative, curious, original, open-minded Courteous, flexible, trusting, cooperative, tolerant Careful, responsible, organized, persistent Emotionally healthy, calm, free from persistent negative feelings Introverted, quiet, low-key, deliberate Conventional, narrow-minded, straightforward, conservative Suspicious, unfriendly, uncooperative, critical, disciplined Unreliable, lacking ambition, easily distracted Authors Grant T. Savage, John D. Blair, and Ritch L. Sorenson suggest that the classic negotiating styles, with some modifications, can be used as negotiating strategies. For instance, actively avoiding negotiations, when employed as a strategy as opposed to a style, can be used when a party is simply not interested in negotiat­ ing.12 Perhaps the matter at issue is not important enough or worth enough to engage in negotiations. However, if the opponent is interested in negotiating, then passive avoidance, letting someone else take over the negotiations, for example, makes sense.

Accommodation as a strategy is known as open subordination, where a negotiator chooses a yield-win strategy to dampen hostilities, increase support, and foster more interdependent relationships. To protect oneself from a less than optimal situation at the negotiating table because the other party is not as interested in the relationship, one can adopt a focused subordination strategy, which limits the areas in which the negotiator is interested in reaching an accommodation.

As a strategy, firm competing can be used when the substantive interests are important but the relationship is not. Under some circumstances, such as when the parties have unequal bargaining power, the directness of firm competing should be modified to soft competition. The relationship may not be of much importance, but it is still wise to consider it on occasions. Trusting collaboration, as a strategy, can be used when both the relationship and the substantive outcomes are important to the negotiator. Ifthe other party does not reciprocate, then the negotiator can use a modified collaborative strategy known as principled collaboration by which the parties agree to conduct negotiations based on a set of mutually agreed-upon principles.

Behaviors during a negotiation can change. Anyone might employ any of the techniques in a negotiation situation depending upon the circumstances. A negotia­ tion may begin in one behavioral style and move through others. Situational vari­ ables that influence the type of behavior exhibited include the following: The behavior by one party is obviously influenced by the response received. It is the interaction of the parties that determines the negotiating dynamics. 14 If avoid­ ance is matched by accommodation, then the negotiation is probably over. But if avoidance is met by competition, the negotiation can escalate in a negative way. And if avoidance is met with a collaborative style, the negotiation may result in agreement. Table 1.3 summarizes the bargaining styles discussed here.

The Role of Emotions in Negotiation Negotiation or conflict resolution is a process where the outcome is ultimately a choice made by the parties from among available alternatives. Deciding which alternative is one's preference involves not only an evaluation of facts but also an investment of some emotion. Emotions (anger, happiness, fear) and moods (grumpy, depressed, apprehensive) collectively influence a party's judgment and decision tendencies. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides with no rational way to distinguish among the options. As you will see in the experiments described next, emotion may be a critical compo­ nent of the decision-making process by giving the individual a basis for making a choice. Table 1.3 Attributes of Bargaining Styles CoNFUCf STRONG As A POSITIVE As A NI!GA11VR WEAK AsA ST'llE I'REDISPOSrnON ATIRIBlJI'E ATIRIBlJI'E ·PREDISPOSrnON STRATEGY AVOiding Defers confrontational negotiation Accommodating Derives satisfaction from solving problems Competing Views negotiation as a game or sport to win Collaborating Enjoys participating in joint problem solving Compromising Is eager to conclude negotiation on fair standards Displays tact and diplomacy Is good team-builder Has excellent instincts for claiming value Instinctively tries to discover and satisfy the real interests of the parties Is best when stakes are small and time is short Causes stalemates May make unwise concessions Focuses on issues that are easy to define as win-loss May transform a simple problem into a complex one Can rush the process and agree to unnecessary concessions Prefers Used when not hard-nosed interested in bargaining negotiating Has little Used when patience for hostilities need other party's to be lessened needs Believes in Used when treating substantive people fairly interests are and avoiding important, but needless not the conflict relationship No patience Used when for the give-relationship and-take that and the comes with substantive collaborative outcomes are thinking important Refuses to Used when compromise stakes are on principle small, time is short, or in a weak bargaining position 12 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation Neuroscientists have studied the effect of emotion on decision making. Patients with damage to the frontal cortex of their brain experience greatly diminished emo­ tional responses, although their intellectual function and memory are unaffected. In one experiment, when given a choice of two possible dates for an appointment, one patient spent 30 minutes trying to choose, using a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis that far exceeded the demand of the task. In another experiment simulating gam­ bling, the parties were asked to choose a card from one of four decks. Every time a party chose a card from A or B deck, he won $100; when he chose a card from C or D deck, he won $50. After a while the parties were told that they had to begin returning some of the winnings. The rate of unpredictable losses per 10 cards from stacks A and B averaged $1,250, whereas the average unpredictable losses per 10 cards from stacks C and D averaged $250. So choosing cards from C and D decks resulted in the most gain. The normal subjects learned to pick from C and D, and experienced signs of tension as they selected a card. The impaired subjects, on the other hand, continued to select from the A and B decks and showed no signs of tension. IS Author Daniel Goleman, in his book Working with Emotional Intelligence,16 pro­ motes the idea that for individuals to negotiate effectively, they need to identify and use their emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is a term encompassing the follOWing five characteristics and abilities as they relate to a bargaining situation: (1) seif-awareness-the ability to be aware of which emotions, moods, and impulses one is experiencing and why, as well as being aware of the effect one's emotions are having on others involved in the negotiation; (2) self-regulation-the ability to keep one's emotions and impulses in check, to remain calm in potentially volatile negotia­ tions, and to maintain composure regardless of one's emotions; (3) selfmotivation­ the ability to remain focused on one's goals in the negotiation despite setbacks, to operate from a hope of success rather than a fear of failure, and to accept change as necessary to attain goals; (4) empathy-the ability to understand the feelings being transmitted at the negotiations through verbal and nonverbal messages, to provide emotional support when needed, and to understand the link between others' emo­ tions and their behavior; and (5) managing relationships-the ability to deal with prob­ lems without demeaning the opponents, not to let others' negative feelings prevent collaboration, and to handle conflict with tact and diplomacy.I7 In the Chapter Case, Robert and Sophia could have drawn on their emotional power and intelligence during the meeting with the neighbors, to defuse their anger and facilitate a healthy dialogue. Interdependency Ifthere is no interdependency between the parties, there can be no reason to negoti­ ate and no motivation to reach agreement. Ifone party is totally dependent upon the other, the dependent party has nothing to offer and the other party can simply dic­ tate the terms of the relationship. Likewise, if both parties are totally independent, there may be no need to negotiate because either party can survive without the other.

Interdependency means that for some reason each of the two parties depends upon the other-at least as it concerns the object of the negotiation-and therefore the par­ ties are motivated to enter into a negotiation and to reach agreement.

The degrees of interdependency can vary based on the depth and duration of the relationship. In a one-shot negotiation, such as a negotiation for the purchase of a Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 13 car or a home, the transaction is generally between strangers in which one party supplies the other party with the car or house in exchange for money. The interde­ pendency between the parties in this instance is shallow and of short duration. Repeat transactions between parties, as might occur between a manufacturer and its suppliers, can create a deeper relationship in which the parties have more interde­ pendency than in a one-shot negotiation. The relationship can be of long duration because they have the possibility of more transactions in the future. But the parties, while interdependent in these transactions, are still free agents-that is, if either party becomes dissatisfied with the other, both could walk away.

Some negotiations occur between parties in a long-term relationship in which one side controls more of the resources, such as an employer and her employees. In a situation like this, the relationship from the employees' standpOint is deep, as they have the greater dependency because the employer controls the resources needed to pay them. In terms of duration, it is a long-term relationship as long as the employ­ ees perform so that the employer can stay in business. The employer, in turn, is dependent upon the performance of the employees-but because employees can be replaced, the employer's dependency is less. A negotiation between parties in a long-term relationship of equal standing, such as a business partnership, typifies a very deep interdependency. The parties have a common identity, goals, risks, and rewards-so if either party became dissatisfied with the other, walking away would be difficult. The tactics in Box 1.1 can help you identify the interdependency in a negotiation. ,~,'SO)(1.1 ' Tac;ticsf9' 'Success f~~Ct:trrim9nIQter8~ bY Asking the Right Questions H~~d~end~CYD\eaNthat the "arties toa Oarifyiitg questions focus the discus­ ~i;;:ltegoti~tiop.;hav,e "'SOUle: ,reason to reach sion:DO you find the disdplinetrou­ :;i~}:a'~e.rt~~ Jfan~g()tiator canidenti£y the bling mainly because of this past year's . experiences? You want me to agree that fF"i~~~eilln~~tsJtl\enhe or abe may be ,theI\ew.bonus system will not begin 'is;ial>l~~to. of{er'!iolutionsthat' address, those Jllltil theneW fisoalyear? " ~5;'$~~,Pnewaytt)find common interests' Gauging questions aid in finding the i$ISr~ask the right questions, 'Po,llowing are other's point of view: Is itimportant to " ;;,~eexAJnples:i " you ifwe finish.up today, or can we have ';;. ·'Qpelt~d.dq\lelltioJJ8 seek informa­ another day to consider the oBet? ,How .c:> ,tiC)n: Wbatwere yo:uhoping to. settle do you feel about our latest proposal? todaY1: l10wcan we move this iSsue 'iL . Decision questions seek to reach agree­ forward? ment:. III could guarantee an abbrevi­ I.~adingquesti.onspoint in a particular ated hearlngprocess, wOuld you be will­ , 'dir~on: DOn't you think that our Jast ing to limit appeals to dismissals? II all proposal gave both of us some benefit? ofthe salespeople could report to the DOn't yotithink that itIs important that office'on a regular schedule, could we we resolve atleast this issue today?

begin using flextime? 14 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation - Common Goals There are two types of goals within every conflict: content goals and relationship goals. A content goal is the substance of the issue, such as getting a development plan approved, landing a client, or satisfying neighbors. The relationship goal defines how the parties intend to relate to each other-for instance, whether the par­ ties are important to each other, whether they are willing to share decision-making authority, whether they intend to dictate to one another. The parties may not be aware that there are two goals within a negotiation. They might resolve the content goal without ever addressing the relationship goal. Ifthis happens, the conflict con­ tinues after the negotiation is complete, albeit in subtler ways. In the Chapter Case, Robert and Sophia wanted to cooperate with the Zoning Commission staff in order to establish a good working relationship for this project and for projects in the future.

The parties may have a prospective goal-that is, the goal they identify at the start of a negotiation. In the Chapter Case, for instance, Robert and Sophia's prospective goal for the three-way meeting with the Zoning Commission and the neighborhood was to eliminate the neighborhood's opposition. Goals may change or emerge as the negotiation progresses. Transactional goals are those that either arise or become apparent during the negotiations, not before or after.

Adaptability is crucial to successfully resolving transactional goals; the parties must be able to change their expected result during the negotiation. For exam­ ple, in the Chapter Case, Sophia initially did not have any reason to agree to the Zoning Commission staff's suggestion on increasing parking spaces. However, after the neighbors began to protest her development, she decided it would be beneficial to have the enthusiastic support of the staff, so she agreed to the park­ ing change.

Retrospective goals are those that emerge after a negotiation has concluded.

People continue to make sense of a negotiation after it is over--either as a way to jus­ tify their decisions or as a learning process on how to resolve similar issues in the future. If, for example, employees whose encounter with their employer did not result in a raise but did give them a sense of how the employer values or does not value their work, the goal of clarifying the relationship may become, in retrospect, the point of the negotiation. In integrative negotiations, the parties set collaborative goals-that is, they attempt to identify and satisfy mutual goals. A negotiation that takes the interests of both sides into account results in a fair and durable agreement. Ithas both solved the content dispute and enhanced the relationship of the parties. 18 Flexibility In a study to determine how people who have not negotiated regularly view the negotiation process, 25 undergraduates were asked to generate a sequence of 20 actions that occur when two people negotiate. The results showed that when the term negotiate is used, most individuals characterized the interaction as "competi­ tive" and involving "incompatible interests." 19 In such a negotiation, a distributive Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 15 model'" would dictate that the negotiator should approach the bargaining table expecting a lot, giving up a little, and willing to walk. 20 Although that might work well in simple negotiations, such bargaining is less productive in negotiations involving multiple hard-to-quantify issues where no obvious common ground exists. In those kinds of negotiations, integrative and inter­ est-based bargaining models are more productive. Participants in a negotiation need to be flexible about the processes they are willing to use. Ifthey approach a negotia~ tion with a closed mind as to how the negotiation is to be conducted, it is unlikely they will reach agreement.

Why do we continue to think of negotiation as a win-lose proposition? For one thing, society encourages us to engage in hard bargaining. Certainly in U.S. culture we learn to win at games, beat opponents, and get the best grades, car, or deal, regard­ less of anyone else's needs. Such an attitude is difficult to unlearn because hard bar­ gaining may have worked in the past, so changing to something that is seen as weaker or emotional is not very appealing. Negotiators often feel they have taken the moral high ground in a negotiation and that any change would compromise their principles.

But being flexible does not require compromising principles or acquiescing for the sake of an agreement. Being flexible means protecting and fulfilling your own inter­ ests, while finding creative ways to minimally satisfy the interests of others as well. 21 Participants must be flexible to respond to power plays in a negotiation.

Negotiators often make tactical moves-such as belittling a proposal, making threats, or appealing for sympathy-in an attempt to shift power in the bargaining situation.

A negotiator must be able to respond to such tactics in a strategic way. For instance, strategies for responding to power moves made by the other side include taking a break, asking a question, correcting a misstatement, or ignoring the attempt and con­ tinuing to negotiate. 22 A power shift can quickly occur in a negotiation situation. Just the addition of new facts can quickly alter the balance of power between parties­ even between a father and son as illustrated in the accompanying cartoon, or in an actual negotiation as described in Box 1.2. Zits Source: Zits is syndicated by King Features Syndicate Inc. Used by permission.

• In later chapters we will examine in detail the negotiation models commonly called distributive bargain­ ing (Chapter 3), integrative bargaining (Chapter 4t interest-based bargaining (Chapter 4), and alternative dis­ pute resolution or ADR (Chapter 7). 16 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation - BOX 1.2 Traps to Avoid Shift in Power In a recent labor negotiation, the parties, who had been negotiating for five months, were nearing the expiration of the current contract and had resolved all issues except for pay. One of the major areas of conflict .at the negotiating table had been the perceived "hierarchal" management structure of the organization, partic­ ularly as to how overtime pay issues were handled. And although there was anew operations manager, most of the line supervisors were still in place. The employer, aware of the employees'complaints, had made a number of noneconomic conces­ sions in the negotiations on the overtime issue. The employees' negotiating team seemed pleased with the progress made to date, and all indications were that agreement could be reached on wages before the deadline. The employer was pre­ pared to negotiate the last issue from a position of relative advantage, as the employees would not get a raise in pay until a hew contract was in place.

. Howev~ the day before the parties' negotiation session, at what they thought would be for the last time, a line supervisor told union members that when the con­ tract expired-:-since agreement on a new contract was not imminent-:-supervisors would be able to mandate overtime whatever way they chose. When the negotia­ tion session began, the employer was thus confronted with an angry bargaining team that accused the employer of negotiating in bad faith. The employees believed the employer was stalling negotiations in order to allow the contract to expire so he could impose mandatory overtime rules unilaterally. The employer assured the employees that he had not stalled negotiations and that he did not intend to impose new work rules even ifagreement was not reached before the deadline.. .

The employer's opportunity to get an agreement on wages favorable to the company evaporated when he had to agree to continue the current contract day-to­ day until they reached agreement on a new contract. The shift of power in the nego­ tiation resulted from inappropriate statements of those not at the bargaining table. Decision-Making Ability When conflict is at the core of negotiations it manifests itself in three areas: relation­ ship conflict, resource conflict, and process conflict. Relationship conflict comes from interpersonal incompatibilities, friction or tension between parties, their lack of familiarity, or their lack of trust. Resource conflict is a disagreement or difference of opinion over the object of the conflict, or incompatible goals or disagreement over the allocation of resources between the parties. And process conflict can arise when the parties use different strategies for resolving conflicts-competing versus collaborat­ ing, for example. 23 Underlying all those manifestations of conflict is the fact that negotiation is an activity that involves at least two people making decisions that require judgments and choices. Judgment involves recognizing and evaluating the content of the options presented. Choice involves actually selecting an option. Negotiators or the Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 17 parties to a conflict often differ in how they think or process information and in their beliefs and value systems, so when called upon to make judgments, conflict can escalate. The parties may differ on how they react emotionally to a conflict or by what motivates them. Both of those factors can influence their choices, making agreement more difficult.

People develop schema as a way of organizing current knowledge and as a way to process future information. A schema is a framework or structure for one's beliefs about a particular issue. Through the use of schemas, people can quickly organize most everyday situations and act effectively without effort. For example, most peo­ ple have a stairway schema, and can apply it to climb staircases they've never seen before. Because one's schema, or frame ofreference, is determined by personal experi­ ence and expertise, the parties to a conflict may not be experiencing the particular situation in the same way. In Box 1.3 you can see how a schema might affect a bar­ gaining situation. It is essential to the negotiating process that both parties are in a position to make a decision and are willing to commit to the agreement reached. Keep in mind that in many situations the parties doing the bargaining may be representing other parties. For instance, two or three union negotiators may represent 1,000 workers in an assembly plant, while the management representatives across the table from them represent its owners. A car salesman may have to check with the manager before reducing the price of a car, while a buyer may have to check with a spouse before committing to buying it. In those circumstances, even though both sides have to "go back" to their respective principals for "ratification," the nego­ tiators must be empowered to reach agreement or the negotiations are a waste of time. Max H. Bazerman and Margaret A. Neale applied behavioral decision theory to negotiation and moved researchers away from simply focusing on the bargaining process of moves, countermoves, goals, and expectations to understanding the cog­ nitive process of judgment and choice involved in negotiation. 24 Howard Raiffa refined this research by noting that the study of negotiation must include not just the study of what negotiators should do-the rational or normative perspective­ but also what negotiators are likely to do-the behavioral or descriptive perspec­ tive. 25 Decision making in negotiations thus involves cognition, personal biases, and motivation. Cognition and H&uristics Cognition refers to the process of assimilating infor­ mation to make rational choices. Negotiation is an activity that requires participants to make judgments and choices. Theoretically, negotiators gather the optimal amount of information needed for decision making, make accurate assessments of that information, compare the expected value of an agreement to the expected value of nonagreement~ and choose the alternative that maximizes their interests. This rational choice theory is the basis for the most frequently used bargaining processes.

However, when judging the contents of options, two people can look at the same information and draw totally opposite conclusions, because each is seeing it from his or her own vantage point.

Parties in a negotiation are faced with a constant stream of choices and many choices involve uncertainty. They may also be called upon to process information 18 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation BOX 1.3 .Traps to Avoid Negotiating with a Friend You're in the market for a used car for your son to take to cOllege and find out that a friend of yours is selling her car, You know that the ~ar is in good condition because she. is selling it only because she inherited abett~car front her mother. This would be a perfect solution--buy the car from your friend~yet you hesitate. The thought of it makes you uncomfortable. B~t why? ... ' Individualsdeve10p and use schemastbchart theirwa)'thtOugh day.to--day routines. One such schema is knowing howt() act with. b:iends~ UtcJ.udirtgbehaviors ,that are acceptable ,and unacceptable. Like\V~,we'deve19P~chemason how to 'behave in negotiations,' which include not re~ .~90,Pluchinformati()I\abo~t . your priorties, offering less than you arewillingto p~Yi~~ving atthebe'st deal for yourself. These schemas can, clash when negotiating, witli.,a frieild· FriEmqsIUp .involves trust and concemfor the other'~welfare'~I\Q.tt()viQ.lateth~fri~d7 ship ·schema can cause the p!U1fes to ~ter into a dei4 thafis.llot the ~~~ttl.\'0\U" friend might sell youthecarfor less thanits.~ket villueJor yoU 1I1ight()ffe1 tOo .... much to avoid conflict! Either way, the n~otiatiruj itseU.~~v~a negativ~ effect: on the relationship ifthere is a feeling that ()l\et()()k,ady8ntageof~pthel'~i One way to get around this trap is bymakirig1t'clear it is "j~tbuslrte~"and not a personal exchange. Another way is to engage, an~t to negotiate OIl your behalf. Or you Can decide not tonegotia~withyoui.&i,~ndif theobl¢d of the n~otiation is simply not worth the risk to.the friendship. . Source: Adapted from Terri Kurtzberg and V1CtOda Husted 'lv1~17Ca1;we Negotiare ant!Still Be Friends?" Nego~iun /oUnud IS,(October 1999): 355--361. '.' , quickly, which they may do intuitively rather than rationally. To aid the cognitive process as they try to assimilate information, individuals often react to such uncer· tainty and make intuitive decisions by relying upon a small number of general­ purpose heuristics, or rules of thumb, to simplify decision making. Heuristics are helpful, but they can also misdirect a negotiator when used inappropriately. Biases Certain heuristics employed in negotiations can create knowledge-based or cognitive biases, which cause negotiators to make faulty or irrational decisions. One example of such a bias is an availability bias that occurs when the negotiator estimates the probability of an outcome based on how easy that particular outcome is to imagine-that is, how readily it comes to mind. For example, it is normal for vividly described, emotionally charged possibilities to be perceived as being more likely than those that are harder to picture or are difficult to understand. 26 People who are afraid of dying in an airplane crash have no problem riding to the airport in a car, even though more people die from car crashes than airplane crashes. But because airplane crashes involve multiple deaths and are widely reported in the media, and deaths from car accidents, unless drinking is involved, receive less atten­ tion, the possibility of being in an airplane crash is more "available." In the Chapter Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 19 20 Case, the neighborhood may have reacted negatively to Sopia's development because the picture of unsightly multi-family dwellings was more available than a picture of a tastefully developed condomimium.

Another example of a congitive bias is a representativeness bias, or stereotyping. This occurs when one uses superficial qualities rather than essential characteristics in deciding that two things are similar when they are actually unique. In the Chapter Case, it would seem that the neighbors assumed that Sophia was an irresponsible developer who had no concern for the impact of her development on the neighbor­ hood, simply because some developers had no such concern. An egocentric or self-serving bias occurs when people believe an uncertain option will more likely be beneficial to them than is objectively true, because their perceptions and expectations are biased in a self-serving manner. Research by Max A. Bazerman and Margaret Neale has demonstrated that individuals in final offer arbitration, for example, consistently overestimate the likelihood of their success.

They believe that the arbitrator will rule in their favor because they perceive their final offer to be the most fair. 27 A related perception, self-enhancement bias, occurs when one party to a conflict views his or her behavior as more constructive and less distructive than that of the opponent-again, seeing oneself in the best light. 28 One cognitive bias that is often the cause of an unresolvable conflict is an impact bias, which occurs when a person-who may accurately predict that he or she will feel positively or negatively about a certain outcome-overestimates the intensity and duration of those feelings. Lawyers often have this problem with clients in liti­ gation when settlement discussions begin. By the time most lawsuits reach the settle­ ment stage, the parties have been engaged in an adverserial process for some time.

During that time, one of the parties may have anticipated vindication that his cause was just, which is more important to him than money to compensate for the injury he believes he suffered. So, when the financial offer during settlement negotiations is the amount expected, but the accountability falls far short of what he had imagined, he doesn't want to settle. He believes that he will feel much better ifthe jury finds the other party "guilty" rather than just settling the case. In fact, the satisfaction he derives from such a finding is short-lived. For example, in the Chapter Case, the neighbors anticipated that the building of condos would be so detrimental that they reacted emotionally to its development. However, if the condominiums were devel­ oped as Sophia contended, they would probably become such an integral part of the neighborhood that any lingering concerns would be minor.

These biases-availability, representativeness, self-serving, self-enhancement, and impact-lead to an unrealistic assessment of the value of various options to the parties in a negotiation. Such assessments either cause the parties to greatly overesti­ mate what can be achieved at the bargaining table or cause them to fear agreement, thinking that they may have been taken advantaged of by the other party. Motivation Experienced negotiators know that the key to reaching agreement is to ascertain the other party's motivations. What is influencing the decisions that the other party makes? Of course the obvious and certainly most common motivation is to claim more value from the negotiation than the opponent claims. Beyond that, however, motivation affects both information processing and the strategies one employs in a negotiation. 29 Chapter 1 . An Introduction to Negotiation F Social motivation refers to the negotiator!s preference for particular outcome distributions between the parties-either selfish (trying to maximize one!s gains with no regard for the other party) or prasodal (trying to maximize both parties! gains).

Research indicates that a negotiator!s inclination toward selfish versus prosocial preferences will influence what information he or she recalls. 30 In a typical distribu­ tive bargaining situation in which both parties are attempting to claim as much value for themselves as possible! a negotiator could easily tlforget ll conciliat9ry statements made by the other party earlier in the negotiations.

Epistemic motivation refers to the effort a negotiator uses to process information relevant to the negotiation. An epistemic motivation attempts to get at the truth and avoid error through the process of knowing and! more precisely! of being aware­ knOwing! thinking! learning! and judging. The extremes are between a negotiator who jumps to a conclusion! relying to a large extent on heuristics! and a negotiator who tries so hard to develop a complete understanding about the issue that he or she is never able to reach a conclusion. And while a negotiator!s personality may lend itself to one extreme or the other, in negotiations it is often the situation itself that causes an individual to be either highly motivated to gather extensive information or motivated to move on with limited information. Generally! when one is accountable to other parties for the outcomes in the negotiation, or when one has less power at the negotiating table! or when the task at hand is complex, the motivation to process more information will be high. Fatigue and deadlines tend to undermine the need for more information.

Impression motivation is defined as the desire to make a good impression and to get along. It may stem from the negotiator's need for confidence and self-esteem. Or! as in the Chapter Case, the negotiator's need to land a client caused Robert to suppress any annoyance he had toward Sophia!s fee arrangement. But such motiva­ tion can be difficult when the negotiator wants to be seen as a hard bargainer. An impression motivation may be a function of a negotiator's cultural background, such as someone with collectivist values, or may stem from a negotiator's accountability to a constituency. MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATIONS Generally the discussion and the examples given for negotiating techniques involve two-party rtegotiations. But as in the Chapter Case! many negotiations involve mul­ tiple parties and multiple interests. Multiparty negotiation occurs when three or more parties! each representing their own interests, try to resolve a conflict or agree upon a course of action. Multiparty negotiations can present significantly different and difficult challenges in finding common goals, balancing the interdependency, being flexible! and identifying the true decision makers. For example, although most collective bargaining negotiations involve numerous individuals on both sides of the table! they actually involve only two interests: management and labor. However, col­ lective bargaining in the public sector can be a multiparty negotiation ifa legislative body such as a city council inserts itself between a mayor (management) and the public employees (union). In that instance! the legislators' goal may be to win politi­ cal points with the union rather than helping the goal of the mayor to finalize a Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 21 contract fair to both the taxpayers and the employees. Certainly interdependency suffers if the union can abandon the negotiations with the mayor and go to the legis­ lators for an agreement.

The war in Iraq provides an example of multiparty negotiations, as.represented by the U.S.-established Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). The IGC was specifically designed to bring together the diverse ethnic and religious groups of that post­ Saddam country, to make decisions for reordering Iraq's poIiticallife and govern­ ment. The 25 members represented a varying number of individuals from five key groups: Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Kurds, Turkmen, and Christians. In order to reach agreement the groups had to form coalitions that shared at least one interest. Such coalitions can cause otherwise minor players to have a greater influence on the out­ come of the negotiations than their numbers might warrant. In this case, the Shiite members, who represented approximately 60% of the nation's population originally, refused to sign the interim constitution because they thought it gave too much power to the Kurds. Eventually, through negotiation, the Shiite representatives were brought back to the table and the document was signed.

Some specific issues to consider in multiparty negotiations include dealing with coalitions, formulating trade-offs, voting and majority rule, reaching consensus deci­ sions, and coping with complicated communication patterns. 31 Coalitions In a multiparty negotiation often two or more of the parties will form a coalition in order to have more influence on the outcome. But because these parties are coming together only to wield greater influence and most likely agree only on narrow goals, they will find it difficult to sustain common positions and may lack the flexibility necessary to respond to events as the negotiations continue. For example, the Iraqi Governing Council, which had originally excluded the Shiite members and was formed primarily to reach agreement on an interim constitution, would be a very fragile coalition that one might expect to dissolve quite easily. Trade-Offs In a multiparty negotiation, each party has the ability to negotiate with one or more of the other parties and can engage in a trade-off that may have considerable influ­ ence on the eventual agreement. To gamer support for its most important objective, for example, one party might be willing to give up on an issue important to the other parties and throw its support behind one of the major players, giving that player the ability to "win." In the Chapter Case, Sophia might decide to go back to the Zoning Commission staff and agree to their parking lot request if she thinks that doing so will gain for her the staff's assistance in overcoming the neighbors' objections. Majority Rule Majority rule arrived at by voting in a multiparty negotiation fails to recognize the strength or interest of individual positions. One person who has very little invested in a particular issue has the same vote as one who considers the issue paramount. Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 22 One neighbor in the Chapter Case may be very interested. in the outcome of the zon­ . ing negotiation, but Sophia has invested time and money and may not accept that the weight of one neighbor's vote should equal hers. Finding Consensus Another approach to reaching agreement in multiparty negotiations is to try and find a consensus. A consensus agreement does not imply that all of the parties are in com­ plete agreement on all of the issues, but rather that they have agreed that the total agreement is acceptable, even ifsome of its parts are less than desirable. Returning to our earlier example, the Shiite representatives came back to the negotiating table and agreed to the Iraqi Governing Council's interim constitution even though they origi­ nally thought the provisions concerning the Kurds were unacceptable. Finding con­ sensus is time-consuming and difficult among multiple parties, but often it is the only way to reach a lasting agreement. Communication In multiparty negotiations the process of sending and receiving messages, under­ standing and interpreting those messages, and coping with perceptions can become more complex simply because of the number of people involved. Active listening techniques can help, but the party trying to use such techniques has to be careful not to be perceived as taking over the negotiations. When clarifying a statement made by one party, for example, the party repeating it should make sure that all of the parties agree with the restatement. MYTHS AND FACTS To understand how negotiation works and what skills, knowledge, and abilities are necessary to succeed, it is also necessary for you to dispel common myths about negotiations. Which of the following statements do you think are true and which are myth?

Good negotiators are born.

Experience is a great teacher.

Good negotiators take risks Good negotiators rely on intuition.

Good negotiators make concessions.

Good negotiators never lie.

Good negotiators look for common interests.

Everyone is a negotiator.

According to Leigh Thompson, in her book The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, the first four statements are all myths. 32 Good negotiators are not born, but rather learn negotiation skills and, with practice, perfect them. Many people believe negotiators are born and not made because of their own experience in such common negotiations as buying a car or a house. In that isolated event, a person Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation 23 mayor may not be very successful because of things totally outside of his or her control. The next time, or on a different day, the negotiations may have had a com­ pletely different result. Effective negotiation requires practice and feedback. One is not born knowing how to assess a negotiation situation, how to recognize con­ flict resolution techniques, or how to diffuse a difficult situation. Furthermore, experience in negotiations is not necessarily a great teacher. Experience alone will not develop negotiating skills, because in the absence of feedback one cannot improve. Just because the end result of a negotiation is a "win" does not necessar­ ily mean that the negotiator was skilled. In fact, such experiences may encourage a negotiator to take risks-but good negotiators don't take uncalculated risks. They are trained to evaluate risk so they can know when and how to proceed success­ fully. Nor do they act on intuition. Rather, good negotiators rely upon deliberate thought and preparation.

The last four statements in the list are all true. A good negotiator can and most probably must concede something during a negotiation. After all, a key to success­ ful negotiation is compromise! Good negotiators do not enter discussions with the idea that they must get a certain number of things-but instead, enter with a range of things in mind and remain willing to consider alternatives. They are flexible! It is also true that good negotiators never lie. One of the most difficult skills to master in a negotiation is being candid and yet not revealing important information. A nego­ tiator may not want to reveal all the details of her position early in a negotiation, but she must be careful not to misrepresent that position to such an extent that the opposite party believes she has lied. Successful negotiations depend upon trust, which can be established only if the parties interact truthfully. Good negotiators look for common ground and realize the value of starting discussions on a positive note by identifying common interests and agreeing to some issues quickly. If both sides realize that they do, in fact, have common interests and thus both can gain from a settlement, they are more likely to adopt a positive, compromising strategy.

Also, early agreement on some issues often helps to resolve differences on other issues later in the process. Finally, the simple truth is that everyone who is able to communicate is a negotiator. Why? Because everyone is faced with negotiation situ­ ations every day-some realize their potential to negotiate a better deal, while oth­ ers simply accept what is offered to them. Everyone can learn to be a competent negotiator by learning three things: (I) when a situation is appropriate for negotia­ tion, (2) who to negotiate with, and (3) how to prepare and use common negotiation strategies and tactics. SUMMING Up You may have many opportunities each day to use negotiations to make a deal, make a decision, or resolve a problem. Select one of the parties in the Chapter Case and answer the following questions from that party's perspective. 1. Identify your interests in the zoning dispute. 24 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Negotiation Then name the other parties and describe what you think their interests are. 2. Describe five techniques a skilled negotiator might use to assist you in getting what you want from the zoning dispute. Identify issues that you cannot be flexible on and explain why.