FACTOID # 7: The top five best educated states are all in the Northeast.
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
People who viewed "Negotiation" also viewed:


FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:



(* = Graphable)



Encyclopedia > Negotiation
Negotiator redirects here. For the movie, see The Negotiator (film)

Broadly speaking, negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute resolution. Negotiation is a process of resolving disputes and conflicts via talks and discussions without using force. ... This article is about the film, for general use see negotiator. ... Image File history File links Emblem-important. ... Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ...

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

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from a straight forward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations. // In the literal case of harvesting cherries, or any other fruit, the picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. ... Mátyás Rákosi coined the phrase salami tactics Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. ...


Alternative dispute resolution

Negotiation is one of three primary methods of alternative dispute resolution, typically evidenced by a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position. Compare this to mediation where a disinterested third party listens to each sides' arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. Lastly, arbitration is similar to a legal proceeding, whereby both sides make an argument as to the merits of their "case" and then the arbitrator decides the outcome both parties should follow (non-binding arbitration) or must follow (binding arbitration). This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ... For statistical mediation, see Mediation (Statistics). ... Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the arbitrators or arbitral tribunal), by whose decision (the award) they agree to be bound. ...

Approaches to negotiation

Given the above definition, negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce and parenting. See also negotiation theory. The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. ...

The advocate's approach

In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to the negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations, unless the BATNA (see below) is acceptable. In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. ...

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

The "win/win/win" negotiator's approach

During the early part of the twentieth century, academics such as Mary Parker Follett developed ideas suggesting that agreement often can be reached if parties look not at their stated positions but rather at their underlying interests and requirements. During the 1960s, Gerard I. Nierenberg recognized the role of negotiation in resolving disputes in personal, business and international relations. He published The Art of Negotiating, where he states that the philosophies of the negotiators determine the direction a negotiation takes. His Everybody Wins philosophy assures that all parties benefit from the negotiation process which also produces more successful outcomes than the adversarial “winner takes all” approach. Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933) was a social worker, consultant, and author of books on democracy, human relations, and management. ... Gerard I. Nierenberg is a successful lawyer and author. ...

In the 1970s, practitioners and researchers began to develop win-win approaches to negotiation. Getting to YES was published by Roger Fisher and William Ury as part of the Harvard negotiation project. The book's approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is also sometimes called mutual gains bargaining. The mutual gains approach has been effectively applied in environmental situations (see Lawrence Susskind and Adil Najam) as well as labor relations where the parties (e.g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as "problem solving". It has been suggested that Win-win strategy be merged into this article or section. ... Getting to YES (ISBN 1-84413-146-7) is the reference book dealing about win-win negotiation. ... Negotiation and conflict resolution expert Roger Fisher is the co-author (along with Bill Ury) of the classic book on win-win negotiation called Getting to YES. Fisher, a professor at Harvard Law School, says he started by asking the question What advice could I give to both parties in... Harvard University is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, and a member of the Ivy League. ... Mutual gains bargaining (MGB) is an approach to collective bargaining intended to reach win-win outcomes for the negotiating parties. ... A Boeing employee speaks at an industrial relations rally The field of labor relations looks at the relationship between management and workers, particularly groups of workers represented by a labor union. ... For other uses, see Management (disambiguation). ... A trade union or labor union is an organization of workers. ...

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

Emotion in negotiation

Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process, although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. During negotiations, the decision as to whether or not settle, rests in part on emotional factors. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, while positive emotions facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains. Look up Emotion in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...

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

Positive affect in negotiation

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

Negative affect in negotiation

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

Conditions for emotion effect in negotiation

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

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

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

The effect of the partner’s emotions

Most studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator’s own emotions on the process. However, what the other party feels might be just as important, as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels. When it comes to negotiations, trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect,[2] and visibility enhances the effect.[6] Emotions contribute to negotiation processes by signaling what one feels and thinks and can thus prevent the other party from engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signals to keep in the same way, while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed.[7]
Partner’s emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator’s emotions and behavior: mimetic/ reciprocal or complimentary [3]. For example, disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation.[7] In a study by Butt et al. (2005) which simulated real multi-phase negotiation, most people reacted to the partner’s emotions in reciprocal, rather than complimentary, manner. Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent’s feelings and strategies chosen: A group of people share a range of qualities and characteristics which signifies it from other groups. ... Sadness is a mood that displays feeling of disadvantage and loss. ... Compassion is best described as an understanding of the emotional state of another; not to be confused with empathy. ...

  • Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to conced more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably.[11] It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent.[3].
  • Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner.[3]
  • Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of her by the opponent, however it also led the opponent to place higher demands.[2]. On the other hand, personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved.[7]
  • Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent.[2]

Zero-sum describes a situation in which a participants gain (or loss) is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the other participant(s). ... Pride is the name of an emotion which refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, nation or object that one identifies with. ... “Guilty” redirects here. ... Regret is an intelligent (and/or emotional) dislike for personal past acts and behaviors. ... We dont have an article called Worry Start this article Search for Worry in. ...

Problems with lab negotiation studies

Negotiation is a rather complex interaction. Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task, let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it. For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions, and focus only on some aspects. Although lab studies have their advantages, they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions: For other uses, see Interaction (disambiguation). ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ...

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

See also

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ... Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the arbitrators or arbitral tribunal), by whose decision (the award) they agree to be bound. ... This article does not cite its references or sources. ... In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA is the course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. ... A Collective agreement is a labor contract between an employer and one or more unions. ... The economic theory of collective action is concerned with the provision of public goods (and other collective consumption) through the collaboration of two or more individuals, and the impact of externalities on group behavior. ... Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution process whereby the parties to a dispute (including future interest disputes) agree to utilize the services of a conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. ... Conflict resolution is any reduction in the severity of a conflict. ... In negotiation, consistency, or the consistency principle, refers to a negotiators strong psychological need to be consistent with prior acts and statements. ... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. ... cross-cultural may refer to cross-cultural studies, a comparative tendency in various fields of cultural analysis any of various forms of interactivity between members of disparate cultural groups (see also cross-cultural communication, interculturalism, intercultural relations, hybridity, cosmopolitanism, transculturation) the discourse concerning cultural interactivity, sometimes referred to as cross... Decision making is the cognitive process of selecting a course of action from among multiple alternatives. ... This article is about negotiations. ... It has been suggested that Adjudication be merged into this article or section. ... Expert determination is a historically accepted form of dispute resolution invoked when there isnt a formulated dispute in which the parties have defined positions that need to be subjected to arbitration, but rather both parties are in agreement that there is a need for an evaluation, e. ... Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in the context of economics. ... A group of people share a range of qualities and characteristics which signifies it from other groups. ... Bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach agreement and become deadlocked. ... Leader redirects here. ... For statistical mediation, see Mediation (Statistics). ... In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a kind of solution concept of a game involving two or more players, where no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. ... The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. ... Will the two prisoners cooperate to minimize total loss of liberty or will one of them, trusting the other to cooperate, betray him so as to go free? In game theory, the prisoners dilemma (sometimes abbreviated PD) is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Win-win strategy. ...


  1. ^ a b c d e f Forgas, J. P. (1998) "On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 565–577.
  2. ^ a b c d Van Kleef, G.A., De Dreu, C.KW., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2006) "Supplication and Appeasement in Conflict and Negotiation: The Interpersonal Effects of Disappointment, Worry, Guilt, and Regret". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 124–142
  3. ^ a b c d Butt AN, Choi JN, Jaeger A (2005) "The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics". Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 681 - 704
  4. ^ a b Kramer, R. M., Newton, E. & Pommerenke, P. L. (1993) "Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: Effects of self-esteem and mood". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 110-133.
  5. ^ a b c d Maiese, Michelle "Emotions" Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2005 downloaded: 30.08.2007
  6. ^ a b Carnevale, P. J. D. & Isen, A. M. (1986) "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Barry, B., Fulmer, I. S., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004) I laughed, I cried, I settled: The role of emotion in negotiation. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 71–94). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. ^ a b Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C. P. (1997) "The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 175–187.
  9. ^ Davidson, M. N., & Greenhalgh, L. (1999) "The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race". Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 7, 3–26.
  10. ^ Albarracin D. & Kumkale, G.T. (2003) "Affect as Information in Persuasion: A Model of Affect Identification and Discounting". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3) 453-469.
  11. ^ Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). "The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76.
  12. ^ Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000) "Negotiation". Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279–314.

References and further reading

  • Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1
  • David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
  • Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005.
  • Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
  • Catherine Morris, ed. Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers Trust.
  • Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Belknap Press 1982, ISBN 0-674-04812-1
  • William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, revised second edition, Bantam, January 1, 1993, trade paperback, ISBN 0-553-37131-2; 1st edition under the title, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, September, 1991, hardcover, 161 pages, ISBN 0-553-07274-9
  • William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Revised 2nd edition, Penguin USA, 1991, trade paperback, ISBN 0-14-015735-2; Houghton Mifflin, April, 1992, hardcover, 200 pages, ISBN 0-395-63124-6. The first edition, unrevised, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, hardcover, ISBN 0-395-31757-6
  • Gerard I. Nierenberg, The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains, Barnes and Noble, (1995), hardcover, 195 pages, ISBN 1-56619-816-X
  • The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has advanced a distinction between negotiation and conversation and criticized those methods of conflict-resolution which give too much weight to the former. See his From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-19-829688-6, a work of political philosophy; and his Shall We Dance? A Patriotic Politics for Canada, Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen's University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-7735-2596-3, which applies that philosophy to the Canadian case.
  • Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Prentice Hall 0ct.2000, ISBN 0-13-017964-7
  • Nicolas Iynedjian, Négociation - Guide pratique, CEDIDAC 62, Lausanne 2005, ISBN 2-88197-061-3
  • Michele J. Gelfand and Jeanne M. Brett, ed. ‘’Handbook of negotiation and culture’’, 2004. ISBN 0804745862
  • Emotion and conflict from the ‘’Beyond Intractability’’ Database
  • Andrea Schneider & Christopher Honeyman, eds., The Negotiator's Fieldbook, American Bar Association (2006). ISBN 1590315456[1]

Getting past NO Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation (ISBN 0-553-37131-2 ) is the reference book dealing about Win/Win in difficult negotiation. ... Getting to YES (ISBN 1-84413-146-7) is the reference book dealing about win-win negotiation. ... Charles Blattberg Charles Blattberg (born 1967 in Toronto, Canada) is a professor of political philosophy at the Université de Montréal. ... For the film, see The Conversation. ...


* The 1985 documentary film: 'Final Offer' by Sturla Gunnarsson & Robert Collision shows the 1984 union contract negotiations with General Motors.

  Results from FactBites:
Negotiation Seminars Negotiation Training Negotiations Consultants Negotiating (749 words)
The Negotiation Institute is the longest running negotiation skills seminars and training organization in the world.
The Negotiation Institute, formed in 1966 by Gerard I. Nierenberg, is the pioneer organization devoted to the study of negotiation and related fields.
All the parties must take responsibility for steering the negotiation to a successful conclusion for all: with this insight, he created a new path to successful negotiating.
Warp Nine Engineering - The IEEE 1284 Experts - IEEE 1284 Negotiation (499 words)
Negotiation is a sequence of events on the parallel port interface that would not effect an older "legacy" device but would provide identification of a 1284 peripheral.
The concept is that an older device will not respond to the negotiation sequence and therefore the host would remain in a compatible mode state, while a 1284 peripheral would respond to the sequence and could then be set to any of the peripheral and host supported modes.
The Extensibility byte is used during negotiation to request that the peripheral enter a specific transfer mode, or to request that the peripheral send a device ID that will allow the host to identify the type of attached peripheral.
  More results at FactBites »



Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m