essay on art of negotiation

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The Art of Negotiation, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1765

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

My first time buying a new car was a learning experience. In retrospect, I wish I and my husband had done more homework before proceeding; still, it seems our instinctive understanding of negotiation helped us avoid feeling that the salesman had completely taken advantage of us. In order to better analyze the situation, and to help recall my memories associated with the sale, I decided to do a bit of studying on the art of negotiation.

Interestingly, I discovered that many of the academic resources available on the art and skills involved in negotiation are focused on the intricacies of cross-cultural negotiation. These articles examine the ways in which the negotiation styles of those from the United States often differ from those of other countries, with an emphasis on negotiations between Americans and those from Asian countries such as Japan and China.

The bulk of the articles I studied looked at four basic steps of negotiation: Non-task, Task, Persuasion, and Agreement. The Non-task portion of negotiation involves the basic introductions between parties, the exchange of “small talk,” and the discussion of issues unrelated to the actual negotiation, as the parties get to know each other. The Task portion involves the two sides getting started on the actual negotiation process, where each side presents their needs and wants (though it should be remembered that neither side of a negotiation is likely to “put all their cards on the table” at the outset). The Persuasion portion of the negotiation involves the two sides giving and taking, with each side making some concessions and also making some gains (Gulbro&Herbig, 2009). In a typical sale negotiation, the salesperson is concerned with maximizing profit, while the buyer is concerned with spending as little as possible, and getting as much as possible for the price being paid.

The research involving cross-cultural negotiation noted repeatedly that the negotiation styles between Americans and Chinese or Japanese negotiators often clash. Americans have a tendency to want to make the Non-task portion of the negotiation as brief as possible; the idea there seems to be that many Americans view this portion of negotiation as more of a formality than a necessity. Those from some Asian cultures, on the other hand, view the Non-task portion of the negotiation as perhaps the single most important function of reaching agreements. As many Japanese and Chinese negotiators see it, the building of trustful relationships between the two sides is seen as imperative for any successful negotiation. What some researchers discovered is that before cross-cultural training became commonplace for American salespersons, managers, and negotiators working overseas, the management and negotiation styles of Americans often proved unsuccessful in other countries. American managers were often seen as being disdainful of those whom they managed in other countries, while American salespersons often “gave in” too quickly in negotiations, simply because they grew impatient with the slow pace at which Japanese or Chinese negotiators conducted business (Gulbro&Herbig, 2009).

What I found most interesting about these studies is how easily these differences in negotiation styles could be translated to negotiations between Americans, where one side is selling a product and the other side is buying the product. When my husband and I were shopping for a new car, we were not trained in the art of negotiation, while all of the salespersons with whom we came in contact did have such training. Because of this imbalance, I realize in retrospect that my husband and I were like the Japanese, in the sense that we placed a significantly higher value on the Non-task portion of negotiation than did most of the salespersons we met. The majority of these salespersons seemed to view the Non-task portion as more a formality than a necessity, and time after time the salespersons we met at various dealerships seemed to be merely going through the motions of the Non-task portion, addressing it in what seemed like a more “automatic” way than a truly personal way.

It was this tendency to rush through the Non-task portion of the negotiation that left us displeased with one salesperson –and therefore their entire dealership- time after time. We actually spent several days looking at many different makes and models of cars. There were any number of cars that seemed as if they would fit our needs; we were did not have our hearts set on one particular type of car before we began looking. It seemed that we were instinctively searching for a salesperson whom we could trust and with whom we could build some sort of relationship, however brief, before we would even consider taking any further steps in the buying process.

At each dealership we visited, the typical approach of a salesperson was to see us on the lot, come over and introduce him- or herself, and then try to get us into a test drive on whichever car we happened to be standing closest to as quickly as possible. Almost never did anyone take the time to determine what it is we needed and wanted before settling on a model of car to show us. Each time this happened, we grew more disillusioned, and after the first or second time, we began to simply leave the dealership while the salesperson was dashing inside for the keys to the test-drive car.

After so many disappointing visits to so many dealerships, we suddenly happened upon a salesperson who took an entirely different approach to dealing with us. He was a relatively young man, probably mid-thirties or so, and the first thing I noticed was that he smiled a lot. He seemed to be in a genuinely good mood, and such moods can clearly be contagious. Without speaking, I could sense that my husband was also reacting in a different manner to this salesman than to most of the others; he seemed to quickly let his guard down, and began engaging in a conversation with the salesman.

Rather than immediately insist on shoving us into a test-drive car, this salesman –whose name was Richard- invited us inside the dealership. This technique had been used once or twice before in our search, so we were expecting that Richard would immediately begin pressing us for details about our credit history, the price range we were expecting or willing to work within, and so on. Instead, Richard simply began a conversation with us. Unlike most of the other salespersons with whom we had dealt, Richard seemed to be in absolutely no hurry to complete the Non-task portion of the negotiation. It felt as if we were setting the pace of the negotiation, and that allowed us to relax and further let our mutual guards down.

In the course of the conversation, Richard explained that if he was going to sell us a car, he wanted to make absolutely certain that it was the best car for our needs. At no time did he ask anything like “what will it take to get you to buy today?” or any of the other typical clichés one associates with care salesmen. The conversation we had with Richard lasted well over forty-five minutes, as we discussed everything from the size of our family to whether we would be sharing a car to what type of commutes we faced in coming and going to and from work.

Richard eventually did steer us into the Task portion of the negotiation, as he began to discuss the various models of cars he had available, and pointed out not just the “pros,” but also the “cons” of each choice. We were at a Toyota dealership, and Richard saved the Corolla model for last. He began ticking off the “pros” of the model, and conspicuously left out any “cons.” We asked him several questions that were prompted largely by the “cons” he had mentioned when speaking about the other models. For each question, Richard had a ready answer, one that sounded logical and reasonable.

We finally agreed to take a test drive in a Corolla, and we admittedly fell in love with it immediately. Again, in hindsight, it is easy to see that Richard had us emotionally primed to love the car, and that buying something on the spur of the moment is largely an emotional decision. By the time we returned to the dealership, there was no question that we wanted to buy the car. We had now passed through the Persuasion portion of the negotiation, and we were moving on to the Agreement portion.

At this point, Richard’s approach shifted gears (pardon the pun). He became less conversational and more direct. Despite this change, we remained comfortable with him, as he had already spent the time on the Non-task portion of the negotiation building a trusting relationship with us. We actually did very little negotiating on the price. Richard showed us the sticker price, explained that Toyota was offering a thousand-dollar rebate, and then waived the “dealer fees” (whatever those actually are, they amounted to several hundred dollars). There was something he said during this part of the negotiation that stuck with me; he told us that no matter what price we paid for the car, when we left the dealership, we would definitely see the same car available for both higher and lower prices elsewhere, if we looked hard enough. He then asserted that what was most important was that we loved the car, and that we were comfortable with the asking price.

In most car-buying situations, it is the Task-Persuasion-Agreement parts that often take the most time. Haggling and bickering over price seem to be a commonality in such negotiations. By spending so much time on the Non-task portion of the negotiation, and building a trusting relationship with us, Richard effectively turned that paradigm on its head. By the time we reached the point of actually settling on a price, we trusted Richard when he said he was simply going to save us all time and aggravation by offering us the best price he could right away. We accepted that price immediately, and it was less than an hour later that we were driving out in our new car. Again, in hindsight, I suspect that had we done more homework on that specific model, we may have saved a bit of money, but the truth is that we really did –and still do- love the car. And it was no real surprise to us, as we were leaving the dealership, to see a plaque on the wall proclaiming that Richard was the dealership’s “Sales Associate of the Year.”

Bibliography

Gulbro, R., Herbig, P., (2009) “Cultural differences in international negotiating,” International Journal of Value-Based Management. Vol. 11, N 3.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Induction of Labor in Preeclamptic Women, Research Paper Example

Prediction of Heart Failure in Respects to Death, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process Essay

Introduction.

Negotiation is a complex process that includes various stages with different emotions. To mitigate the influences of irrationalities during this process, the author recommends preparing extensively before (Brooks, 2015). It includes investigating the direct and indirect interests of other parties, conceptualizing external context, and preparing personal expectations from the negotiations. In this essay, the emphasis will be put on emotional preparation to argue that the buildup, main event, and finale require a different set of emotions.

The start of the negotiation process is often related to feelings of anxiety and uncertainty. Although such emotions are highly likely to be expected, the author notes that proper preparation can change the outlook and make expectations from the negotiations more positive (Brooks, 2015). At the “main event” stage, aggression against the opponent’s stubbornness becomes a frequent reaction. The author gives an example of his seminars during which the students argued aggressively with each other, and it acted like a time bomb (Brooks, 2015). The best alternative, which the author did not mention, would be to prepare a printed version of the contradictions, which can be mailed in advance. Finally, it is important to hide or show certain emotions at the end of negotiations (Brooks, 2015). For example, a successful deal and great joy from the deal can provoke a new conflict due to the disappointment of the other side. At the same time, it is worth paying attention to the emotions of the other side to understand the reaction of the negotiator.

To conclude, it is impossible to describe all the important elements of the negotiation process in an essay. There is a myriad of important aspects that may positively or negatively influence the negotiation process. In addition, it is almost impossible to build a standardized model of negotiations that will suit all industries and types of agreements. Thus, it requires many years of learning and practice to derive personal practices and habits of finding compromises with negotiators.

Brooks, A. W., (2015). Emotion and the art of negotiation: How to use your feelings to your advantage . Harvard Business Review, 93 (12), 1-10. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 29). Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-of-negotiation-as-a-complex-process/

"Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process." IvyPanda , 29 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/art-of-negotiation-as-a-complex-process/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process'. 29 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process." January 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-of-negotiation-as-a-complex-process/.

1. IvyPanda . "Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process." January 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-of-negotiation-as-a-complex-process/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Art of Negotiation as a Complex Process." January 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-of-negotiation-as-a-complex-process/.

• Managers Exploiting Investor's Irrationalities
• Fences: On Stubbornness and Baseball
• Analyzing the Form of the Ninth Symphony’s Finale
• Conceptualizing Sovereignty Transformations
• Strategic Plan: Conceptualizing a Business
• Business Conceptualizing: Starlight's Games on Wheels
• Critical Thinking and Actively and Skillfully Conceptualizing
• Conceptualizing the Construct of Interpersonal Conflict by Jon Hartwick and Henri Barki
• World Vision Australia in Residents' Perception
• Streamlining Human Behavior and Perception
• The Mineral Rights Conversation Reflection
• Miscommunication: Word and Verbal Barriers
• Communication in the "Emily in Paris" Netflix Series
• Challenging Conversations for Relationship Elaboration
• Non-Verbal Cues in Close Relationships

A Guide to Mastering the Art of Negotiation

When gladiators stepped into the Colosseum, their survival hinged not just on their ability to fight, but also on their ability to play the crowd. This power play on display wasn’t just about brute strength—it was a negotiation, a dialogue between the gladiator, his opponent, and the throng of spectators. Today, negotiation remains a crucial element in our everyday interactions, from personal relationships to high-stakes business deals. This strategic maneuvering can influence the tide of our lives—directing where we work, how much we earn, who we build relationships with, and even what we perceive as our self-worth.

In a broader sense, negotiation is an art, practiced every time we seek to harmonize contrasting interests. This art can take center stage in various contexts such as workplace conflicts, real estate deals, salary discussions, geopolitical negotiations, or even family decisions. This article aims to unlock the secrets of this art, guiding you through its fundamental principles, styles, and strategies, psychological elements, ethical considerations, its application in different scenarios, and a handful of useful tips to improve your negotiation skills.

Key Takeaways:

• Negotiation is a skill that requires understanding of foundational principles and strategic application.
• Effective negotiation incorporates a mix of competitive and cooperative styles, and harnesses emotional intelligence.
• Robust communication skills play a significant role in successful negotiations.
• Ethical considerations are crucial to maintaining trust and respect in any negotiation process.
• Continuous practice and learning are key to enhancing your negotiation abilities.

Table of Contents

Principles of Negotiation

Negotiation styles and strategies, psychological aspects in negotiation, communication skills for effective negotiation, ethics in negotiation, negotiation in different scenarios, tips and tricks for improving your negotiation skills, conclusion: the lifelong journey of mastering negotiation.

The principles of negotiation provide a guiding compass navigating the complex waters of human interaction. These principles form the underlying structure for effective negotiation, regardless of the scale or context.

The first cardinal principle is understanding the negotiation process itself. Negotiation isn’t merely a battle to win; it’s a mutual decision-making process where parties with different interests collaborate to reach an agreement. It’s crucial to step into a negotiation viewing it as a problem-solving exercise rather than a zero-sum game.

Next is preparation and research, the backbone of any successful negotiation. Knowing your position, the other party’s needs, and the broader context of the negotiation helps formulate an effective strategy. It includes determining your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), which guides your decisions during the negotiation and empowers you to walk away if necessary.

The third principle revolves around the concept of value: creating and claiming. Creating value entails expanding the pie, looking for areas of common ground, or shared interests where collaborative effort can result in a better outcome for all. It’s about transforming the negotiation from a distributive (win-lose) scenario to an integrative (win-win) one. Claiming value, on the other hand, is about advocating for your share of that pie, aligning with your interests and goals.

Lastly, an often-underestimated principle is the importance of relationship-building. Negotiation isn’t solely about the deal at hand; it’s about forging sustainable relationships. Balancing assertiveness with empathy, adopting an open mindset, and treating the other party with respect can foster an atmosphere of trust, conducive to beneficial agreements.

In essence, the art of negotiation orbits around these guiding principles, merging knowledge, strategy, and interpersonal skills into a potent tool that, when mastered, can lead to game-changing results.

Negotiation Styles: Competitive vs Cooperative

Negotiation styles often gravitate towards two poles – Competitive and Cooperative. The Competitive style, also known as distributive negotiation , operates under a win-lose paradigm. Negotiators with a competitive style are typically assertive and goal-oriented, seeking to maximize their gains. They often view the negotiation process as a battleground, where victory is the only acceptable outcome.

Conversely, the Cooperative style, synonymous with integrative negotiation , emphasizes collaboration and the creation of value that benefits all parties. Cooperatively inclined negotiators see negotiations as opportunities for problem-solving. Their goal is to achieve win-win outcomes where everyone walks away satisfied. They understand that focusing on relationships and long-term gains often yields more significant benefits than short-term victories.

The Spectrum of Negotiation Outcomes

Negotiation outcomes exist on a spectrum: Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose. In a Win-Win scenario, both parties leave the negotiation feeling satisfied with the outcome. It is usually the result of cooperative negotiation, where interests are aligned, and mutual value is created.

A Win-Lose outcome, typically resulting from competitive negotiation, sees one party achieving their goals at the expense of the other. While this may offer immediate gains, it can damage relationships and future negotiation prospects.

The Lose-Lose scenario is the least desirable outcome where neither party achieves their goals. This situation often arises from overly competitive negotiation or poor communication, resulting in stalemates or subpar agreements.

The Role of Compromise in Negotiation

Compromise plays a pivotal role in negotiation strategies. It can act as the bridge between competitive and cooperative styles, providing a pathway to agreement when positions are at odds. Compromise involves both parties making concessions and finding a middle ground. While it may not provide the ideal outcome for either party, it often leads to acceptable results that maintain relationships and enable progress.

In conclusion, negotiation styles and strategies are dynamic and should be adaptable to different situations. It’s not about choosing between being competitive or cooperative, but about understanding when to employ which style and to what degree. Striking a balance between these strategies, with a judicious dose of compromise, can create a blend that maximizes outcomes and relationships in the long run.

Understanding Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

The psychological dimensions of negotiation extend beyond the conscious strategies and tactics we employ. Cognitive biases are systematic errors in our thinking and decision-making processes, often unconsciously affecting our negotiation outcomes. Two prominent biases are ‘anchoring’, where the first piece of information presented sets the tone for the rest of the negotiation, and ‘confirmation bias’, where we favor information that confirms our existing beliefs and downplay information that contradicts them. Awareness of these biases can help us steer negotiations more effectively.

Emotional Intelligence: A Key Facet

Equally significant in the psychological landscape of negotiation is Emotional Intelligence (EI) . EI refers to our ability to identify, comprehend, and manage our emotions and those of others. A negotiator with high EI can “read the room”, understanding the emotional currents and responding appropriately. They can empathize with their counterpart, validate their feelings, and use this understanding to steer the negotiation towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

Navigating Stress and Pressure

Negotiations can often be high-stakes, inducing stress and pressure. How we manage these emotions can significantly impact the negotiation process and outcomes. Techniques like mindful breathing, taking brief timeouts, or visualizing successful outcomes can help negotiators maintain composure and stay focused on their negotiation goals.

In sum, the psychological aspects of negotiation – from understanding cognitive biases and harnessing emotional intelligence to managing stress – play a vital role in influencing negotiation outcomes. By acknowledging and developing these facets, one can significantly enhance their negotiation skills.

The Power of Active Listening

Active listening serves as the cornerstone for effective negotiation communication. It involves not just hearing, but understanding and interpreting the spoken words, unvoiced thoughts, and underlying interests of the other party. An active listener asks clarifying questions, offers feedback, and refrains from interrupting. This active engagement helps in building rapport, revealing hidden opportunities, and fostering an atmosphere of respect and openness.

Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication Techniques

Verbal communication goes beyond just words. It encompasses tone, pace, clarity, and the ability to articulate thoughts effectively. An effective negotiator uses clear, concise, and positive language, opting for open-ended questions to encourage dialogue. They avoid inflammatory language that can escalate conflict, and instead use persuasive techniques to convey their points.

Non-verbal communication, on the other hand, speaks through body language, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. These cues can often communicate more than words, revealing true intentions, feelings, and reactions. Paying attention to these signals and being aware of one’s own can greatly influence the course of the negotiation.

Embracing Assertiveness

Assertiveness is another critical communication skill in negotiation. It is the ability to express one’s needs, wants, ideas, and feelings in a confident, respectful manner. An assertive negotiator can firmly advocate for their interests without infringing upon the rights and interests of others. This balanced stance helps in establishing credibility, deterring manipulation, and promoting win-win outcomes.

In the grand scheme of negotiation, effective communication fuels the process. It is through these skills – active listening, adept use of verbal and non-verbal cues, and assertive expression – that negotiators can truly unlock the potential of strategic dialogues, turning words into powerful tools that pave the way for successful outcomes.

The Crucial Role of Honesty and Integrity

In negotiation, honesty and integrity are not just admirable virtues, but essential components. These ethical qualities can build trust and respect, essential elements for fostering a positive negotiating environment. Truthful and fair negotiators demonstrate consistency between their words and actions, enhancing their credibility and reliability in the eyes of the counterpart.

Navigating the Bluffing Dilemma

Negotiations often grapple with the dilemma of bluffing. While some view it as a legitimate strategy, others consider it ethically ambiguous. Although bluffing can sometimes lead to short-term advantages, it could undermine trust and damage relationships in the long run. Hence, it’s critical for negotiators to navigate this gray area prudently, weighing potential gains against the potential fallout.

Legal Implications

Ethical conduct in negotiations also serves to minimize potential legal implications. Misrepresentation, breach of contract, or unfair practices can lead to legal consequences, damaging reputations and relationships. Upholding ethical standards thus safeguards against such undesirable outcomes.

In conclusion, ethics in negotiation cannot be an afterthought. Emphasizing ethical conduct is vital for sustainable and mutually beneficial agreements, shaping negotiation not just as a quest for gain, but also as an exercise in shared values and respect.

Business and Sales Negotiation

In the realm of business and sales , negotiation takes center stage in fostering deals , partnerships, and resolving conflicts. Whether it’s a high-stakes merger or a sales negotiation, each party seeks to maximize benefits and minimize costs. Effective negotiators leverage preparation, strategy, and relationship-building to achieve favorable terms, while maintaining a collaborative spirit. They understand that preserving long-term business relationships often outweighs short-term victories. Transparency, professionalism, and ethical conduct also play crucial roles in maintaining a positive business reputation.

Personal Relationship Negotiation

Negotiation isn’t limited to the boardroom; it’s an integral part of personal relationships as well. Whether it’s deciding on a family vacation destination or managing shared household tasks, negotiation skills come into play. Here, the stakes are often emotional rather than material. The focus shifts from ‘winning’ to balancing empathy, respect, and fairness, ensuring each party’s needs and concerns are addressed. Open communication, active listening, and a willingness to compromise are key for successful negotiation within personal relationships.

International Diplomacy Negotiation

The landscape of international diplomacy represents high-stake negotiations concerning nations or international organizations. Here, negotiations may shape peace treaties, trade agreements, climate deals, or other international policies. These negotiations require a profound understanding of geopolitical contexts, cultural sensitivities, and strategic interests. The stakes are immense, often involving economic impacts, peace and security, or global environmental health. Diplomats must balance their nation’s interests while working towards global harmony and cooperation. They must also navigate power dynamics, manage conflicts, and build consensus among diverse stakeholders.

Negotiation in Conflict Resolution

Negotiation also plays a critical role in conflict resolution, be it at a personal, corporate, or international level. In conflicts, emotions run high, positions harden, and mutual understanding dwindles. Skilled negotiators can help bridge this divide, facilitating dialogue, identifying common grounds, and leading parties towards resolution. They employ empathy, patience, and neutrality to defuse tension, redirecting focus from adversarial stances to collaborative problem-solving.

In conclusion, negotiation’s beauty lies in its universality. Its principles apply across diverse scenarios – from business deals to personal relationships, international diplomacy to conflict resolution. The contexts might differ, the stakes vary, but the essence remains the same – negotiation is an art of finding shared value amid differences. The context dictates the nuances – the strategies, the tone, the approach. Yet, at its heart, successful negotiation hinges on understanding, respect, and collaboration, transcending the boundaries of context.

Practicing Negotiation

Like any other skill, negotiation too improves with practice. Role-playing exercises can be particularly effective, providing a safe environment to experiment with various strategies, observe outcomes, and gain valuable feedback. By simulating different scenarios, you can experience a range of situations, honing your skills and building confidence.

Focus on Interests, Not Positions

A common pitfall in negotiations is becoming too fixated on specific positions, rather than underlying interests. Understanding the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ can reveal opportunities for creative problem-solving, paving the way for win-win outcomes. Always strive to dig deeper to unearth shared interests and mutual gains.

Emotional Intelligence

Keeping emotions in check is essential during negotiations. Reacting impulsively to provocations can derail discussions and damage relationships. Cultivating emotional intelligence can help you manage your emotions, empathize with the other party, and make calm, rational decisions.

Preparation and Research

Entering a negotiation unprepared is like setting sail in uncharted waters. Investing time in thorough research arms you with valuable insights, builds confidence, and sets you up for success. Understand your counterpart’s needs, interests, and potential alternatives to effectively strategize your approach.

Ethical Conduct

Maintaining ethical conduct throughout negotiations is paramount. While it might be tempting to cut corners for immediate gains, remember that honesty, integrity, and fairness go a long way in building lasting relationships and mutual respect.

Continuous Learning

Negotiation is a lifelong journey of learning and improvement. Stay open to feedback, learn from each experience, and continually refine your skills. The world of negotiation is dynamic, and the most successful negotiators are those who adapt and grow with it.

In essence, improving negotiation skills involves a combination of practice, emotional intelligence, research, ethical conduct, and continuous learning. The journey might be challenging, but the rewards are worth it, translating into more successful outcomes and better relationships.

Mastering the art of negotiation is an enriching and continuous process, replete with learning, adaptation, and growth. Each component discussed – the foundational principles, varied styles and strategies, essential communication skills, inherent ethics, and practical applications in different scenarios – all intricately weave into the vast tapestry of negotiation. It’s in the careful application of these components that the most impactful negotiators find success.

Whether you’re in a business setting negotiating a major deal, or resolving a dispute in personal relationships, these skills hold relevance and deliver value. The cognitive biases and emotional aspects discussed reveal how our internal worlds influence the external outcomes. The ethical dimension underscores the significance of fairness and honesty, reminding us that the means to the end are just as important as the outcome itself.

The tips for skill improvement offer a practical roadmap for your negotiation journey. But remember, every negotiation situation is unique – offering a fresh challenge and a new opportunity to learn. The journey to mastering negotiation is lifelong, demanding dedication and a learner’s mindset. However, the benefits reaped – successful agreements, enhanced relationships, personal growth – make this journey incredibly worthwhile. The game of negotiation awaits your mastery – seize it.

Frequently Asked Questions: Negotiation

• Understanding the art of negotiation is vital as it facilitates decision-making, conflict resolution, and fosters relationships in various facets of life—be it personal, professional, or political. Proficiency in negotiation can lead to better agreements, enhanced cooperation, and mutual satisfaction among parties involved.
• Successful negotiation strategies include thorough preparation and research, understanding the interests and alternatives of all parties involved, creating and claiming value, maintaining a balance between competitive and cooperative negotiation styles, employing active listening, and leveraging emotional intelligence. Ethical conduct and effective stress management also contribute to successful negotiation outcomes.
• Emotional intelligence plays a significant role in negotiation as it allows negotiators to recognize, understand, and manage their own and others’ emotions. This ability can help in building rapport, managing conflicts, and guiding the negotiation towards a favorable outcome. Emotional intelligence can enable negotiators to navigate emotional hurdles, empathize with the other party, and make informed, unbiased decisions.
• Developing communication skills for better negotiation involves enhancing active listening abilities, honing verbal and non-verbal communication techniques, and cultivating assertiveness. Active listening involves understanding the underlying needs and concerns of the other party. Effective verbal and non-verbal communication techniques involve maintaining an appropriate tone of voice, choice of words, body language, and facial expressions. Assertiveness helps in expressing oneself confidently and respectfully.
• Ethics plays a crucial role in the negotiation process. Upholding honesty and integrity builds trust and respect, fostering a positive negotiating environment. Ethical conduct also minimizes potential legal implications. Unethical behavior, on the other hand, can damage relationships and reputation, and may lead to legal issues.
• In business, negotiation often revolves around contracts, agreements, and deals, aiming to maximize benefits and minimize costs. In personal relationships, negotiation involves resolving disagreements, making joint decisions, and balancing empathy, respect, and fairness. In international diplomacy, negotiation involves high-stake decisions concerning countries or international organizations, such as peace treaties, trade agreements, and climate deals.
• One of the successful negotiations in history includes the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations in 1962, where diplomatic negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union led to the dismantling of Soviet ballistic missile deployments in Cuba, preventing a potential nuclear war. Another example is the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, where negotiation ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland.
• Some practical tips include practicing negotiation through role-plays, focusing on interests rather than positions, keeping emotions in check during negotiations, being prepared with thorough research, and maintaining an ethical conduct. A continuous learning attitude and the willingness to adapt to changing scenarios can also significantly enhance negotiation skills.

Andrew Martin

Andrew is the Chief Executive Officer for Teamgate CRM. With 10+ years of experience as a Military leader, he specialises in leadership and management and is a lover of all things sport.

A Sales CRM that keeps you well organised.

Free 14-day trial

SUBSCRIBE TO TEAMGATE BLOG

be the first one to get the newest industry updates

• Blog subscribers
• Terms of service
• Privacy policy
• Security measures
• Sales Dashboard
• Lead Management
• Contact Management
• Sales Pipeline Management
• Time Management
• SmartDialer
• Analytics & Reports
• Sales Velocity
• Whitepaper: Sales process flowchart
• Whitepaper: Practical sales tips
• Whitepaper: Choosing A CRM
• Whitepaper: Sales Dev Playbook
• Support Center
• Feature Request
• Referral Program
• Sales Inquiries
• Request a demo
• Book Support Session
• Support Inquiries
• Marketing Inquiries
• General Inquiries
• Invoice Inquiries

Mobile applications

• CRM app for Android and iOS

Safe payments

• Mobile Apps
• Lead Capturing
• LinkedIn Integration
• Email Integration
• Lead Qualification
• Lead Prioritization
• Sales Acceleration
• Product Catalogue
• Sales Activity
• Pipeline Management
• Sales Leaderboard
• KPIs & Sales Goals
• Help Center
• Case Studies
• Developer API
• Integrations
• +1 725-254-2694
• Start Free Trial

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

Class Takeaways — The Art of Negotiation

Five lessons in five minutes: Professor Michele Gelfand shares what it takes to make a win-win deal.

December 04, 2023

From the conference room to the kitchen and everywhere in between, there are countless situations where our wants and needs butt up against other people’s. Yet instead of viewing negotiations as a competition where we must fight to get our way, we can adopt strategies for more collaborative dealmaking where everybody wins.

In her course, Negotiations , Professor Michele Gelfand teaches the principles of successful negotiations. In this short video, she shares some tools you can use the next time you approach a negotiation.

Full Transcript

Michele Gelfand: Hi, I am Michele Gelfand. I’m a professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. One of my favorite classes to teach at the GSB is negotiation. Even though negotiations are pervasive, research shows that we often leave value at the table. I have five key takeaways from my class on negotiation to share with you today.

Preparation is a vital part of the negotiation process, yet many people fail to properly analyze their own and other’s perspectives prior to discussions. I recommend that you create an issue chart and spend time thinking through your own interests and goals, your priorities, your alternatives, and your strengths and your weaknesses, and then do the same for your partner.

The more complete the information you have about yourself and your partner, the more control you’ll have over your actions, reactions during the process, and the better able you’ll be to craft great agreements. If you don’t prepare, you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage and like you’ll leave value at the table. As you negotiate, ask questions to try to fill in gaps in the information you have and test the assumptions that you made.

Metaphors are a basic mechanism through which humans conceptualize experience, including negotiations. Metaphors are more than linguistic devices, they can help or hinder negotiations. Yet we’re often completely unaware of the metaphors guiding us at the negotiation table. Is this an individual or a team sport, a battle, a dance, a date, a puzzle, a visit to the dentist or a necessary evil. Metaphors guide our goals or behavioral scripts and the criteria we use to evaluate the success of the negotiation, but a lot of time our metaphors are not well-matched to the situation.

A relationship metaphor, for example, is not well-matched to a distributive single issue task. On the other hand, a game or battle metaphor is not well-matched to an integrative negotiation. Think more clearly about your metaphors and you’ll be a better negotiator. The best negotiators also cultivate a shared, constructive metaphor to guide the process, a problem-solving metaphor like solving a puzzle or playing on the same team. In other words, negotiate the negotiation. Generate a shared metaphor to guide the process and it will be more productive.

Research has shown that negotiators often assume that their interests are diametrically opposed to their counterparts. Although some issues might be win-lose, many negotiations have an integrative structure wherein there could be differences in priorities individuals have on the issues that could be traded off. For example, imagine that my husband and I are trying to plan a vacation. I want to go to the spa at the beach, whereas he wants to go to a cabin in the mountains.

At first glance, it seems like we’re going to go on different vacations, but through further discussion, we discover that my priority is the spa and the location is a lower priority, whereas he prioritizes the mountains and the accommodations are a lower priority. By trading off on low priority issues and going to a spa on the mountains, we each get our priorities. When negotiating, think outside the box. The best negotiators are very creative.

Disputes or rejected claims are inevitable, but there is a way to manage them effectively. Research finds that people tend to reciprocate negative behaviors like threats to a much greater extent than positive strategies, causing conflicts to escalate rapidly. In an unproductive negotiation, people use a lot of threats and appeals to their rights and don’t focus as much on their underlying interests. In an effective system, people focus a lot on interests and use very few appeals to power and rights. Always aim at getting back to your interests, even in the face of threats and power strategies from others. If others are using rights and power strategies, a mixed communication strategy that combines a threat with a cooperative communication and appeal to interests will help you better manage disputes.

In today’s global interdependent world, we are bound to be negotiating across cultural boundaries, but people often assume that what works in their own culture works everywhere. They mistakenly think that it’s technical competence and general intelligence that are needed to be an effective negotiator, but in a global negotiation, it’s cultural intelligence that’s key to mastering the deal. Cultural differences, if not properly managed, can derail merges and acquisitions, expatriate assignments and damage our global capital. High CQ is also critical for managing global teams, being an effective global leader and managing complex cross-cultural networks.

Beyond IQ or even EQ, research shows that if you cultivate cultural intelligence, the desire and ability to interact across cultures, you’ll be in a much better position to develop high-quality agreements anywhere around the world. Ciao.

My kids think that it’s fun to make fun of me, that I like to create win-win agreements all the time. “Really, mom, do we have to always create win-win agreements and can’t we just split the difference?” They have a point. Sometimes we don’t have enough time or things are not important to you, you don’t need to create a win-win agreement. You can just split the difference, but they do make fun of me being a little bit obsessed with win-win agreements.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

When words aren’t enough: how to excel at nonverbal communication, navigating the nuance: the art of disagreeing without conflict, seen & heard: how to make your audience feel understood, editor’s picks.

November 22, 2022 Quick Thinks: Talk It Out – How to Successfully Negotiate and Resolve Conflict Professor Michele Gelfand shares communication strategies for getting more of what you want.

October 10, 2023 Office Artifact: Michele Gelfand’s Pickle Costume When you’re doing serious research, making time for fun is a pretty big dill.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

UF Law Scholarship Repository

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Scholarship > UF Law Faculty Publications > 670

UF Law Faculty Publications

Beginning with yes: a review essay on michael wheeler's the art of negotiation: how to improvise agreement in a chaotic world.

Leonard L. Riskin , University of Florida Levin College of Law Follow

Document Type

Book Review

Publication Date

Winter 2015

OCLC FAST subject heading

Dispute resolution (law).

Michael Wheeler's The Art of Negotiation: How to Improvise Agreement in a Chaotic World stands on the shoulders of a number of previous books on negotiation by Wheeler's colleagues in the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (PON), and others, but not because it needs their support. Instead, The Art of Negotiation illuminates the principal models in such books, by showing why, when, and how to improvise in relation to them. Some standard models of negotiation seem static, Wheeler tells us, whereas negotiation mastery requires dealing with the ‘inherent uncertainty‘ of almost any negotiation, and that calls for improvisation, which often means taking leave, at least briefly, from a particular model of negotiation, combining elements of more than one model, or reconsidering your objectives or your plan for reaching them. He makes a compelling case and provides engaging and edifying examples, along with guidelines not only from negotiation but also from social science, improvisational jazz, and military training. The Art of Negotiation is crystal clear and suffused with insight, grace, and humor. It makes a grand contribution to the negotiation literature. I expect and hope that it will influence negotiation teaching, training and scholarship.

This Review Essay describes the book, introduces a new system for understanding models of negotiation, and uses it to explain and expand upon some of the ideas in The Art of Negotiation . Then it suggests a different title for Wheeler's book, and describes recent efforts to connect improv with negotiation and mediation training and practice. I mean to honor Wheeler's important work by extending it.

Recommended Citation

Leonard L. Riskin, Beginning With Yes: A Review Essay on Michael Wheeler's The Art Of Negotiation: How To Improvise Agreement In A Chaotic World , 16 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 605 (2015), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/670

Since May 28, 2015

Included in

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Repository Home
• Faculty Profiles

University of Florida

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• My Krauthammer

• Our consultants
• Our expertise
• Client cases

Master the art of negotiation: the approach, tactics, and techniques you need to reach a win-win deal

Imagine you are a senior manager at a health care supply company and the contract for one of your key manufacturers is up for renewal. Moving forward, it’s critical that you secure better terms for your company, especially around process innovation and lead times.

Now, you’ve done your research. You know your walkaway point and have an idea of your manufacturer’s best alternative options. It’s clear that your business is valuable to them, but they also hold critical patents that would make switching to another manufacturer a time-consuming and unfavorable option, a fact of which they are well aware. 

So, how do you proceed? 

Do you lead with your terms and hope they respond generously? Do you play hard and bluff about some of the cards in your deck? Do you start with an informal conversation and then segue that into a discussion about long-term vision?

What is the most effective approach to ensure you secure a win for your company?

At Krauthammer, we believe that the art of negotiation centers around three key phases:

• Preparing scenarios
• Mastering tactics
• Conquering complexity

Whether you are brokering a large deal like in the example above or asking for a yearly pay raise, understanding these phases will help you strengthen your negotiation skills. Read on as we walk you through each phase, and share tactics and techniques that will help you approach any negotiation with confidence. 

Preparing scenarios: how to set your negotiation up for success

From our perspective, the objective of negotiation is to achieve three goals:

• Reach an agreement.
• The agreement should be win-win.
• If all else fails, protect the relationship.

Let’s start by defining what we mean by win-win.

The importance of a win-win negotiation style and preserving the relationship

A win-win negotiation involves working to get the best deal possible for yourself while also working to ensure that your counterpart is satisfied. When both sides are happy with the outcome, a long-lasting and successful business partnership is more likely to emerge.

There are several myths that exist around win-win agreements. Let’s dispel a few now: 

• Being “fair” means splitting resources right down the middle.  

This is not true. Win-win situations may be about benefits that are hard to measure, but which bring great value.

• When one party makes a concession, the other should automatically make one. 

Again, this is not true. Negotiating on a “win-win” basis means taking into consideration the needs of the other party. A concession of small or no value to the other party offers no need for reciprocation.

• Conflict and tensions should be avoided at all cost. 

On the contrary, defusing emotionally charged situations can prove to be a crucial step towards a satisfying end. Solving conflict in a negotiation involves going from the emotional to the rational, clarifying the stakes, and recreating conditions that favor mutual satisfaction.

The third goal of negotiation – protecting the relationship – is also crucial to note. Preserving a strong relationship between counterparts while still reaching your goals is vital, because burning a bridge rarely serves the long-term goals of either side. 

This means separating the negotiation from the person with whom you are negotiating. While a negotiation can feel personal, it’s not about the personal opinions of the individual- rather, about the professional goals of each side. Understanding those goals, pain points, and desires of your counterpart is the first step to finding common ground. 

Before a negotiation begins, you should work to understand what criteria the other party needs for a successful solution. Explore their industry history and business vocabulary. Get to know how they operate.

Approach your background research with the right questions 

As you dive into your research, it’s important to ask questions that both paint a big-picture view of your counterpart’s vision and uncover the underlying motivations driving their actions.

In the scenario described above with the health care company, the sales manager might ask: 

What is preventing the manufacturer from investing in new technologies or processes? What are the long-term goals of their company? What trends on the horizon might be exciting or worrisome for them? 

Answers to these questions can be discovered through a SWOT analysis of the business landscape, discussions with competitors, and chats with trusted business partners.

The sales manager could also indeed propose an informal check-in before the negotiation. In the meeting, the sales manager should then begin by asking open questions, and listen closely to get to the intangibles behind what they’re saying on the surface.

For example, if the manufacturer says their goal is to open a new plant in five years, that’s great to know. But what’s even more important to understand is what’s driving that growth.

How do they envision the future ownership of their company? Which product ranges are they looking to encourage or expand with? Uncover their why .

When you understand the why behind your counterpart’s position, you can begin to identify where that intersects with your company’s interests. This will be key to determining your negotiation approach.

Before any conversations begin, it’s also critical for you to ask yourself some hard questions:

• What are you willing to sacrifice in the negotiation? And what do you need to remain firm on?
• What is your best alternative to a negotiated agreement? These are the options available to you in case you absolutely cannot reach an agreement.

What are the acceptable possible outcomes? Discuss with your team which different possible outcomes are suitable for your side.

Lay the groundwork: build trust and understand cultural differences

Another key element of preparing for a negotiation that often goes overlooked is the importance of building trust – long before any negotiation begins. If you are preparing to negotiate with a long-term business relationship, this may look like maintaining the relationship through occasional coffee check-ins, but if the other party is a relatively new contact, you may want to use your network to open doors for you , and then work on building rapport. 

If your counterpart comes from a different cultural background than yours, you’ll also want to spend some time researching their cultural customs to avoid any potential pitfalls and ensure you are communicating to your advantage.

Let’s take a closer look at these points:

Use your network

Seek out referrals and recommendations. If you’re recommended by a friend or colleague to a potential counterpart, he or she will probably treat you better than they would if you didn’t share a common bond. If possible, choose the people you’d like to negotiate with. 

Building rapport

Once you have a connection, building rapport takes more than simply exchanging a few friendly emails before meeting in person. Meet for an informal lunch or two. Research suggests that when you’re dealing with a particularly competitive negotiator, it might be a good idea to share some appetizers or visit a restaurant where it’s common to share dishes.

Understanding cultural differences

In the relationship building phase, note any cultural differences that could impede discussions. Cultural norms and attitudes can make or break a negotiation. For instance, if your counterpart is German, they may consider emotional expressiveness unprofessional. On the other hand, if they are Mexican, that same expressiveness may be taken as a sign of honesty which could help build trust.

Erin Meyer, professor and program director for Managing Global Virtual Teams at INSEAD shares five tips for reducing potential cultural miscommunications : 

• Figure out how to express disagreement.
• Recognize what emotional expressiveness signifies.
• Learn how the other culture builds trust.
• Avoid yes-or-no questions.
• Beware of putting the deal in writing.

Now, if you’re thinking that this seems like a lot to do before the negotiation begins, you’re not wrong. However, you will thank yourself for this thorough preparation when you reach the bargaining stage of negotiation – the part where each side states what it wants and puts their numbers and terms on the table. 

In the bargaining stage, there are several tactics that will serve you well.

Mastering negotiation tactics

Communication is the basis of any negotiation – and this is where all of your research will come in handy. By understanding your counterpart and their communication style, you can adapt yours accordingly and learn to read between the lines in order to increase success. 

During the bargaining phase of negotiation, the first thing to remember is that you can only negotiate with one person at a time. That goes to say: no negotiating with yourself. By holding to the walkaway point and concessions you deemed acceptable before entering the negotiation, you can keep your line of communication clear and focused.

Making the first offer and concessions: what to know 

Once you have sufficiently analyzed and listened to the other party and have a full understanding of their position, you can either wait for them to make an offer or make the opening bid yourself. While it is commonly believed that going first puts you at a disadvantage, there are actually great advantages to going first – one study even found that 85% of outcomes favor the person who goes first.

The reason for this can largely be attributed to a psychological phenomenon known as the anchoring effect. The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias we have as humans to make decisions based on an established reference point. This reference point can distort our perception of what we deem a good deal or not. It’s a bias that many of us are probably familiar with. 

Imagine you have a budget of $50 in mind to buy a watch. You walk into a boutique with watches starting at $150. You recognize that they are way over your budget, but when you check out their sale section and see a nice watch for $85, it suddenly seems like an attractive offer. 

This is where the start high, negotiate down principle comes into play. When making the first bid, start with high yet justified demands. The idea is to not have your back against a wall, leaving yourself room to work with during the negotiation. 

Once the first offer has been made, keep the following points in mind:

Take time to review before accepting concessions 

Every request for a concession should be met with an argument. Not in a combative way, but as a way to reaffirm your position and emphasize the sacrifices it will cost your side. If possible, avoid a concession by zooming out and presenting the other party with multiple alternatives that focus on creating value and “widening the pie,” for both parties.

Example: In the case of our health company and manufacturer scenario described above: if the manufacturer requests longer lead times in order to meet the health company’s innovation demands, rather than giving into that request right away, the health company might suggest shifting some production to another one of the manufacturer’s factories in the region that isn’t working at full capacity.

Avoid making concessions without compensation

If you have to back down on one of the outcomes, make sure to make up for it with higher demands for another outcome – and invite the other party to make a concession before you make yours. 

Example: If the manufacturer insists that longer lead times will still be necessary, the health company could then counter with, “If you give us a 5% discount in price, then we can agree to longer lead times.”

Make concessions in gradual stages 

If you do have to make a concession, do so gradually. Don’t give up all your chips right away.

Example: If the manufacturer is ultimately willing to offer a 10% discount in price, they should get there step by step, starting with 5%, perhaps raising that to 8%, and then finally, if need be, offering 10%.

Check that you are on the right path 

At each stage of the discussion, it’s good to check in to see if both sides feel that they are on the way to a positive conclusion. 

Example: After agreeing to an 8% price discount in exchange for longer lead times, the manufacturer might ask, “Does this compromise bring us closer to an agreement?”

Even though concessions are made, that doesn’t mean you haven’t reached a win-win. The trick is finding concessions that mean little to you but that the other side values highly. Ultimately, achieving a “win-win” situation requires more than sacrificing a short-term bonus for long-term credibility. It means motivating the other person to do the same and signaling your willingness to cooperate through each stage. 

Conquering complexity in negotiations

Of course, on paper, it is easy to understand the principles of successful negotiation, but the challenge comes in applying them in the heat of the moment while dealing with any complexities that may arise.

That’s why we believe practical exercises before a negotiation are essential, as well as keeping tactics in your arsenal that can help you attend to the needs of the moment while anticipating the future. 

Here are a few to keep in mind:

Take time to ask and explore 

If your counterparts are not forthcoming, make multiple offers simultaneously and ask which one they like best and why. Pose the question, “What would happen if…?” If the other side refuses all of your offers, ask which one they liked best. Their preference for a specific offer should give you an indication about where you might find value-creating trades. For example, sometimes negotiators have different time horizons that enable wise trade-offs. 

Take time to explain your needs

If your counterpart seems to be misunderstanding you, take a moment to regroup. Let the other party know what’s important to you – including your values. Highlight how you view negotiations in general and the importance of trust and flexibility for win-win outcomes. Whenever you make a noteworthy concession, tell the other party how much you’re sacrificing and what this sacrifice means to you. What would you normally have done? How do you usually deal with other clients’ requests? Why is this an exception?

Study body language

Good communication is not all about words – one study shows that an amazing 65% of communication is nonverbal . In a negotiation, it’s helpful to develop awareness of the signs and signals of body language . This makes it easier to understand other people and communicate more effectively with them. As body language is mostly subconscious and unintentional, it can help you anticipate what’s going to happen before any word is said and regulate the silent messages you’re sending out. 

Visualize the ideal future 

If you have reached an impasse, a useful tactic is to ask the other party to describe what the end of the negotiation would look like to them. What’s the best case scenario? How do they expect to evolve? This allows you to explore unspoken needs and take a step back from the smaller details that may be distracting from the big picture.

Establish contingent agreements

When negotiating contracts, consider including a contingent agreement. For example, if the manufacturer is not able to meet production deadlines, the health company will receive an additional discount of 5%. Or, if the manufacturer is able to increase efficiencies for the company, they will earn a pre-determined bonus for their commitment and hard work. 

This “what will happen if…?” approach offers a way for parties to agree to disagree while still moving forward. 

As daunting as negotiations can seem at first, if you focus on proper preparation, mastering several key tactics, and anticipating complexity, then securing a win-win outcome is achievable. Start by doing thorough research into the other party’s best alternative outcomes and underlying motivations in addition to defining your best alternative to a negotiated agreement and walk-away point.

Before the negotiation, build a positive relationship with the other party and make sure you understand the nuances of their culture, if it’s different from yours.

Next, master techniques for making concessions and addressing any conflicts or impasses should the conversation not go as planned.

At the end of the day, remember that “fair” is a matter of perspective and a willingness to search for solutions outside of an “us vs. them” mindset leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.

Learn more about optimizing your negotiation skills and get personalized feedback in Krauthammer’s Negotiation Training .

Learn more about how we do so? 

4 tips new managers can use for building a good team culture

Team structure is one of the strongest foundations of any good business. Or at least it used to be....

Making the Shift Successfully from a Product-Focused to a Solution-Based Sales Process: What You Need to Know

Imagine the following scenario. You’ve been struggling to meet your targets while your competitors...

Look past performance data: The importance for sales leaders to assess their team members with a Humanistic Management Approach

Humanistic management is emerging as a vital approach for transforming the new normal into new...

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Negotiation — Principles of Successful Negotiation

Principles of Successful Negotiation

• Categories: Negotiation

About this sample

Words: 1789 |

Published: Jul 17, 2018

Words: 1789 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1215 words

2 pages / 903 words

5 pages / 2379 words

1 pages / 539 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Dobrijevic, G., Stanisic, M., & Masic, B. (2011). Sources of negotiation power: An exploratory study. South African journal of business management, 42(2), 35-41.Lee, S., Adair, W. L., & Seo, S. (2011). Cultural Perspective [...]

In the realm of negotiation studies, the case of Sally Soprano has become a classic example that highlights several key principles and strategies essential for successful negotiation. Sally Soprano, a talented opera singer, is [...]

Baguley, P 2000, Negotiating, McGraw-Hill. Brett, J & Thompson, L 2016, 'Negotiation', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 136, pp. 68-79.Fells, R 1996, 'Preparation for negotiation: Issue and process', [...]

Bartunek, J. M., Benton, A., & Keys, C. B. (1975). Third party intervention and the bargaining behavior of group representatives. J Conflict Resolut, 19, 532–557.Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: [...]

Before defining a good agreement, Fisher and Ury describes their four principles for effective negotiation. They explained that a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient and which improves the parties” relationship. [...]

“The Belt and Road” strategy of the main content strengthening policy communication among countries We should strengthen intergovernmental cooperation, actively build multi-level mechanism of macro government policy [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Negotiation and bargaining.

• Wolfgang Steinel Wolfgang Steinel Leiden University, Department of Psychology
•  and  Fieke Harinck Fieke Harinck Leiden University, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.253
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve.

There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate.

Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation.

Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

• negotiation
• negotiation style
• multiparty negotiations
• motivated information processing

Bargaining and negotiation, the “back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2012 , p. xxv), are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2021 ).

Negotiation and bargaining are common terms for discussions aimed at reaching agreement in interdependent situations, that is, in situations where parties need each other in order to reach their goals. While both terms are often used interchangeably, Lewicki et al. ( 2021 ) distinguish between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation. Distributive refers to situations where a fixed amount of a resource (e.g., money or time) is divided, so that one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. In such win–lose situations, like haggling over the price of a bicycle, bargainers usually take a competitive approach, trying to maximize their outcomes. Integrative refers to situations where the goals and objectives of both parties are not mutually exclusive or connected in a win–lose fashion. In such more complex situations that usually involve several issues (rather than the distribution of only one resource), interdependent parties try to find mutually acceptable solutions and may even search for win–win solutions, that is, they cooperate to create a better deal for both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

The distinction between bargaining and negotiation reflects the research tradition, where bargaining has largely been investigated from an economic perspective, focusing on the dilemma between immediate self-interest and benefit to a larger collective. Negotiation has mostly been investigated from the perspective of social psychology, organizational behavior, management, and communication science and has mainly focused on the effect on, and behavior and cognition of people in richer social situations.

Research Paradigms

Negotiation research has applied various paradigms. Game-theoretic approaches, such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma and related matrix games, in which simultaneous choices together influence two parties’ outcomes, explore how people handle the conflict between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests (see Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013 , for a review). A paradigm to investigate behavior in purely distributive settings is the Ultimatum Bargaining Game (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982 ). It models the end phase of a negotiation: one player offers a division of a certain resource (e.g., €100 split 50–50), and the other player can either accept, in which case the offer is carried out, or reject, in which case both players get nothing. Studies in ultimatum bargaining have consistently shown that even in distributive one-shot interactions, bargainers not only try and maximize their own outcomes, but are also driven by other-regarding preference, can reject unfair offers (Güth & Kocher, 2014 ), are concerned about being and appearing fair (Van Dijk, De Cremer, & Handgraaf, 2004 ), and are affected by their own and a counterpart’s emotions (Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef, 2012 ).

While ultimatum bargaining is a context-free simulation of a distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation has predominantly been studied in richer contexts that simulate real-life decision-making. Research has largely relied on negotiation simulations to identify and analyze participants’ behaviors and measured economic outcomes (Thompson, 1990 ). Field studies on negotiation behavior have been conducted to a much smaller extent (Sharma, Bottom, & Elfenbein, 2013 ).

The remainder of this article will first describe the strategy and planning for negotiations, and the behavior and outcomes of negotiations. It will then cover research on factors that affect behavior and outcome in integrative negotiation, starting with intrapersonal factors, such as cognitions and emotions. Then aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, culture, and group constellations will be covered, before moving on to aspects of the situational context, such as time, communication media, and conflict issues, and concluding with some emerging lines of research.

Negotiation Preparation and Goals

The goal of negotiations.

The goal of negotiations may be deal-making or dispute resolution. Before entering the actual negotiation, well-prepared negotiators define the goals they want to achieve and the key issues they need to address in order to achieve these goals (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Deal-making (e.g., a student selling his bike) involves two or more parties who have some common goals (e.g., transferring ownership of the bike from the seller to the buyer) and some incompatible goals (receiving a high price vs. paying a low price), and try and negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo (the seller keeping the bike) or any alternative agreements with third parties (e.g., selling the bike to someone else or buying a different bike). Negotiation with the aim of dispute resolution (e.g., a student complaining about the noise a flatmate makes) occurs when parties who are dependent on each other (e.g., because they share a flat) realize that they are blocking each other’s goal attainment (preparing for an exam vs. listening to punk rock) and negotiate what can be done to solve the problem.

Preparing for Negotiations

Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets, and limits, and to prepare an opening offer (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Figure 1 shows the key points in the example of a student selling his bike to another student. The target point is the point at which each negotiator aspires to reach a settlement. For example, the seller hopes to sell his bike for €280, and the buyer hopes to buy it for €190. By making opening offers beyond their targets, negotiators create leeway for concessions while pursuing their goal. In the bike example, the seller has prepared an opening offer (e.g., an asking price) of €320, while the buyer planned to start the negotiation by offering to pay €150. Well-prepared negotiators define their limits before entering a negotiation by setting a resistance point, that is, the price below which a settlement is not acceptable (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). If, for example, the seller would accept any price above €200 and the buyer is willing to pay up to €280, it is likely that they settle on a price somewhere in this range. This zone between the two parties’ resistance points is called zone of potential agreements (ZOPA; Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1. Overview of Key Points in Negotiation Preparation (Example).

Well-prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reaching a deal in the upcoming negotiation, in particular of their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA; Fisher et al., 2012 ). As the quality of a negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement, and thus their dependency on their counterpart, attractive BATNAs increase a negotiator’s power.

Deal-making and dispute resolution differ in the way parties are dependent on each other: in deal-making, both parties can have independent alternatives that they can unilaterally decide to turn to instead of reaching a deal (the buyer may find a different seller, and the seller might find another potential buyer). Disputes that occur between parties who share a common fate, like flatmates, parents of a child, co-owners of a company, or different ethnic or religious groups living on the same territory, can only be solved by the parties working together. The alternative to not solving a dispute for both disputants therefore is conflict escalation (e.g., sabotaging the stereo installation), a victory for one (and a grudge for the other) or a stalemate in which neither party is willing to abandon their position. These alternatives usually do not last or they damage the relationship between the parties.

Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes

Negotiation is communication. Parties communicate either directly, or through agents, and exchange offers and counteroffers, usually alongside arguments, questions, proposals, cooperative statements, commitments, threats, and so on. How people behave in negotiations is influenced by their preferred negotiation style. The Dual Concern Model (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ) describes how two types of concerns jointly determine negotiation styles. These two concerns, which can both range in intensity from low (i.e., indifference) to high, are the concern about a party’s own outcome and the concern about the other’s outcome, as displayed in Figure 2 . Importantly, the model does not postulate concern about a party’s own interests (also called concern for self or self-interest) and concern about the other’s outcomes (also called concern for other or cooperativeness) as opposite ends of one scale, but rather as two dimensions that can vary independently.

Figure 2. Dual-Concern Model.

Parties with a low concern for self and for other will probably be avoiding negotiations, leaving the other party without an agreement. Parties with a high concern for self and a low concern for other are likely to use forcing behaviors, while aiming to achieve the own goals by imposing a solution onto the other. Forcing (also called contending), like using threats or other forms of pressure, is detrimental to the relationship with the other party, and can lead parties into a conflict spiral, especially when they are similarly powerful (Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Parties with a low concern for self and a high concern for other are likely to engage in yielding . Yielding (also called accommodating), like making large concessions or accepting the other party’s demands, is often the strategy of parties who feel weaker than their counterpart or have a strong need for harmony. This can lead into a dynamic of exploitation. It is less effective when negotiating important issues, since yielding on important issues will leave the yielding party dissatisfied with the outcome. Parties with an intermediate concern about both parties’ outcomes are likely to use compromising , a “meet-in-the-middle” approach often considered a democratic and fair way of solving conflicts between mutually exclusive goals. Parties who compromise, however, might settle for a simple solution and overlook more creative solutions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ).

The negotiation styles displayed in Figure 2 , on the diagonal from yielding via compromising to forcing, entail distributive behavior. Distributive behavior aims to distribute the value of a deal in a win–lose fashion—one’s losses are the other’s gains. These are the behavior that bargainers engage in during positional bargaining—each side takes a position, argues for it, and might make concessions in order to move toward a compromise (Fisher et al., 2012 ). The negotiation style problem-solving, which is located beyond this distributive diagonal, aims at reaching win–win agreements. Instead of focusing on their positions, parties with a high concern for self and for other may focus on their interests. Interests are the underlying causes or reasons why negotiators take a certain position (Fisher et al., 2012 ). Engaging in integrative problem-solving behavior, negotiators try to find solutions that integrate both parties’ interests and are thus better for both parties than a simple compromise would be (see the article “ Conflict Management ” for a more elaborate description of the dual concern model).

Differentiation before Integration

Negotiations often follow a differentiation-before-integration pattern in which negotiating parties start with distributive, forcing behavior, such as threatening the other party or fiercely arguing for their own interests. Only after realizing that this competitive behavior does not bring them any closer to an agreement, for example because the other party does the same, they tend to switch to more integrative negotiation and become willing to look for mutually satisfactory agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Olekalns & Smith, 2005 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). In lab studies, such switches from competitive to cooperative negotiation often occur after temporary impasses (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 )—moments in a negotiation in which parties take a time-out before having reached an agreement. In field studies, such switches have been described as “ripe moments” (Zartman, 1991 ) or “turning points” (Druckman, 2001 ; Druckman & Olekalns, 2011 ).

Outcomes of Negotiations

Outcomes of negotiations are either an impasse when no agreement is reached or an agreement that can be either distributive (win–lose) or integrative (win–win). Outcomes can be measured as objective or economic outcomes—such as money or points—and as subjective outcomes—such as satisfaction with the outcome or process and willingness to interact in the future (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009 ). Distributive agreements are those that divide some fixed resources between parties in a win–lose way—one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. An example would be a situation in which a buyer and seller are negotiating only about the price of a bike. Win–lose does not necessarily imply victory of one party over the other—a simple compromise (50–50) where parties meet in the middle of their initial demands is an example of a distributive agreement as well. Distributive negotiation styles are likely to lead to impasses when parties match their forcing behavior, or to distributive agreements when one party yields to the forcing of the other or when both decide to compromise and “meet in the middle.”

Integrative agreements are those that divide an expanded set of resources and thereby increase the benefit for both negotiators. Contrary to distributive bargaining, which is dominated by value-claiming strategies, integrative negotiation offers the possibility to create value, that is, to find solutions that improve the outcomes to both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). A key activity in integrative negotiation is to generate alternative solutions to the problem at hand. One way to generate alternative solutions is by adding resources and negotiating about more than initially planned, thereby making a deal more attractive to both parties. Figuratively, negotiators expand the pie before they divide it. For example, the seller of a bicycle might add a good bicycle lock that he does not need any more, thereby making a better deal selling his bike and lock, while the buyer gets a good lock for his new bike and in total pays less than he would have paid if he had to buy a new lock in a shop.

Another way to generate alternative solutions is by discussing multiple issues rather than single issues, and by determining which issues are more and less important. For example, the seller of the bicycle might be a returning exchange student who cannot take the bike to his home country, but he needs to use it until the final days of his stay. By negotiating the price and delivery date, buyer and seller may integrate the seller’s preference for a late delivery with the buyer’s preference for a lower price. Integrative negotiation styles can lead to integrative agreements; if negotiators trust each other, exchange information, and gain an accurate understanding of their preferences and priorities, they might detect common interests (Rubin et al., 1994 ) and mutually beneficial trade-offs across topics that vary in importance (Ritov & Moran, 2008 ), so-called logrolling (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). Parties can also reach integrative agreements through an implicit way of exchanging information, for example by proposing multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs; Leonardelli, Gu, McRuer, Medvec, & Galinsky, 2019 ) and letting the other side choose which offers they prefer. For example, knowing that a rental bike would cost €50 a week, the seller may propose two equally attractive offers—selling the bike immediately for €300, or selling it in one week for €250. The prospective buyer, provided he has little urgency, might choose the latter option, thereby creating value from the different priorities that the two parties have.

An important ability of negotiators is perspective-taking, the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011 ). Perspective-taking helps negotiators detect logrolling opportunities and thereby exploit the integrative potential of a negotiation situation (Trötschel et al., 2011 ).

Cognitions (how people think about a situation) influence negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Cognitions have been the focus of the behavioral decision perspective on negotiations that was dominant in the 1980s and 1990s (for an overview, see Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000 ). Two of the most prominent biases are fixed-pie perceptions and anchoring.

Fixed-Pie Perception

A fixed-pie perception is the common assumption that the interests of the parties are diametrically opposed such that “my gain is your loss” (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). This idea is related to the view that negotiation is a purely distributive contest in dividing a fixed amount of resources in which the winner claims a larger share than the loser. When both parties have a fixed-pie perception, they are unlikely to notice that their priorities may differ and might overlook profitable opportunities for a mutually beneficial exchange of concessions (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”).

Anchoring is the tendency to rely on a first number when making a judgment. For example, the interested buyer might offer a higher price if, immediately before negotiating the price of the second-hand bike, he saw an ad for a bike costing €1,500, than if he saw a bike offered for €100. The offer made for the second-hand bike is thus influenced (anchored) by prior information. This bias is related to the first-offer effect. In negotiations, the first offer functions as an anchor point at which the negotiation starts and a negotiation agreement is often in favor of the first party that proposes a concrete number (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Loschelder, Trötschel, Swaab, Friese, & Galinsky, 2016 ).

Emotions (how people feel about a situation) and the expression thereof have a profound influence on negotiation processes and outcomes. The effects of emotions on the negotiation process can be intrapersonal—a person’s mood or emotion influences his or her own behavior. These effects can also be interpersonal—one person who expresses his or her emotions affects another person’s behavior (Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008 ).

Intrapersonal Effects of Emotions

The intrapersonal effects of emotions are straightforward. Negotiators who are in a bad mood, or who feel angry or disappointed, are more likely to engage in forcing behavior and less likely to accommodate the other party. On the other hand, negotiators who are in a good mood or feel happy are more likely to be lenient negotiation partners who are willing to make a deal (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997 ; Friedman et al., 2004 ; Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006 ; Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2010 ; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004 ).

Interpersonal Effects of Emotions

The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations are summarized by the Emotions-As-Social-Information Model (Van Kleef, 2009 ), which proposes that a negotiator’s emotions affect the behavior of their counterparts via two distinct processes. Emotions trigger inferential processes and affective reactions in the targets of those emotions. The inferential process means that emotions give information about the aspirations of a party—an angry reaction of a counterpart on a proposal signals that the counterpart has set ambitious limits. As a result, an angry reaction by party A often triggers a yielding response by party B, in order to satisfy party A and reach an agreement (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). A happy reaction by party A, on the other hand, might indicate the proposal is near target point of party A, and party B may conclude that no further concessions are required in order to reach an agreement.

Emotions might also trigger an affective reaction in the receiver; an expression of anger of party A is likely to engender an angry reaction by party B in return, whereas a more happy reaction will trigger a happier response. In general, the interpersonal effect of anger is exemplified by the finding that negotiators who express anger will get a yielding response from their counterpart, but only when the other party is willing and able to take the emotions of the angry party into account (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). On the other hand, an expression of happiness is met with a more competitive or less yielding response. Expressing anger in negotiations can backfire, however (Van Kleef et al., 2008 ). Anger directed at the person, rather than at a proposal, is likely to lead to retaliation rather than concessions (Steinel, Van Kleef, & Harinck, 2008 ), and the same effect occurs for angry expressions in value-laden conflict (Harinck & Van Kleef, 2012 ); people may overtly concede to a counterpart who expresses anger, but they might subsequently retaliate covertly (Wang, Northcraft, & Van Kleef, 2012 ). Similarly, expressing anger helps powerful negotiators who may receive a conciliatory response, but harms powerless parties, who are more likely to receive an angry, non-conciliatory response (Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010 ; Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest, 2008 ). Also, fake expressions of anger aimed at trying to get the other party to concede are more likely to lead to intransigence rather than to conciliatory behavior in the receiving party, due to reduced trust (Campagna, Mislin, Kong, & Bottom, 2016 ; Côté, Hideg, & Van Kleef, 2013 ).

The cognitions and emotions of negotiation parties show that negotiators are humans; they think, make mistakes, and feel. In fact, for many people negotiations can be quite stressful due to either their thoughts or their feelings about the negotiation. The next section, “ Gender ,” will address situational characteristics that influence negotiation processes, behaviors, and outcomes, focusing on three major situational factors—the gender composition of the negotiating dyad, the power positions of the dyad members, and the cultural environment in which negotiations take place.

Gender differences can arise in negotiation, showing a general advantage for male negotiators over female negotiators. These differences tend to disappear, however, when negotiators are more experienced, when the range of potential agreements is known, or when they negotiate for someone else (Mazei et al., 2015 ). Gender differences in negotiation can largely be explained by stereotypical thinking. The stereotypical ideas of an effective negotiator—strong, dominant, assertive, and rational—tend to align with stereotypical male characteristics, whereas the stereotypical ideas about an ineffective negotiator—weak, submissive, accommodating, and emotional—tend to align with stereotypical female characteristics, suggesting that male negotiators are more effective than female negotiators (Bowles, 2012 ; Kray & Thompson, 2005 ).

These stereotypical ideas can play a role in negotiations when negotiators use them to figure out how to behave and when they want to predict how the other party is likely to behave (Bowles, 2012 ; Mazei et al., 2015 ). In general, male negotiators are expected to be competitive, whereas female negotiators are expected to be more cooperative. For example, people are likely to make lower offers to women than to men and expect women to be more easily satisfied with the offers they receive (Ayres & Siegelman, 1995 ; Kray, Locke, & Van Zant, 2012 ; Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999 ).

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is an important cause for the lower negotiation outcomes achieved by female than by male negotiators (Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002 ; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001 ). People experience a stereotype threat when they feel their performance is evaluated on a task in a domain for which they are aware of negative stereotypes about their group’s abilities (Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011 ). For example, female participants who are evaluated on a math test or in a negotiation might experience stereotype threat, due to the stereotypical belief that women are bad at math or in negotiation. Under conditions in which the stereotype threat is neutralized by presenting the negotiation as a learning tool rather than as an assessment tool, or when female characteristics are linked to negotiation success, gender differences diminish or disappear (Kray et al., 2001 , 2002 ). Gender differences also disappear when people negotiate on behalf of another person or party (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010 ). In that situation, the female stereotypes of caring for others and the negotiation aim align, and male and female negotiators perform equally well.

Stereotype Reactance

Several remedies mitigate this potential disadvantage for female negotiators. First, awareness of stereotype threat can reduce its effects by stereotype reactance . In a study using typical math tests, gender differences disappeared when the test was presented as a problem-solving task rather than a math test, and also when participants received additional information explaining how stereotype threat can interfere with women’s performance on a math test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005 ). As such, informing female negotiators that a negotiation might trigger a stereotype threat that might interfere with their performance can help neutralize the stereotype threat and its effects.

Backlash is the negative reaction that female negotiators face when they engage in gender-incongruent competitive negotiation behavior (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ). Women can prevent expectancy violations and thus minimize the likelihood of backlash by giving external attributions for competitive behaviors (anticipatory excuses or justifications, such as “my mentor advised me to . . .” or “my association has released a salary survey, and my salary seems to be below average . . .”) or by stressing gender-normative behavior, like using inclusive language (“I am sure we can find a mutually satisfactory agreement”), or influence tactics that indicate warmth and caring (“can you help me to . . .”; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ).

Finally, gender differences tend to diminish when clear instructions to negotiate signal that behaving competitively is not counter-normative. At the individual level, for instance, gender differences disappear when people need to negotiate on behalf of others, a case in point when negotiating is something that a person is supposed to do (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005 ). At a higher level, organizations could, for example, be more transparent about what can or cannot be negotiated, the so-called zones of negotiability (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ), specifying what terms of employment are open for discussion (Bowles, 2012 ). The bottom line seems to be that normalizing negotiations and negotiating behavior will diminish gender differences.

A general definition of power is the ability to control one’s own and others’ resources and outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ). In negotiation, power is negatively related to dependency: the more powerful party needs the negotiation to a lesser extent than the less powerful party in order to achieve certain outcomes or to satisfy certain needs. Based upon this idea, power in negotiation research is most often operationalized by giving parties a good or a bad BATNA (Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000 ; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 , as described in the section “ Negotiation Preparation and Goals ”). A good BATNA can be a good alternative offer by another party (Magee et al., 2007 ), the existence of an alternative negotiation party (Giebels et al., 2000 ), or the existence of several alternative negotiation parties (Mannix & Neale, 1993 ). A good BATNA leads to more power in the negotiation; negotiators with a good BATNA are less dependent on the negotiation because they can opt for the alternative to reach a beneficial outcome. Other manipulations of power are role instructions (e.g., boss vs. employee; De Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004 ), a power priming writing task (Magee et al., 2007 ), or knowledge about the BATNA (Wong & Howard, 2017 ).

Ample research shows that equal power between negotiation parties—with both parties having comparable BATNAs—generally leads to more integrative agreements than unequal power between negotiation parties (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 ). Other research, however, shows that parties who differ in power achieve better collective outcomes (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994 ; Wei & Luo, 2012 ). Depending on circumstances, both power equality and power differences can be harmful. Power equality decreases performance if it leads to power struggles (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010 ), while power differences decrease performance when power disparity is not aligned with task competence (Tarakci, Greer, & Groenen, 2016 ), or when individualistically motivated power holders exploit weaker counterparts (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Van Tol & Steinel, 2020 ). Furthermore, it seems that it is not the asymmetrical BATNA situation per se, but the knowledge about BATNA asymmetry that drives the lower joint outcomes in unequal power situations. By knowing the power advantage, the more the powerful negotiator tends to focus on value claiming, which leads to more judgment errors about the other party, impeding their information sharing and in the end resulting in lower joint outcomes (Wong & Howard, 2017 ). These findings are supported by earlier research showing that the party who feels or is most powerful in the negotiation, is also more likely to engage in or initiate negotiations, make the first offer (leading to more favorable outcomes for that party), and claim a larger share of the outcomes (Magee et al., 2007 ; Pinkley et al., 1994 ).

Interestingly, having no BATNA seems to be more beneficial than having a weak BATNA, because weak BATNAs may function as anchors, influencing negotiators to make less ambitious first offers than those negotiators who have no BATNA at all, who in turn are not influenced by this kind of low anchor and feel more free to make a relatively high first offer (Schaerer, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015 ).

Culture is the unique character of a social group (Brett, 2000 ), including cultural values about what is important and cultural norms about how to behave (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2000 , 2018 ; Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995 ). Negotiation research concerning culture can be distinguished as intra cultural negotiation research or inter cultural negotiation research (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Gunia, Brett, & Gelfand, 2016 ; Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zhang, 2012 ). Intracultural research focuses on negotiations between parties from the same culture, and compares negotiations within one culture to negotiations within another culture—a comparison of French–French negotiations versus U.S.–U.S. negotiations, for example. Intercultural negotiation research focuses on negotiations between parties from different cultures, such as French–U.S. negotiations. Although culture can be defined as the unique character of a social group, most negotiation research concerning culture focuses on different nationalities rather than on specific social groups within or between nations.

Studies on the effects of culture on negotiation allow general assumptions on how specific cultural backgrounds affect negotiators’ behavior. However, not everybody adheres to their cultural characteristics to the same extent, and variations within cultures are large, therefore predictions about individual negotiators require caution (Brett, 2000 ).

Cultural differences in how people exchange information and how they deal with power are relevant for negotiation processes and outcomes (Hofstede, 2011 ; Torelli & Shavitt, 2010 ). Most intra- and intercultural negotiation research focuses on differences concerning information exchange and/or influence and power tactics (Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ). Information can be shared directly by giving or asking information about preferences and priorities, as in the United States, or indirectly, by proposals and counterproposals, as in Asian countries. The reactions to proposals and the proposals themselves can also give information about a party’s preferences and priorities (Brett, 2000 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ). Both types of information sharing can lead to integrative outcomes.

Research has mainly compared Western (mostly Northern American negotiators) to East Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese or Japanese negotiators; Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ; Tinsley, 1998 ; Tinsley & Pillutla, 1998 ). These cultures differ on several dimensions, with the United States being more individualist, low context, and egalitarian, and East Asian cultures generally being more collectivistic, high context, and hierarchical (Adair et al., 2004 ). These cultural differences have several consequences. For example, negotiators from low-context cultures in which communication is explicit and direct are more likely to use direct rather than indirect information sharing. Also, parties from more egalitarian cultures might pay less attention to power or status differences between the negotiating parties than counterparts from more hierarchical societies. Higher-status negotiators from these societies may interpret this as a lack of respect and react by using their power or competitive strategies.

From the 2010s, the cultural logic approach (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ) has been introduced into the field of negotiations (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2018 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ; Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2015 ). This approach distinguishes three different cultures: dignity, honor, and face cultures. In dignity cultures every person has an equal amount of inherent worth that does not depend on the opinions of others. Most Western societies are dignity cultures. In honor cultures, on the other hand, a person’s worth depends on the extent to which the person adheres to the honor code in that person’s own eyes and in the eyes of others. Honor cultures exist in the Middle East and in the southern United States. And finally, in face cultures there are stable hierarchies and people have face as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations accompanying their position in the hierarchy. Face cultures are found in East Asia (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ). The first results using this categorization show that, in intracultural negotiations, parties in dignity cultures use more (direct) information sharing and less competitive influencing behaviors compared to honor and face cultures. Also, dignity cultures are more likely to reach win–win agreements, and to reach a more equal division of outcomes between the parties compared to honor and face cultures (Aslani et al., 2016 ).

Figure 3 displays a model of intercultural negotiation (Brett, 2000 ). It posits that cultural values influence parties’ interests, preferences, and priorities. As such, different cultural values can determine the integrative potential in the negotiation and whether and where profitable trade-offs are possible. On the other hand, cultural norms influence parties’ negotiation behaviors and strategies, so combinations of different cultures can lead to specific interactional patterns. Both the existence of different preferences and priorities and the interaction pattern influence the final outcomes of the intercultural negotiation. Cultural intelligence, defined as a person’s capability to successfully adapt to new cultural settings, has been shown to increase a negotiator’s effectiveness in intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010 ).

Figure 3. How Culture Affects Negotiation.

Negotiations within and between Groups

Much of the empirical laboratory research into negotiation processes and outcome has investigated a basic situation in which two parties, both representing their own interests, negotiate with each other. Some studies have investigated situations that are more socially complex, for example with the conflict being between groups rather than individuals (i.e., intergroup negotiation), sometimes with individuals representing their constituent group (i.e., representative negotiation) or with several negotiators representing each side (i.e., team negotiation), or with negotiations involving more than two parties (i.e., multiparty negotiation). Some 21st-century studies have shed light on the increased social and procedural complexities in these negotiation settings.

Intergroup Negotiations

Intergroup negotiations are typically conducted by representatives (Walton & McKersie, 1965 )—negotiators who represent the group, pursuing not just their own personal interests but also the interests of their constituents. Representatives often negotiate more competitively than people who negotiate on their own behalf, as they tend to think that their constituency favors a competitive approach (Benton & Druckman, 1974 ). The extent to which representatives stick to the group norm (or what they think the groups wants) depends on their need to secure group membership. Representatives who occupy marginal positions in attractive groups seek to demonstrate their belongingness to the group, and they therefore behave more competitively toward an opposing player than representatives who hold central positions in their group (Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Moffitt, 2007 ). Similarly, representatives with an insecure position in their group follow the group norm more strictly—the more so the higher their dispositional need to belong to the group (Steinel et al., 2010 ). Group norms, however, are not always clear. Constituencies may consist of different individuals—some are hawks, preferring a competitive stance toward the opposing group, while others are doves, favoring cooperation with the opponents. The attention-grabbing power of hawkish messages renders even a minority of hawks in a constituency more influential than doves (Aaldering & De Dreu, 2012 ; Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2008 ). Another way for constituencies to influence group negotiations is by selecting their representative, a choice that groups make depending on the purpose of the negotiation. When negotiations are identity-related (e.g., about moral issues), groups favor representatives who represent their group norms, or are more extreme than their own group, and as distant as possible from the opposing group. When negotiation are instrumental (i.e., when attaining a favorable outcome is central), however, groups prefer negotiators who deviate from the group norms in a way that brings them closer to the norms that the opposing group holds (Teixeira, Demoulin, & Yzerbyt, 2010 ).

Multiparty Negotiations

Multiparty negotiations differ from interactions between two negotiators in several respects. As every party brings goals, interests, and strategies to the negotiation table, group negotiations are more demanding on information-processing capacities (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ). Furthermore, team negotiations differ from dyadic negotiations, because they occur in a social environment similar to group decision-making, characterized by increased social complexity. Group dynamics depend largely on the goals that individual group members pursue—does everyone try to maximize their individual outcomes, or does the group strive to maximize collective outcomes? Groups which pursue a common goal reach more integrative agreements because they trust each other more and exchange more information than teams of people who pursue their individual goals (Weingart, Bennett, & Brett, 1993 ). Finally, the increased number of negotiators results in procedural and strategic complexity. A way to deal with these complexities is by installing decision rules that specify how to transform individual judgments into a group judgment. Under unanimity rule, every group member can use their veto power to make sure that their interests are recognized in an agreement. Under majority rule, however, team members whose interests are aligned can form a coalition and neglect the needs of minority members with opposed preferences, which is particularly likely and harmful to the collective outcome when group members pursue their individual goals rather than pursuing a collective goal (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ).

Team Negotiation

Team negotiation becomes increasingly complex when team members have different preferences and priorities on some of the conflict issues. Subgroup formation can occur and reduce the groups’ ability to implement beneficial trade-offs, if groups in team negotiations are not unitary teams where all members share the same preferences, but instead some team members have preferences that align better with the preferences of (some members of) the opposing group (Halevy, 2008 ). Subgroup conflict can also have positive effects, as it challenges fixed-pie perceptions and thus increases team members’ motivation to form an accurate understanding of the situation (Halevy, 2008 ).

Motivated Information Processing

Social motives.

Several of the studies mentioned in the section “ Multiparty Negotiations ” relate to one of the strongest determinants of negotiation processes and outcome— social motives (e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 , De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008 ; Weingart et al., 1993 ). Social motives are preferences for certain distributions of value between oneself and others, which can be rooted in a person’s character (social value orientations; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997 ) or engendered externally. A bonus system based on individual performance, for example, would give rise to individualistic motivation, while a bonus system that rewards the collective performance of a work team would spur more prosocial motivation. Pro-self negotiators aim to maximize their individual outcomes and tend to see negotiations as competitive interactions in which power and individual success are important. Prosocial negotiators, on the other hand, strive for equality and high collective gains, and tend to see negotiation as a cooperative endeavor in which fairness and morality are central (De Dreu et al., 2008 ).

Epistemic Motivation

The Motivated Information-Processing in Groups Model (De Dreu et al., 2008 ) states that win–win agreements are more likely when negotiators are prosocially motivated, because this leads to more trust, information exchange, and problem-solving behavior. Importantly, apart from a prosocial motivation, integrative agreements also require a high epistemic motivation , that is, the desire to form an accurate understanding of the situation. Negotiators with a high epistemic motivation make use of the information they exchange and find options to create value, for example by exchanging mutually beneficial concessions. Negotiators with a low epistemic motivation make suboptimal compromises instead. Epistemic motivation is fostered, for example, when negotiators are process accountable—the need to explain or justify their behavior motivates them to think carefully. Epistemic motivation is reduced, for example, when time pressure makes people prefer rules of thumb and other mental shortcuts over a careful appraisal of the available information.

Time Pressure

Time pressure can be beneficial and detrimental to negotiation performance. On the one hand, time pressure impairs negotiators’ decision-making, because it reduces epistemic motivation and leads to shallow information processing (De Dreu et al., 2008 ). Time pressure may also lead to impasses, when negotiators have insufficient time to craft mutually acceptable or even beneficial agreements. On the other hand, time pressure may also motivate negotiators to reach a deal quickly, increase their willingness to make concessions, help overcome positional bargaining, and increase negotiation efficiency (Moore, 2004 ).

Time pressure can be the result of time costs or of deadlines. Time costs are the costs of delaying an agreement, for example legal costs in a dispute or loss of income before a joint venture is agreed upon. Having higher time costs than one’s opponent (e.g., having a more expensive lawyer than the other party) is a weakness in negotiations, as the party with high time costs is more dependent on settling the conflict quickly, while the party with low time costs can afford to extend the negotiations and wait for the counterpart to concede.

Many negotiators misunderstand the implication of unilateral deadlines on the power balance between negotiators and see deadlines as a weakness, too: negotiators who have a deadline that their opponent is not aware of tend to keep this deadline secret, being afraid that they would otherwise reveal their weakness. Negotiators who learn about a counterpart’s deadline often try and stall the negotiation in an attempt to receive concessions. Unlike time costs, however, the deadline that one party has is a mutual constraint to both parties—if no deal is made before the deadline, both parties fall back on their BATNA. If both negotiators understand that a deadline is a mutual constraint, the time pressure resulting from the deadline can be beneficial, as negotiators need to work efficiently toward a deal (Moore, 2004 ).

Communication Media

As negotiating through e-mail or videoconferencing is becoming more and more common, the question of how communication media, and in particular the richness and synchrony of communication channels, affect negotiation processes and outcomes is key. The communication orientation model (Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012 ) posits that the benefit of richer channels (i.e., those that offer sight and sound, as compared to only text, and synchronicity of communication rather than a delayed back-and-forth messaging) depends on the negotiators’ orientation to cooperate or not, such that richer channels increase the achievement of high-quality outcomes for negotiators with a neutral orientation. The richness of channels matters less for negotiators with a cooperative orientation. For negotiators with a non-cooperative orientation richer communication channels can even be detrimental.

An important side note to our knowledge of the effects of communication media in negotiation, however, is that technology has been changing rapidly since 2010 —with the invention of forward-facing cameras on smartphones and applications like Skype, negotiators nowadays are much more familiar with videoconferencing than the participants of earlier studies, on which most of our knowledge is based. It is reasonable to assume that the utility of any communication medium depends on the familiarity and comfort of the user (Parlamis & Geiger, 2015 ).

Conflict Issues

An important moderator of negotiation processes and conflict management is the conflict issue—what the conflict is about. Research on conflict issues generally distinguishes between resource-based conflict and value-based conflict (Druckman, Broome, & Korper, 1988 ; Druckman, Rozelle, & Zechmeister, 1977 ; Harinck & Ellemers, 2014 ; Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000 ; Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). Resource-based conflict concerns conflict about scarce resources such as time, money, or territory. Value-based conflict concerns conflict about norms, values, and personal opinions, such as political preferences or rules of behavioral conduct—what is morally good or bad, and what is (un)acceptable behavior? Although other types of conflict can be distinguished, such as power struggles, status conflict, or informational conflict (who is right concerning a factual issue?), most conflict issue research has focused on the two large categories of resource-based and value-based conflict.

Conflict issue matters for negotiators’ behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and perceptions, and for the outcomes negotiators achieve. For negotiation behaviors and outcomes, it is shown that value-based conflicts are harder to solve via negotiation and often lead to less than optimal agreements than resource-based conflicts (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). While scarce resources can be divided by the give and take of traditional negotiation, people hesitate to give in on one topic in order to gain on another topic when the conflict concerns values. For example, pro-environmentalists are not going to agree on oil drilling in Alaska in exchange for a boycott on oil drilling in a Navajo reserve. Those “taboo trade-offs”—trading off values either against other values, or for money, such as selling a child—raise moral outrage, and are considered unacceptable (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000 ).

In several studies, negotiations between participants assuming the role of attorneys were framed as value-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves justice) or resource-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves the personal position of the attorney). In resource-based conflicts, as compared to value-based conflicts, more trade-offs between topics (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”) occurred and led to better negotiation agreements, including win–win agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ). Different types of conflict have been found to affect the degree of negotiators’ satisfaction with integrative agreements. In resource-based conflict, negotiators were more satisfied with win–win agreements obtained by trade-offs than with objectively worse 50–50 compromises. In value conflicts, however, negotiators were more satisfied with the 50–50 compromises than with the win–win agreements that entailed trade-offs. In value-based negotiation, people seem to prefer compromise agreements in which both parties have to give in rather than an objectively better agreement that would include a value trade-off (Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ).

The conflict patterns differ between resource- and value-based negotiations as well. In resource-based negotiations, parties often start with a strong fixed-pie perception (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ) and a concomitant competitive stance. After a while, when they realize that they might need to negotiate with the other party in order to reach any agreement at all, they become more flexible and less competitive and start making concessions. In value-based negotiations on the other hand, people initially expect other people to share their ideas. Once they realize the other party does not, they expect opposition and perceive less common ground than people in resource-based negotiations (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ), which results in a less cooperative approach. It matters whether negotiation situations are framed as resource- or value-based conflicts, because negotiators perceive less common ground between themselves and the other party, and consider agreements less likely in the value-based conflicts compared to the (same-topic) resource conflicts. Moreover, personal involvement and feelings of being threatened are stronger in value-based than resource-based conflicts (Kouzakova, Ellemers, Harinck, & Scheepers, 2012 ; Kouzakova, Harinck, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2014 ).

Current Developments

Research in negotiation and bargaining is thriving not only in (social) psychology, but also in management and communication science and (experimental) economics, and is becoming interdisciplinary. Globalization and digitalization have connected people all over the world more than ever before. In order to handle conflict, solve urgent global problems (like climate change or migration), and create collaboration and business opportunities, our connected world requires an understanding of conflict within and across different cultures.

Interaction among Gender, Power, and Culture

More research into dignity, honor, and face cultures and into the interaction among power, gender, and culture is needed. Commendably, in the 2000s, more and more research investigating the interaction between gender, power, and culture has been conducted. Evidence has accumulated that gender differences can be power differences in disguise (Galinsky, 2018 ), power differences may play out very differently depending on the culture in which the negotiation takes place, and gender roles (including acceptable and unacceptable behaviors) may differ across cultures. There are some studies investigating combinations of power and gender (Hong & Van der Wijst, 2013 ; Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham, & Ben-Ari, 2015 ), power and culture (Kopelman, Hardin, Myers, & Tost, 2016 ), or gender and culture (Elgoibar, Munduate, Medina, & Euwema, 2014 ), but a more elaborate and systematic investigation of these combinations in intra- and intercultural negotiation research is needed in our currently increasingly diversifying societies, in which men and women from all over the world need to work, and thus negotiate, with each other.

Communication Processes

Other emerging topics of research relate to communication processes during conflict and negotiation, including silences (Jared Curhan, Yeri Cho, Teng Zhang, & Yu Yang, in Hart et al., 2019 ), or asking questions in negotiations, in particular the willingness to ask sensitive questions (Einav Hart & Eric VanEpps, in Hart et al., 2019 ) or the effect of deflecting direct questions. Deflecting a direct question that a person does not want to answer (“What did you earn in your latest job?”) with a counter-question (“Would you like to offer me a job then?”) has been found to be better for interpersonal and economic outcomes than refusing to answer the question or giving an evasive answer (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2020 ). The use of humor in negotiations is also under investigation. Humor can decrease the credibility of a person’s statements or disclosures, which has implications as to when a person should or should not use humor in negotiations (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Ethics and Deception

Ethical questions that arise in negotiation are mostly related to truth-telling and deception (Lewicki et al., 2021 ; Robinson, Lewicki & Donahue, 2000 ). Deception is the topic of a growing body of research. Earlier studies focused on the antecedents of deception and found that negotiators are more likely to deceive when stakes are high (Tenbrunsel, 1998 ), when they know that the other negotiator lacks information (Croson, Boles, & Murnighan, 2003 ), when they aim to maximize their individual rather than the collective gains (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997 ), when they expect their counterpart to be competitive rather than cooperative (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004 ), or when the counterpart is a stranger rather than a friend (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999 ) or angry rather than happy (Van Dijk et al., 2008 ). Research focus is shifting toward processes and consequences of various types of deception, such as informational or emotional deception, and, depending on whether the deception is detected, its consequences for the deceiver, the target, and third parties (Gaspar, Methasani, & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Neurobiological Processes

Neurobiological processes are also increasingly becoming a focus of research. Negotiation behavior and outcomes are influenced by hormones such as oxytocin (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2010 ) or cortisol (e.g., Akinola, Fridman, Mor, Morris, & Crum, 2016 ; De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ; Harinck, Kouzakova, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2018 ). Increased cortisol levels can be beneficial for outcomes in salary negotiation, but only when people experience their higher levels of arousal (due to higher levels of cortisol) as beneficial; otherwise, they are detrimental (Akinola et al., 2016 ). Other research has focused on brain activity (e.g., Weiland, Hewig, Hecht, Mussel, & Miltner, 2012 ) and other physiological activity such as pupil dilatation (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ). Until now, most of this research has been done in relatively content-free experimental game settings (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ), but gradually similar measurements are getting introduced in more naturalistic negotiation experiments (Akinola et al., 2016 ; Harinck et al., 2018 ).

Personality effects are making a comeback on the research agenda. As experiments have revealed little or no effects of various aspects of personality on negotiation behavior, “many authors have reached the conclusion that simple individual differences offer limited potential for predicting negotiation outcomes” (Bazerman et al., 2000 , p. 281). In 2013 , this widely held irrelevance consensus was challenged by a meta-analysis that revealed that personality traits did predict various negotiation outcome measures (Sharma et al., 2013 ). For example, cognitive ability predicts negotiation outcomes, and extraversion and agreeableness predict subjective outcomes. The effects of personality factors on negotiation behavior and outcomes are stronger in field settings than in laboratory experiments, as in the latter case behavioral options are restricted due to the strong demand characteristics of the situation and a focus on short-term economic outcomes in interactions between unacquainted experimental participants. Personality is more likely to affect behavior in negotiation situations that are not affected by the clearly defined norms common to laboratory studies, suggesting that the irrelevance consensus was a result of limited data (Sharma et al., 2013 ). More research into negotiation in naturalistic settings will help us understand how personality and situational factors interact to predict negotiation and bargaining behavior. Brett’s ( 2000 ) model, presented in Figure 3 , with the terms “culture” replaced by “personality,” could serve as guiding framework for this re-emerging line of research.

Negotiation and bargaining are thriving research areas. The increasing globalization and concomitant societal developments steer research into new directions of culture and gender, while at the same time technological developments enable researchers to investigate negotiation behavior and communication in more advanced and sophisticated ways. The findings and advice that result from this research will help people across the world to deal effectively with their differences and enable them to create solutions and agreements that are profitable for all parties involved.

Further Reading

• Galinsky, A. D. , & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend and foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both . New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
• Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world . New York, NY: Scribner.
• Malhotra, D. (2016). Negotiating the impossible: How to break deadlocks and resolve ugly conflicts (without money or muscle) . Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Aaldering, H. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 15 , 713–724.
• Adair, W. , Brett, J. , Lempereur, A. , Okumura, T. , Shikhirev, P. , Tinsley, C. , & Lytle, A. (2004). Culture and negotiation strategy . Negotiation Journal , 20 , 87–111.
• Akinola, M. , Fridman, I. , Mor, S. , Morris, M. W. , & Crum, A. J. (2016). Adaptive appraisals of anxiety moderate the association between cortisol reactivity and performance in salary negotiations . PLoS ONE , 11 (12), e0167977.
• 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.
• Amanatullah, E. , & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 256–267.
• Aslani, S. , Ramirez-Marin, J. , Brett, J. , Yao, J. , Semnani-Azad, Z. , Zhang, Z. , & Adair, W. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 , 1178–1201.
• Ayres, I. , & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review , 85 , 304–321.
• Bazerman, M. H. , Curhan, J. R. , Moore, D. A. , & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation . Annual Review of Psychology , 51 , 279–314.
• Beersma, B. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 227–252.
• Benton, A. A. , & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 4 , 141–150.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 151 , 73–89.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2020). The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 118 (5), 945–990.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston, TX: Gulf.
• Bowles, H. R. (2012). Psychological perspectives on gender in negotiation . HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP12-046, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, MA.
• Bowles, H. R. , Babcock, L. , & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 951–965.
• Brett, J. (2000). Culture and negotiation . International Journal of Psychology , 35 , 97–104.
• Brett, J. (2018). Intercultural challenges in managing workplace conflict: A call for research . Cross Cultural & Strategic Management , 25 , 32–52.
• Brett, J. M. , & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 495–510.
• Campagna, R. L. , Mislin, A. A. , Kong, D. T. , & Bottom, W. P. (2016). Strategic consequences of emotional representation in negotiation: The blowback effect . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 605–624.
• Côté, S. , Hideg, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking anger in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 453–469.
• Croson, R. T. A. , Boles, T. L. , & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 51 , 143–159.
• Curhan, J. , Elfenbein, H. , & Kilduff, G. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 524–534.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Greer, L. L. , Handgraaf, M. J. J. , Shalvi, S. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Baas, M. , . . . Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans . Science , 328 , 1408–1411.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 42 , E116.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Nijstad, B. A. , & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 , 22–49.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (3), 303–319.
• Derks, B. , Scheepers, D. , Van Laar, C. , & Ellemers, N. (2011). The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 178–183.
• Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 45 , 519–544.
• Druckman, D. , Broome, B. J. , & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking? Journal of Conflict Resolution , 32 , 489–510.
• Druckman, D. , & Olekalns, M. (2011). Turning points in negotiation . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 4 , 1–7.
• Druckman, D. , Rozelle, R. , & Zechmeister, K. (1977). Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Two perspectives. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives (pp. 105–131). Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Elgoibar, P. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. J. , & Euwema, M. C. (2014). Do women accommodate more than men? Gender differences in perceived social support and negotiation behavior by Spanish and Dutch worker representatives . Sex Roles , 70 , 538–553.
• Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
• Friedman, R. A. , Brett, J. M. , Anderson, C. , Olekalns, M. , Goates, N. , & Lisco, C. C. (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 369–376.
• Galinsky, A. (2018). Are gender differences just power differences in disguise? . Ideas and Insights, Columbia Business School, March 13.
• Galinsky, A. D. , & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 657–669.
• Gaspar, J. P. , Mathasani, R. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations . Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81.
• Gelfand, M. , & Brett, J. (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
• Giebels, E. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 255–272.
• Greer, L. L. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 1032–1044.
• Gunia, B. C. , Brett, J. M. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2016). The science of culture and negotiation . Current Opinion in Psychology , 8 , 78–83.
• Güth, W. , & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 108 , 396–409.
• Güth, W. , Schmittberger, R. , & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 3 , 367–388.
• Halevy, N. (2008). Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 1687–1702.
• Harinck, F. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses . European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 595–611.
• Harinck, F. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 81 , 329–358.
• Harinck, F. , & Ellemers, N. (2014). How conflict issues change the nature of the conflict game. In C. K. W. De Dreu (Ed.), Social conflict within and between groups (pp. 19–36). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
• Harinck, F. , Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2018). Coping with conflict: Testosterone and cortisol changes in men dealing with disagreement about values vs. resources . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 11 , 265–277.
• Harinck, F. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations . British Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 741–752.
• Hart, E. , Chaudhry, S. J. , Curhan, J. R. , Greer, L. L. , Roberts, A. , Cho, Y. , . . . Zhang, T. (2019). Words will never hurt me? Managing conflict through communication . Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2019 (1).
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (1).
• Hong, A. P. C. I. , & Van der Wijst, P. J. (2013). Women in negotiation: Effects of gender and power on negotiation behavior . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 6 , 273–284.
• Imai, L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 83–98.
• Johns, M. , Schmader, T. , & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance . Psychological Science , 16 , 175–179.
• Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition . Psychological Review , 110 , 265–284.
• Kopelman, S. , Hardin, A. E. , Myers, C. G. , & Tost, L. P. (2016). Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 721–730.
• Kopelman, S. , Rosette, A. S. , & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative and neutral emotions in negotiations . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 99 , 81–101.
• Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , Harinck, F. , & Scheepers, D. (2012). The implications of value conflict: How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 798–807.
• Kouzakova, M. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2014). At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and motivational responses to moral conflicts and resource conflicts . Social Psychological and Personality Science , 5 , 35–42.
• Kray, L. J. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Thompson, L. L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 386–410.
• Kray, L. J. , Locke, C. C. , & Van Zant, A. B. (2012). Feminine charm an experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1343–1357.
• Kray, L. J. , & Thompson, L. L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research . Research in Organizational Behavior , 26 , 103–182.
• Kray, L. J. , Thompson, L. L. , & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 , 942–958.
• Kulik, C. , & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide . Journal of Management , 38 , 1387–1415.
• Lelieveld, G.-J. , Van Dijk, E. , Van Beest, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why anger and disappointment affect other’s bargaining behavior differently: The moderating role of power and the mediating role of reciprocal and complementary emotions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1209–1221.
• Leonardelli, G. J. , Gu, J. , McRuer, G. , Medvec, V. H. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 152 , 64–82.
• Leung, A. K. Y. , & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 , 507–526.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2021). Essentials of negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Liu, L. A. , Friedman, R. , Barry, B. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Zhang, Z. X. (2012). The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations . Administrative Science Quarterly , 57 , 269–304.
• Loschelder, D. D. , Trötschel, R. , Swaab, R. I. , Friese, M. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When moving first helps versus hurts negotiators . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 995–1012.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , Barsness, Z. I. , Tinsley, C. H. , & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior , Vol. 17 (pp. 167–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Magee, J. C. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate and moving first in competitive interactions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 , 200–212.
• Mannix, E. A. , & Neale, M. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 2 , 119–133.
• Mazei, J. , Hüffmeier, J. , Freund, P. , Stuhlmacher, A. , Bilke, L. , & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators . Psychological Bulletin , 141 , 85–104.
• Moore, D. A. (2004). The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (1), 121–127.
• Nelson, N. , Bronstein, I. , Shacham, R. , & Ben-Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 8 , 1–24.
• O’Connor, K. M. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A nasty but effective negotiation strategy: Misrepresentation of a common-value issue . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , 504–515.
• Olekalns, M. , & Smith, P. L. (2005). Moments in time: Metacognition, trust and outcomes in dyadic negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 , 1696–1707.
• Overbeck, J. R. , Neale, M. A. , & Govan, C. L. (2010). I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 126–139.
• Parlamis, J. D. , & Geiger, I. (2015). Mind the medium: A qualitative analysis of email negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 24 , 359–381.
• Pinkley, R. L. , Neale, M. A. , & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 57 (1), 97–116.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
• Ritov, I. , & Moran, S. (2008). Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: Reluctance to making integrative gambit offers . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 21 , 337–351.
• Robinson, R. J. , Lewicki, R. J. , & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 , 649–664.
• Rubin, J. , Pruitt, D. G. , & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Schaerer, M. , Swaab, R. I. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Anchors weigh more than power: Why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes . Psychological Science , 26 , 170–181.
• Schweitzer, M. E. , & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions . International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 225–248.
• Shafa, S. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Beersma, B. (2015). Regulating honor in the face of insults . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 47 , 158–174.
• Sharma, S. , Bottom, W. P. , & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis . Organizational Psychology Review , 3 , 293–336.
• Sinaceur, M. , & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 42 , 314–322.
• Solnick, S. J. , & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 79 , 199–215.
• Steinel, W. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision-making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 , 419–434.
• Steinel, W. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , Ouwehand, E. , & Ramirez-Marin, J. Y. (2008). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 109 , 67–78.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me ?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 362–369.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Knippenberg, D. , Hogg, M. A. , Homan, A. C. , & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 13 (6), 779–794.
• Stoeckli, P. L. , & Tanner, C. (2014). Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest- versus value-based issues on negotiator satisfaction . European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 202–208.
• Swaab, R. I. , Galinsky, A. D. , Medvec, V. , & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The Communication Orientation Model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 16 , 25–53.
• Tarakci, M. , Greer, L. L. , & Groenen, P. J. F. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 415–429.
• Teixeira, C. P. , Demoulin, S. , Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 228–234.
• Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 330–339.
• Tetlock, P. E. , Kristel, O. V. , Elson, B. , Green, M. , & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 853–870.
• Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues . Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 515–532.
• Thompson, L. , & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 47 , 98–123.
• Tinsley, C. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German and American cultures . Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 316–323.
• Tinsley, C. , & Pillutla, M. (1998). Negotiating in the United States and Hong Kong . Journal of Business Studies , 29 , 711–728.
• Torelli, C. J. , & Shavitt, S. (2010). The impact of power on information processing depends on cultural orientation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 959–967.
• Trötschel, R. , Hüffmeier, J. , Loschelder, D. D. , Schwartz, K. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 771–790.
• Van Dijk, E. , De Cremer, D. , & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 697–707.
• Van Dijk, E. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 600–614.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18 , 184–188.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation: Retaliation or spillover? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 753–760.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 510–528.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , Van Knippenberg, D. A. , Hogg, M. , & Moffitt, A. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour . British Journal of Social Psychology , 46 , 129–152.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Dijk, E. , Steinel, W. , Harinck, F. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future . Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 13–30.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Joireman, J. A. , Parks, C. D. , & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120 , 125–141.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Otten, W. , De Bruin, E. M. N. , & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 733–746.
• Van Tol, J. S. , & Steinel, W. (2020). Dictators in the Aloha Beach Club: The effect of asymmetric power dispersion and social motives on group negotiation . Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Wade-Benzoni, K. A. , Hoffman, A. J. , Thompson, L. L. , Moore, D. A. , Gillespie, J. J. , & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions . Academy of Management Review , 27 , 41–57.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Wang, L. , Northcraft, G. B. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 119 , 54–63.
• Wei, Q. , & Luo, X. (2012). The impact of power differential and social motivation on negotiation behavior and outcome . Public Personnel Management , 41 , 47–58.
• Weiland, S. , Hewig, J. , Hecht, H. , Mussel, P. , & Miltner, W. H. R. (2012). Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining . Social Neuroscience , 7 , 537–551.
• Weingart, L. R. , Bennett, R. I. , & Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 504–517.
• Wong, R. S. , & Howard, S. (2017). Blinded by power: Untangling mixed results regarding power and efficiency in negotiation . Group Decision Making , 26 , 215–245.
• Zartman, I. W. (1991). Regional conflict resolution. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation (pp. 302–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Related Articles

• Organizational Behavior
• Social Psychology and Language
• Group Decision-Making

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What’s Your Negotiation Strategy?

• Jonathan Hughes
• Danny Ertel

Many people don’t tackle negotiations in a proactive way; instead, they simply react to moves the other side makes. While that approach may work in a lot of instances, complex deals demand a much more strategic approach.

The best negotiators look beyond their immediate counterparts to see if other constituencies have a stake in the deal’s outcome or value to contribute; rethink the scope and timing of talks; and search for connections across multiple deals. They also get creative about the process and framing of negotiations, ditching the binary thinking that can lock negotiators into unproductive zero-sum postures.

Applying such strategic techniques will allow dealmakers to find novel sources of leverage, realize bigger opportunities, and achieve outcomes that maximize value for both sides.

Here’s how to avoid reactive dealmaking

Idea in Brief

The challenge.

Negotiators often mainly react to the other side’s moves. But for complex deals, a proactive approach is needed.

The Strategy

Strategic negotiators look beyond their immediate counterpart for stakeholders who can influence the deal. They intentionally control the scope and timing of talks, search for novel sources of leverage, and seek connections across multiple deals.

Tactical negotiating can lock parties into a zero-sum posture, in which the goal is to capture as much value from the other side as possible. Well-thought-out strategies suppress the urge to react to moves or to take preemptive action based on fears about the other side’s intentions. They lead to deals that maximize value for both sides.

When we advise our clients on negotiations, we often ask them how they intend to formulate a negotiation strategy. Most reply that they’ll do some planning before engaging with their counterparts—for instance, by identifying each side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) or by researching the other party’s key interests. But beyond that, they feel limited in how well they can prepare. What we hear most often is “It depends on what the other side does.”

• JH Jonathan Hughes is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.
• Danny Ertel is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.

Partner Center

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training and Custom Programs
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

What is Negotiation?

Learn the building blocks of indispensable negotiation business skills..

By Katie Shonk — on February 1st, 2024 / Negotiation Skills

Many people dread negotiation , not recognizing that they negotiate on a regular, even daily basis. Most of us face formal negotiations throughout our personal and professional lives: discussing the terms of a job offer with a recruiter, haggling over the price of a new car, hammering out a contract with a supplier.

Then there are the more informal, less obvious negotiations we take part in daily: persuading a toddler to eat his peas, working out a conflict with a coworker, or convincing a client to accept a late delivery.

“Like it or not, you are a negotiator  … Everyone negotiates something every day,” write Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton in their seminal book on negotiating, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In .

What do these negotiations have in common, and what tools should we use to get what we need out of our everyday negotiations, large and small?

Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator , from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

The authors of Getting to Yes define negotiating as a “back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed.”

Other experts define negotiation using similar terms. In her negotiation textbook The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator , Leigh Thompson refers to negotiation as an “interpersonal decision-making process” that is “necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly.” And in their book Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , Max H. Bazerman and Don A. Moore write, “When two or more parties need to reach a joint decision but have different preferences, they negotiate.”

Together, these definitions encompass the wide range of negotiations we carry out in our personal lives, at work, and with strangers or acquaintances.

Seven Elements of Negotiations

Unfortunately, most people are not natural-born negotiators . The good news is that research consistently shows that most people can significantly improve their negotiation skills through education, preparation, and practice.

Members of the Harvard Negotiation Project developed a framework to help people prepare more effectively for negotiation . The Seven Elements framework describes the essential tools needed to identify our goals, prepare effectively to minimize surprises, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise in negotiation, writes Patton in The Handbook of Dispute Resolution .

Here, we overview the seven elements:

• Interests. Interests are “the fundamental drivers of negotiation,” according to Patton—our basic needs, wants, and motivations. Often hidden and unspoken, our interests nonetheless guide what we do and say. Experienced negotiators probe their counterparts’ stated positions to better understand their underlying interests.
• Legitimacy. The quest for a legitimate, or fair, deal drives many of our decisions in negotiations. If you feel the other party is taking advantage of you, you are likely to reject their offer, even if it would leave you objectively better off. To succeed in negotiation, we need to put forth proposals that others will view as legitimate and fair .
• Relationships. Whether you have an ongoing connection with a counterpart or don’t think you’ll ever see her again, you need to effectively manage your relationship as your negotiation unfolds. Relationship dynamics become all the more important when you have an ongoing connection: future business, your reputation, and your relationships with others may hang in the balance. You can strengthen the relationship by taking time to build rapport and by meeting your own high ethical standards throughout the process.
• Alternatives and BATNA. Even as we take part in negotiations, we are aware of our alternatives away from the table—what we will do if the current deal doesn’t pan out. Negotiation preparation should include an analysis of your BATNA, or best alternative to a negotiated agreement , according to Getting to Yes . For example, a job candidate may determine that she will start applying to grad schools if a particular job negotiation falls apart.
• Options. In negotiations, options refer to any available choices parties might consider to satisfy their interests, including conditions, contingencies, and trades. Because options tend to capitalize on parties’ similarities and differences, they can create value in negotiation and improve parties’ satisfaction, according to Patton.
• Commitments. In negotiations, a commitment can be defined as an agreement, demand, offer, or promise made by one or more party. A commitment can range from an agreement to meet at a particular time and place to a formal proposal to a signed contract.
• Communication. Whether you are negotiating online , via phone, or in person, you will take part in a communication process with the other party or parties. The success of your negotiation can hinge on your communication choices, such as whether you threaten or acquiesce, brainstorm jointly or make firm demands, make silent assumptions about interests or ask questions to probe them more deeply.

Armed with a better understanding of these building blocks of negotiation, you are positioned to learn more about how to prepare to create and claim value in negotiations, manage fairness concerns, and reach the best deal possible—both for you and for your counterpart.

Do you consider yourself a natural born negotiator? Leave a comment below.

Related Posts

• Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
• Influence Tactics in Negotiation
• What Is Distributive Negotiation?
• Negotiation Team Strategy
• Negotiation Techniques To Get New Business Partnerships Off on the Right Foot

No Responses to “What is Negotiation?”

4 responses to “what is negotiation”.

The seven elements have given me an in depth understanding of how to become a better negotiator. Harvard is the best learning institution in the world. Thank you.

Good intiative towards legal Future

Yes – from our first cry to our last breath, we negotiate to fill our needs via interaction with others.

Yes! We negotiate every single day of our lives as I say in my talks whether it’s a multimillion dollar deal, how to get your kids to do their homework or where to meet for dinner, our lives are filled with negotiation opportunities. Thank you for sharing this article.

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
• The Process of Business Negotiation
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• M&A Negotiation Strategy: Missed Opportunities in Musk’s Twitter Deal
• How to Negotiate in Good Faith
• What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
• Conflict Styles and Bargaining Styles
• Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It
• Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts: Hostage Negotiation Tips for Business Negotiators
• Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement
• Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
• How to Deal with Difficult Customers
• Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
• Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
• Three Questions to Ask About the Dispute Resolution Process
• Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
• What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Examples: Restorative Justice
• Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Process
• International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
• The Pros and Cons of Back-Channel Negotiations
• Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• Negotiations and Logrolling: Discover Opportunities to Generate Mutual Gains
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• New Simulation: International Business Acquisition Negotiated Online
• Teach Your Students to Take Their Mediation Skills to the Next Level
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation
• Labor Negotiation Strategies

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

6 Negotiation Skills All Professionals Can Benefit From

• 11 May 2023

As a business professional, it’s almost guaranteed that you’ll need to participate in negotiations, regardless of your job title or industry. Chances are you already participate in them more often than you realize.

Negotiating a job offer, asking for a raise , making the case for a budget increase, buying and selling property , and closing a sale are just a few examples of the deals you might be involved in.

You likely flex your negotiation skills in your personal life, too, making it crucial to become a skilled negotiator in all areas of life.

Access your free e-book today.

If you want to strike effective deals and improve the outcomes of future negotiations, you need an arsenal of skills. Investing time and energy into developing them and learning the negotiation process can prepare you to maximize value at the bargaining table.

“Enhancing your negotiation skills has an enormous payoff,” says Harvard Business School Professor Michael Wheeler in the online course Negotiation Mastery . “It allows you to reach agreements that might otherwise slip through your fingers. It allows you to expand the pie—create value—so you get more benefits from the agreements that you do reach. It also, in some cases, allows you to resolve small differences before they escalate into big conflicts.”

Here are six essential negotiation skills and ways to develop your knowledge and confidence.

Check out our video on negotiation skills below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

Negotiation Skills

1. communication.

To achieve your ideal outcome at the bargaining table, it’s essential to clearly communicate what you’re hoping to walk away with and where your boundaries lie.

Effective negotiators develop communication skills that allow them to engage in civil discussion and work toward an agreeable solution.

Deal-making requires give and take; it’s critical to articulate your thoughts and actively listen to others’ ideas and needs. Not doing so can cause you to overlook key components of negotiations and leave them dissatisfied.

2. Emotional Intelligence

For better or worse, emotions play a role in negotiation, and you can use them to your advantage.

For example, positive emotions can increase feelings of trust at the bargaining table. Similarly, you can channel anxiety or nervousness into excitement.

You need a high degree of emotional intelligence to read other parties’ emotions. This can enable you to pick up on what they’re implying rather than explicitly stating and advantageously manage and use your emotions.

Related: The Impact of Emotions in Negotiation

3. Planning

Planning ahead with a clear idea of what you hope to achieve and where your boundaries lie is essential to any negotiation. Without adequate preparation, you can overlook important terms of your deal or alternative solutions.

First, consider the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) . Sometimes called the bargaining zone, ZOPA is the range in which you and other parties can find common ground. A positive bargaining zone exists when the terms you’re willing to agree to overlap. A negative one exists when they don’t.

Next, it’s beneficial to understand your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). If your discussion lands in a negative bargaining zone, your BATNA is the course of action you’ll take if the negotiation is unsuccessful. Knowing your BATNA can ensure you have a backup plan if you can’t reach an agreement. It can also help you avoid leaving the table empty-handed.

4. Value Creation

Value creation is one of the key skills you should add to your negotiation toolkit.

To illustrate its importance, consider this analogy: When participating in a negotiation, you and the other parties typically try to obtain the biggest “slice of the pie” possible. Vying to maximize your slice inherently means someone will get a smaller piece.

To avoid this, shift your goals from growing your slice to expanding the whole pie. The benefits of doing so are twofold: First, you can realize greater value; second, you can establish a sense of rapport and trust that benefits future discussions.

5. Strategy

In addition to thorough preparation and the ability to create value, you need a clear understanding of effective negotiation tactics . By knowing what works and what doesn’t, you can tailor your strategy for every negotiation.

To develop a strong negotiation strategy , take the following steps:

• Define your role
• Understand your value
• Consider your counterpart’s vantage point
• Check in with yourself

Following this process can enable you to formulate a clear plan for the bargaining table. By understanding the roles of those involved, the value they offer, and their advantages, you can work toward a common goal. Checking in with yourself throughout the negotiation can also ensure you stay on the path to success.

6. Reflection

Finally, to round out your negotiation skills and develop your proficiency, reflect on past negotiations and identify areas for improvement.

After each negotiation—successful or not—think about what went well and what could have gone better. Doing so can allow you to evaluate the tactics that worked in your favor and those that fell short.

Next, identify areas you want to work on and create a plan of action. For example, if you had trouble aligning your goals with your counterpart’s, review concepts like ZOPA and BATNA. If your negotiations often leave you dissatisfied, learn new ways to create value.

How to Negotiate Professionally

No matter your strengths and weaknesses, practice is a surefire way to develop your skills. The more you negotiate, the more prepared you’ll be in the future.

Structured learning opportunities can be highly beneficial. Negotiation books and articles are effective starting points for learning deal-making basics. Those that explore real-life examples of successful negotiations can provide perspective on how others navigated difficult discussions and approached conflict resolution.

Another option is to take an online course, such as Negotiation Mastery . In addition to learning from real experts—including public officials, executives, and military officers—you can participate in interactive negotiation simulations that allow you to apply your knowledge and develop your skills. You can also gain insight into negotiation’s emotional aspects and learn how to conduct an after-action review to inform future dealings.

Do you want to hone your bargaining skills? Explore our online course Negotiation Mastery and download our free leadership e-book to discover how you can become a more effective deal-maker.

This post was updated and republished on May 11, 2023. It was originally published on Sept. 2, 2021.

About the Author

Sample details

• Words: 3147

Related Topics

• Art movements
• Frida Kahlo
• Visual Arts
• Magic realism
• Pablo Picasso
• Postmodernism
• Art analysis
• Architecture
• Photography

The Art of Negotiation

Negotiation:

Negotiation is the process when two or more than two parties comes to terms with each other while engaging in any sort of exchange of goods and services and attempts to agree upon the exchange rate of  the transaction. Negotiations are more often termed as bargains by many people.( Business Essentials Harvard, 2003).

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Negotiation can smooth relations. It can save you time, money, aggravation and ‘face’ …

Or gain you a positive advantage but there is a catch .Negotiation is a complex process. It involves learning some skills and some practice Negotiation takes place when two people (or more), with differing views, come together to attempt to reach agreement on some issue. This may be a one-off event or part on an ongoing relationship. It is a form of communication  known as persuasive communication.. Negotiation is about getting the best possible deal; that is, getting what you want in the best possible way

Negotiations occur for one of two reasons:

• 1. To create something new that neither party could do on his or her own
• 2. to resolve a problem or a dispute between the parties

Difference between “Bargaining” & “Negotiation”

In Bargaining there is a Win-Lose Situation Whereas in Negotiation there is a WIN – WIN Situation.

            As the prologue or the fore cause of negotiation is conflict or disagreement so before moving on to the in-depth discussion on the Art of Negotiation its very important to understand the importance of conflict and its essence in the negotiations and the dealings .Having a clear understanding of conflict itself may enable us to better deal with the negotiation requirements and procedures .( Business Essentials Harvard, 2003).

 “Sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests, ideas, etc.”Conflict can occur when the two parties are working towards the same goal and generally want the same outcome, or when both parties want a very different settlement.

• Intrapersonal Conflict
• Interpersonal Conflict
• Intragroup Conflict
• Intergroup Conflict

At this level, conflict occurs within an individual. Example. We are angry at our boss, but we are afraid to express that anger because the boss might fire us.

A second level of conflict is between individual people. Example. Conflict that occurs between bosses and subordinates

A third major level of conflict is within a small group Example Among teams, committee members and within families etc

The final level of conflict is intergorup. Example. between unions and management, etc

Functions & Dysfunctions of Conflict

The notion has two aspects; first, that conflict is an indication that something is wrong or that a problem  needs to be fixed and, second, that conflict creates largely destructive consequences

• Competitive processes
• Misperception and bias
• Emotionality
• Decreased communication.( Business Essentials Harvard, 2003).
• Framing, Strategizing & Planning for Negotiations

Effective planning and strategizing are the most critical precursors of achieving Negotiation objectives .With effective planning and target setting, most negotiators can achieve their objectives, without them, results occur more by chance than by negotiator effort.( Lewicki, 2006).

Framing (the process of defining what’s important)

There are various approaches to framing and anyone of them can be adopted to achieve negotiations which are

Frames as cognitive heuristics

A frame is a mechanism through which a both individual thinks about the risk associate with a problem and employs certain simple decision rules

Frames as categories of experience

The second view of frame is frames are shaped by the experiences that a negotiator has had – previous negotiations

Frames as process of issue development(Robbins ,2004)

In describing the process by parties with different views about an issue arrive at a joint agreement (win-win) ( Lewicki, 2006).

Goals and Strategy setting

The second major step in developing and executing a negotiation strategy is to determine one’s goals .Negotiators must anticipate what they want to achieve in a negotiation and must prepare for these events in advance both Tangible goals & Intangible goals. A negotiator’s goal will have a major effect on his or her choice of a negotiation strategy. Effective goals must be concrete or specific, and preferably measurable to communicate what we want, to understand what he / she want and to understand whether any particular outcome satisfies our goals. A strong interest in achieving only substantive outcomes – getting this deal, winning this

negotiation, with little or no regard for the effect on the relationship or on subsequent exchanges with the other party – tend to support a competitive (Distributive) strategy. A strong interest in achieving only the relationship outcomes – building, preserving, or enhancing a good relationship with other party – suggests an accommodation strategy. If both substance and relationship are important, the negotiator should pursue a collaborative (integrative) strategy. If achieving neither substantive outcomes nor an enhanced relationship is important, the party might be best served by avoiding negotiation. .( Business Essentials Harvard, 2003).

The Planning Process for Negotiation

Defining issues

An analysis of the conflict situation of our own experience in similar situation

Research conducted to gather information with experts,

 Example: buying a house > price, date of sale, date of occupancy

Assembling Issues and Defining the Bargaining Mix The next step in planning is to assemble all the issues that have been defined into a comprehensive list.

The combination of lists from each side in the negotiation determines the bargaining mix.

Introducing a long list of issues into a negotiation makes Success more, rather than less. Determine which issues are most important and which are less .

Determine which issues are connected or separate.( Lewicki, 2006).

Defining Your Interests

Defining interest is more important to integrative negotiation

Than to distributive bargaining Substantive, Process based, Relationship based, intangibles

Consulting with Others

Experienced negotiators know that one negotiator alone cannot determine the issue on an agenda When a negotiator is bargaining on behalf of others (accompany, union, department, family etc) must consult with them so their concerns and priorities are included in the mix

Many professional negotiators often exchange the list of issues in advance. They want first to agree on what issues will be discussed before actually engaging the substance of those sues (to avoid surprises)

Knowing your Limits

What happens if the other party in a negotiation refuses to accept some proposed items for agenda?

Negotiator should reassess these issues and decide how important they are. Can they be dropped? Can they be taken up later?

Setting Targets

Specific Target Point (at which we realistically expect to achieve a settlement)

Resistance Point (the least acceptable settlement point)

Alternative (the point where we may have an alternative settlement with another negotiator)

Asking Price (the best deal we can possibly hope to achieve) Developing Supporting Arguments What facts support my point of view

Whom may I consult to help me clarify the facts

Have these issues been negotiated before by others? Can I consult those negotiators

What is other party’s point of view(Lewicki,Barry& Saunder, 2006).

Analyzing the Other Party

The other party’s current resources, interest and needs (you can do this by putting yourself in his / her shoes, by conducting a preliminary discussion)

The other party’s objective (many people assume that the other party has same interest and targets as their own)

The Other Party’s Reputation and Style

How the other party’s have negotiated with you / others in the past

The Other Party’s Alternative

Alternative offers the negotiator a viable option for agreement if the current negotiation does not produce results (if other party has a strong and viable alternative, he/she will be more confident in negotiation)

The Other Party’s Authority

When negotiator represents others, their power to make agreement may be limited (may create frustration)

The Other Party’s Strategy & Tactics

It is unlikely that the other party will reveal his or her strategy outright; you can gather the information as the negotiation unfolds (Lewicki,Barry& Saunder, 2006).

The Dual Concerns Model

The model tends to explain the various situations in which the parties may behave and  may act while negotiating the various conditions are as follows:

( Shell,2006).

Contending Focus more on own outcomes and show little concern for whether other party obtains his or her desired outcomes

Yielding (Also called accommodating or obliging) is the strategy in the upper left-hand corner. Show little interest or concern in whether they attain their own outcomes, but they are quite interested in whether the other party attains his or her outcomes

Inaction Inaction is also called accommodating or obliging where the party is not concerned about whether they achieve their desired outcomes neither they are concerned about whether the other party achieve their desired outcomes(Lewicki,Barry& Saunder, 2006).

Problem Solving (Also called collaboration or integrating) is the strategy show high concern for attaining their own outcomes and high concern for whether the other party attains his or her outcomes

Compromising It is an approach where one tries to pursue one’s own goals as well as tries to make an effort for the other parties to achieve their goals.

The Role of Alternatives to a Negotiation Agreement

In addition to opening bids, target points and resistance points, a fourth factor may enter the negotiations: an alternative outcome that can be obtained by completing a different deal with a different party. In some negotiations, the parties have only two fundamental choices; to reach a deal with the other party or not to settle at all(Lewicki,Barry& Saunder, 2006).

In other negotiation, however, one or both parties may have the choice of completing an alternative deal

Actual Settlement Point

 The fundamental process of distributive bargaining is to reach a settlement within a positive bargaining range. The objective of both parties is to obtain as much of the bargaining range as possible – that is, to get the settlement as close to the other party’s resistance point as possible Both parties in distributive bargaining know that they might have to settle for less than they would prefer

Bargaining Mix

In almost all negotiations, agreement is necessary on several issues for example: buying a house Each item in the mix has its own starting, target and resistance points. Some items are obvious importance to both parties; others are of importance to only one party.The other’s resistance point will vary inversely with his or her cost of delay or aborting

Example The more a person needs a settlement, the more modes he or she will be in setting a resistance point. Therefore, the more you can do to convince the other party that delay or aborting negotiations will be costly, the more likely he or she will be to establish a modest.

Resistance point

A resistance point will vary directly with the value the other party attaches to that outcome. For example If you can convince the other party that a present negotiating position will not have the desired outcome or that the present position is not as attractive because other positions are even more attractive, then he or she will adjust the resistance point.

The other’s resistance point varies inversely with the perceived value the first party attaches to an outcome for example knowing that a position is important to the other party, you will expect the other to resist giving up on that issue.

Tactical Tasks

• ·         Assess the other party’s outcome, values and the costs of terminating negotiation
• ·         To manage the other party’s impression of the negotiator’s outcome values
• ·         To modify the other party’s perception of his or her own outcome values
• ·         To manipulate the actual cost of delaying or aborting negotiations
• ·         Assess Outcome Values and the Cost of Termination
• ·         Manage the Other Party’s Impressions because each side attempts to get information about the other party through direct and indirect sources, an important tactical task for you as a negotiator may be to prevent the other party from getting accurate information about your position, while simultaneously guiding him or her to form a preferred impression of it.
• ·         Screening Activities the simplest way to screen a position is to say and do as little as possible. Silence is golden when answering questions; words should be invested in asking questions instead Direct Action or Alter Impressions. Negotiator can take many actions to present facts that will directly enhance their position or at least make it appear stronger to the other party.
• ·         Modify the Other Party’s Perceptions: A negotiator can alter the other party’s impressions of his or her own objectives by making the outcomes appear less attractive or by making the cost of obtaining them appear higher.
• ·         Manipulate the Actual Cost of Delay or Termination: Negotiators have deadlines. A contract will expire. Agreement has to breach before a large meetings occurs. Someone has to catch a plane. Extending negotiations beyond a deadline can be costly, particularly to the person who has the deadline, because that person has to either extend the deadline or go home empty-handed. At the same time, research and practical experience suggest that a large majority of agreements in distributive bargaining are reached when the deadline is near(Dawson, 2000).

Positions Taken During Negotiation

• Effective distributive bargainers need to understand the process of taking a position during bargaining (the opening offer or opening stance) and the role of making concessions during the negotiation process(Dawson, 2000).
• At the beginning of negotiations, each party takes a position. Typically, one party will then change his or her position in response to information from the other party or in response to the party’s behavior
• Opening Offer: What should the opening offer be? Will the offer be seen as too low or too high by the other Should the opening offer be somewhat close to the resistance point
• The fundamental question is whether opening offer should be extreme or modest
• Studies indicate that negotiators who make extreme openings offer get higher settlements than do those who make low or modest opening offers
• Opening Stance :Will you be competitive (fighting to get the best on every point)
• Or moderate (willing to make concessions and compromises)
• Initial Concessions :An opening offer is usually met with a counteroffer, and these two offers define the initial bargaining range What movement or concessions are to be made
• You can choose to make none, hold firm, and insist on the original position, or you can make some concessions(Dawson, 2000).

Role of Concession in Negotiations

Concessions are central to negotiation. Without them, in fact, negotiations would not exist if one side is not prepared to make concessions, the other side must capitulate or the negotiations will deadlock .People enter negotiations expecting concessions

 Good negotiators will not begin negotiations with an opening offer too close to their own resistance point, but rather will ensure that there is enough room in the bargaining range to make some concessions and then as to Final Offer in which Eventually a negotiator wants to convey the message that there is no further room for movement – that the present offer is the final one. A good negotiator will say, “This is all I can do” or “This is as far as I can go”. A concession also may be personalized to the other party (“I went to my boss and got a special deal just for you”)

Finding Ways to abandon commitment Position during Negotiations

Frequently negotiators want to get the other party out of committed position. Another’s way to abandon a commitment is to let the matter die silently. After a lapse of time, a negotiator can make a new proposal .One way is to restate the commitment in more general terms. Example. The purchasing agent who demanded a 10% discount may rephrase this statement later to say simply that a significant volume discount is needed

Closing the Deal in Negotiations

 After negotiating for a period of time, learning about the other party’s needs, positions, and perhaps resistance point, the next challenge for a negotiator is to close the Agreement. There is several tactics available to negotiators for closing deal some are as follows:

• Provide alternatives that are Rather than making a single offer, negotiators can provide two or three alternative packages for the other party that are more or less equivalent in value. People like to have choices
• Assume the close that is Salespeople use an assuming-the-close technique frequently. After have a general discussion about the needs and positions of the buyer, often the seller will take out a large order form and start to complete it
• Split the difference The negotiator using this tactic will typically give a brief summary of the negotiation (we have both spent a lot of time, made many concessions etc)
• Exploding offer: An exploding offer contains an extremely tight deadline in order to pressure the other party to agree quickly. For Example A person who has interviewed for a job may be offered a very attractive salary and benefits package, but also be told that the offer will expire in 24 hours
• Sweeteners: Another closing tactic is to save a special concession for the close. I will give you X if you agree to the deal

The Art of Negotiations in Organizational & Management Arena:

Negotiations are to be leaned by every manger every employee in the organization failing to do so may end up several problems in the organization and management of the organization. One need to have what is called BATNA ( best alterative to be negotiated agreement ) it’s the need for time . All over the department production & operations, finance& accounting, sales &marketing, R&D, Human Resource and Administration .Hence ,it extremely important for everyone to learn the skills of negotiation to be able to get audible and have true return of one’s efforts. Managers need negotiation skills all across their work be it motivation of employees, implementing new policy, bringing change and upgrade the organizational structures and the setup. To do anything cost effectively which is the major task nowadays again negotiations can play a magical role. Pursuing an individual goal or an organizational one polished negotiation skills may always win the day and the hearts of people

• Business Essentials Harvard(2003).Business Communication (Harvard Business Essentials) . Harvard Business School Press.
• Business Essentials Harvard(2003).Harvard Business Essentials Guide to Negotiation. Harvard Business School Pres
• Dawson, R.(2000). Secrets of Power Negotiating. Career Press.
• Dennis & Rendell(2006). ,Internatioal Human Resource Management .Prentice Hall
• Lehman, C.M. & DuFrene, D.D.(2007). Business Communication (with Teams handbook) . South-Western College Pub.
• Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.& Barry, B.(2005).Negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin
• Lewicki, R.J.(2006). Mastering Business Negotiation : A Working Guide to Making Deals and Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass
• Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B. & Saunder, D. M.(2006). Essentials of Negotiation. McGraw Hill Higher Education.
• Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B.&  Saunders, D.M.(2006). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases . McGraw Hill Higher Education.
• Robbins ,S.P.(2004) Organizational Behavior .Prentice Hall .
•  Shell, G. R.(2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin (Non-Classics)

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/the-art-of-negotiation/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Concert Review
• Performing arts
• Renaissance
• Contemporary Art
• Art Critique

Check more samples on your topics

Is street art really art art.

Street art originated in the late sixtiess with the coming of graffito and tagging in Philadelphia and New York City ( Walsh, 1996: 3 ) . It has been developing of all time since as new manners, signifiers and techniques are created and utilised by street creative persons ( Walsh, 1996: 12 ) . But

Performance Art, Conceptual Art, Installation Art

A sculpture intended by the artist to move is called ________ sculpture. a. a kineticb. an armaturec. a motion-detector d. a fluted A. Kinetic All sculptures have this characteristic in common: a. they exist in three-dimensional spaceb. they are made of solid materialsc. they are meant to last for many years d. they are created for beauty e. all of these answers A.

Negotiation Between a Hospital and the Union

1. Introduction         This paper seeks to analyze and discuss how to resolve a conflict negotiation between a hospital and the union.  The employees are trying to get what they considered a fair contract versus the hospital who thinks the employees are already fairly compensated and also the fact that the hospital is going through budgetary

Negotiation Case Study: Apple vs Amazon

U. K. inflation slowed more than economists forecast in April to a seven-month low and producer prices rose the least since 2009 as fuel costs fell. Consumer prices rose 2. 4 percent from a year earlier, down from 2. 8 percent in March, theOffice for National Statistics said in London today. The median forecast of

Good Negotiation Skills Sample

Negotiation

Negotiation is a common human activity. Everybody negotiate in his or hers personal and professional lives and it is an of import portion of the competitory modern life. Negotiations can happen over covering with people. concern contracts. official affairs. service. purchasing merchandises and relationships. Besides. in the touristry industry needs good dialogue accomplishments for concern

Diplomatic Negotiation: Kuwaiti

Centralization is giggly noticed in Kuwait; it's all about top management, individual and small employee's efforts are not appreciated and there's a gap in the salary scales between them. Society leaders and organization managers are taking more privileges and incentives compared to ordinary people. Negotiation is not acceptable especially if the owner and the director

The Influence of Culture on Negotiation

Company Observation Essay: The Influence of Culture on Negotiations Negotiation Elements and Cultural Dimensions adopt a less confrontational style to avoid direct, aggressive conflict. These cultures may have a more collaborative orientation towards negotiations. In developing a strategy, it is important to consider the levels of risk a

International Business Negotiation

Introduction in the negotiation process Negotiation is a basic human activity. It is a process we undertake in everyday activities to manage our relationships, such as between husband and wife, children and parents, employers and employees, buyers and sellers and business associates. In business relationships, parties negotiate because they think they can influence the process

Negotiation Puts Hockey in the Penalty Box

NEGOTIATION PUTS HOCKEY IN THE PENALTY BOX (pg 532) Not every negotiation ends positively as National Hockey League (N.H.L.) Commissioner Gary Bettman discovered on February 16, 2005. He had to cancel all remaining games of the season due to a lockout initiated by the owners that lasted for 5 months. While other professional sports like

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.