Managing Negotiation Impasses
Managing Negotiation Impasses
中国经济管理大学/中國經濟管理大學
Managing Negotiation Impasses
Overview
The chapter is organized into three major sections.
First, we discuss the nature of negotiations that are difficult to resolve.
o We examine the nature of impasses—what makes negotiations intractable—and discuss four elements that make negotiations difficult to resolve: the parties, the negotiation setting, the types of issues, and the conflict management process.
In the second section, we explore fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that cause negotiation impasses.
Finally, we discuss strategies that negotiators can use to resolve impasses and get negotiations back on track.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand why some conflicts and negotiations are difficult to resolve successfully.
Explore fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that increase the likelihood of impasse.
Consider a series of tools and approaches that negotiators can use to break and resolve impasses.
Chapter Outline
I. The Nature of Difficult-to-Resolve Negotiations and Why They Occur
A. The Nature of Impasse
B. What Causes Impasses and Intractable Negotiations?
C. Characteristics of the Issues
D. Characteristics of the Parties
E. Characteristics of the Negotiation Environment
F. Characteristics of the Negotiation Setting
II. Fundamental Mistakes That Cause Impasses
A. Preventing Impasses
III. How to Resolve Impasses
A. Agreement on the Rules and Procedures
B. Reducing Tension and Synchronizing De-escalation
C. Improving the Accuracy of Communication
D. Controlling Issues
E. Establishing Common Ground
F. Enhancing the Desirability of Options to the Other Party
IV. Chapter Summary
I. The Nature of “Difficult-to-Resolve” Negotiations and Why They Occur
· It is not uncommon for negotiations, especially distributive ones, to become contentious to the point of breakdown.
· We begin this section by discussing impasse as a way to understand difficult negotiations, and we examine what causes negotiations to become intractable and reach impasse.
A. The Nature of Impasse
· Impasse is a condition or state of conflict in which there is no apparent quick or easy resolution – parties are unable to create deals that satisfy their aspirations and expectations.
o Impasse is not necessarily bad or destructive (although it can be).
§ There are very good reasons parties sometimes choose to stay at impasse until a viable resolution can be recognized.
o Impasse does not have to be permanent.
§ If the content, context, process, or people are altered in some way – either intentionally or due to the passage of time – the negotiation can move out of impasse and toward resolution.
o Impasse can be tactical or genuine.
§ Tactical impasse is used to gain leverage or put pressure on the other party to make concessions.
§ Genuine impasse occurs when the parties feel unable to move forward.
§ Impasses that begin as tactical may become genuine.
o Impasse can be partial.
§ Impasse can affect some negotiation issues but not others – a partial impasse.
§ This may be a bigger obstacle in situations requiring agreement on all issues for a deal to occur, such as a divorce settlement.
§ And not as dire in situations where a deal can involve agreement on some issue but not on others, such as a treaty.
o Impasse perceptions can differ from reality.
§ The perception of impasse can be created by an intransigent negotiator looking to extract concessions from the other party
· Intransigence can be defined as a party’s unwillingness to move to any fallback position through concession or compromise.
§ Such toughness may lead to short-term gain if agreement ensues, but toughness that calls forth toughness in response, may lead to impasse.
B. What Causes Impasses and Intractable Negotiations?
· A negotiation becomes more tractable when it becomes easier to resolve, and intractable when it is more difficult to resolve.
· Intractable conflicts may vary along four dimensions:
o Divisiveness
§ The degree to which the conflict divides people, such that they are “backed into a corner” and can’t escape without losing face.
o Intensity
§ The level of participant involvement, emotionality, and commitment in a conflict
o Pervasiveness
§ The degree to which the conflict invades the social and private lives of people
o Complexity
§ The number and complexity of issues, the number of parties involved, the levels of social systems involved, and the degree to which it is impossible to resolve one issue without resolving several others at the same time.
· The factors that increase the likelihood of impasse are listed in Box 17.1.
o These can lead to an atmosphere charged with anger, frustration, and resentment.
o Channels of communication become closed or constrained.
o Communication is used to criticize or blame the other.
o The original issues are blurred and ill defined, with new issues added.
o Negotiators are identified with positions, and conflict is personalized.
· The parties tend to perceive great differences in their respective positions.
o Conflict heightens and as anger and tension increase, the parties become locked into their initial positions.
· Next we discuss four dimensions that cause negotiations to reach impasse: characteristics of the issues, the parties, the negotiation environment, and the negotiation setting.
C. Characteristics of the Issues
· Three characteristics that can have a particularly important influence are:
o Value differences
§ These vary from minor differences in preferences to major differences in ideology, lifestyle, or what is considered sacred and critical
§ The critical question is how individuals or groups with distinct differences in values choose to deal with these differences – force or accommodation and respect.
§ Many of the most intractable conflicts in society are rooted in core value differences.
o High-stakes distributive bargaining
§ Impasse may result from distributive bargaining when there is no apparent overlap in the bargaining range.
§ Many of these impasses are very responsive to the tactics we describe later in the chapter.
o Risk to human health and safety
§ Some negotiations reach impasse because the threat to human welfare is clear and the issues are rooted in complex science, difficult to believe or trust.
D. Characteristics of the Parties
How to Define the Self
o Issues of identity are central to many difficult-to-resolve negotiations.
§ Determined by how a person answers the questions “Who am I?”
§ Conflict is likely when people’s identities are threatened.
o Psychological processes involved in group identity is among the strongest causes of impasses.
§ Negotiators often adopt a stance based on role or a personal definition of ethics that is strongly related to self.
§ These stances readily lead to impasse when the other party does not share these characteristics.
Comparing the Self to Others
o Issues of social comparison reflect the way individuals define “Who are they?”
§ The development of your social identity is often inextricably linked to the process of comparing yourself to others.
§ Parties in conflict tend to fall trap to the fundamental attribution error – tending to blame others when things go wrong but taking personal credit for successes.
· Conversely, they tend to see others’ successes as due to luck but failures as due to the others’ defects and deficiencies.
o One study examined the effect of this social comparison process as it occurs in negotiation impasses, with two principal findings.
§ First, negotiators chose comparison groups to reflect a supportive, self-serving bias for their own positions by comparing themselves to others whose positions made their own demands seem fair and reasonable.
§ Second, the greater the perceived differences between the comparison groups, the greater the likelihood of a breakdown.
o Comparing with others can frequently lead to negotiation impasse in highly structured and departmentalized organizations.
§ For instance when the marketing department spends money it does not have, operations is slow to produce new product.
§ This can lead to impasse because of misinterpretations of communication based on department membership.
Perceptions of Power
o Negotiators may believe they can exercise coercive power to levy costs on the other party or force that party to accept a settlement not in their best interest.
§ The effectiveness of such a tactic clearly depends on the other party’s belief that the negotiator has such power and will use it.
o Impasses often result from the perceived need to negotiate simultaneously about change in power and the appropriate institutions for maintaining that power shift.
§ There has to be some give on both sides – particularly the high-power side – and a willingness to at least consider that the other party may have a legitimate interest and a valid perspective.
Revenge and Anger
o The escalation of conflict through revenge seems to be driven by three factors:
§ An interest in retribution to correct injustice;
§ The need to stand up and express one’s self-worth; and
§ The wish to deter future instances of undesirable behavior.
o These emotions and motivations exacerbate the tendency for conflict to escalate and for negotiations to break down completely.
§ Negotiators can refuse to meet in the same room with the other party – degrading physical presence, or refuse to acknowledge questions from the other party during negotiation – degrading intellectual presence
Conflict Management Styles
o Finally, impasses may also result from too little engagement in the negotiation, rather than too much
o One study observed that parties often prefer to avoid conflict in a number of creative ways:
§ Aggressive avoidance
· “Don’t start with me or you will regret it”
· Intimidate others to keep them away
§ Passive avoidance
· “I refuse to dance”
· Try to ignore the other
§ Passive aggressive avoidance
· “If you are angry at me, that’s your problem”
· Put the blame on the other party and walk away
§ Avoidance by claiming hopelessness
· “What’s the use…?”
§ Avoidance through surrogates
· “Let’s you and she fight”
· Deflect the conflict to an agent or representative to take the other on
§ Avoidance through denial
· “If I close my eyes, it will all go away”
· Make believe it isn’t there
§ Avoidance through premature problem solving
· “There is no conflict – I fixed everything”
§ Avoidance by folding
· “OK, we’ll do it your way, now can we talk about something else?”
o Note that these eight approaches can be used individually or combined.
§ The function is to avoid engaging in the conflict in a productive way.
E. Characteristics of the Negotiation Environment
· The third dimension that can cause negotiations to reach impasse includes characteristics of the negotiation environment.
o It is important that negotiators clearly understand what they are negotiating because this may be different for both parties.
o When negotiators learn they have very different understandings about what they are negotiating, the risk of impasse increases.
· Another environmental factor that can lead to impasse is the renegotiation of existing agreements.
o One study suggests that renegotiations of existing agreements occur frequently and are in response to three situations:
§ postdeal negotiations occur as the existing agreement is expiring
§ intradeal negotiations occur when an agreement states negotiations should be reopened at specific intervals
§ extradeal negotiations occur when it appears that there is a violation of the contract or in the absence of a contract reopening clause
· While all three types of renegotiations can lead to impasse, extradeal negotiations have the largest probability of doing so because they are generally the result of a large shift in the environment that has a much larger affect on one party than the other.
o The negatively affected party clearly is motivated to reopen negotiations, while the less affected negotiator sees no need to negotiate.
F. Characteristics of the Negotiation Setting
· The fourth set of reasons that negotiations reach impasse involve characteristics of the negotiation setting, which includes:
o Temporal issues
o Relational issues
o Cultural issues
· Very little has been written about how negotiation setting leads to impasses but experienced negotiators understand how changing the negotiation setting – the physical location in which it occurs – can be an important tactic for getting negotiations back on track.
o Alternatively, replacing an aggressive member of the negotiating team with a more collaborative member can signal to the other party a willingness to change the substance of the negotiation.
o Finally, timing is critical in a negotiation – compromises presented too early may be rejected outright.
II. Fundamental Mistakes That Cause Impasses
· One study outlined six fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that can derail the negotiation process and result in impasses.
o Neglecting the other side’s problem
§ Negotiators who do not ensure they are working to craft an agreement that satisfies the needs of both parties are making a mistake that can derail negotiations.
o Too much of a focus on price
§ Pay attention to both tangible and intangible factors.
o Positions over interests
§ Negotiations require both creating value and claiming value.
o Too much focus on common ground
§ A key aspect of negotiation is interdependence – the parties need to have enough in common to strike a deal.
o Neglecting BATNAs
§ Negotiators who do not work to improve their BATNAs will reduce their power in the current negotiation and may make it more difficult to reach agreement.
o Adjusting perceptions during the negotiation
§ Use information gathered throughout the negotiation to adjust your views – a challenging mistake to correct as many biases occur unconsciously.
· Another mistake that negotiators make during negotiations is that they do not proactively manage the negotiation process itself.
o Researchers suggest a major reason negotiations are not successful is that negotiators fail to manage what is labeled the shadow negotiation, a negotiation about the negotiation process that occurs within the substantive negotiation.
o Those who fail to manage the shadow negotiation finds they either cannot get the negotiation started or cannot get their issues discussed, increasing the chance of impasse.
· In a related vein, a study suggests that negotiators need to manage the social contract in addition to the economic issues under discussion or the negotiation may derail.
o The social contract has two components: the underlying contract determines what the negotiation is about, and the ongoing social contract is concerned with decision making, contingency plans, communication, and resolving disputes.
· Finally, research suggests that negotiations reach impasse when negotiators allow their emotions to determine their reaction to the other party, rather than responding in a measured way to the situation – instead of separating the people from the problem.
A. Preventing Impasses
· One of the best ways to resolve an impasse is to avoid having one occur.
o It may be possible to avoid an impasse at the last moment by being very aware of changes in the negotiation process.
o One study suggests seven signals to be especially aware of that may indicate an impending impasse – see Box 17.2, and below.
§ Monitor the interactive quality of the process, noting how each statement and action is linked to the next.
§ Pay special attention to the multiple levels of the negotiation, noting how identity and role are positioned as well as the substance.
§ Be attuned to the other party’s verbal and nonverbal cures – pitch of voice, speed of conversation, pauses, and verbal stumbles and signal internal emotions.
§ Be cautious in interpreting the behavior of others – explore alternative explanations of what is taking place – do not assume that others would respond as you would.
§ Face up to the facts when you are caught in unproductive cycles, rehashing old arguments and advocating old solutions.
§ Recognize your own trigger points, particularly things that make you lose perspective.
§ Anticipate change by imaging different scenarios – remember that past is not necessarily prologue.
III. How to Resolve Impasses
· The first two sections of this chapter focused on what causes negotiations to be difficult to resolve and approach impasse.
· We now turn to examining how to manage impasses, which need to be resolved on three levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral.
o Cognitive resolution is needed to change how the parties view the situation.
§ Cognitive resolution is often difficult to achieve because people tenaciously hang onto beliefs and perceptions in spite of new data to the contrary.
§ New information and explicit reframing are key to achieving cognitive resolution.
o Emotional resolution involves changing how parties feel about the impasse and the other party, as well as reducing the amount of emotional energy they put into the negotiation.
§ Emotional resolution often involves trust rebuilding, forgiveness, and apology.
o Behavioral resolution explicitly addresses what people will do in the future and how agreements they make about the future will be realized.
§ Behavioral resolution agreements should specify ways that the parties can stop difficult conflict dynamics, specify reparations, and include mechanisms for instituting new behaviors that prompt resolution.
· There are many ways to start to break an impasse – the key is to find a way to restart the process.
o This may be difficult and the first attempts may fail.
· In this section, we describe six strategies that can be used to resolve impasses.
o These strategies tend to focus on behavioral and cognitive resolution, but they also have an influence on emotional resolution:
§ Reaching agreement on rules and procedures
§ Reducing tension and synchronizing the de-escalation of hostility
§ Improving the accuracy of communication, particularly improving each party’s understanding of the other’s perspective
§ Controlling the number and size of issues in the discussion
§ Establishing common ground where parties can find a basis for agreement
§ Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives that each party presents to the other
· There is no standard recipe for resolving impasses, nor is there a standard approach that works every time.
o The authors suggest it is frequently productive to resolve negotiation impasses by using these strategies in the order presented here.
o This approach is by no means firm and inflexible and you may invoke the steps in a different order.
o However, the order presented here is one that third parties frequently use to resolve impasses, so it may be the most effective if used by the negotiators themselves.
A. Agreement on the Rules and Procedures
· Parties can try to manage impasses by obtaining mutual agreement about the rules that will govern the negotiation.
· Establishing ground rules might include the following steps:
o Determining a site for a meeting – changing the site or finding a neutral location
o Setting a formal agenda as to what may or may not be discussed, and agreeing to abide by that agenda.
o Determining who may attend the meetings.
§ Changing key negotiators or representatives may be a signal of the intention to change the negotiation approach.
o Setting time limits for the individual meeting and for the overall negotiation session
o Setting procedural rules, such as who may speak, how long they may speak, how issues will be approached, what facts may be introduced, how records of the meeting will be kept, how agreements will be affirmed, and what clerical or support services are required.
o Following specific dos and don’ts for behavior (e.g., don’t attack others).
· The parties may agree to set aside a short period during negotiations to critique how they are doing.
B. Reducing Tension and Synchronizing De-escalation
· Unproductive negotiations can easily become highly emotional – parties are frustrated, angry, and upset.
o The longer the parties debate, the more likely it is that emotions will overrule reason – verbal assaults replace logic and reason.
o When the negotiation becomes personalized, turning into a win-lose feud, all hope of a productive discussion is lost.
o Several approaches for resolving impasses are directed at defusing volatile emotions.
Separating the Parties
o The most common approach is to stop meeting – declare a recess, or agree to adjourn and come back later after a chance to unwind and reflect.
§ Each party should agree to return with a renewed effort to make deliberations more productive.
§ Taking a break without explicitly managing the purpose of the break, may actually have the opposite effect and increase the conflict.
o Separation may be a few minutes or weeks, with time periods related to the level of hostility and circumstances.
§ Parties can use the time to check with their constituencies, gather new information, and reassess their position and commitments.
Managing Tension
o Tension is a natural by-product of negotiations.
o Negotiators should be aware that it is bound to occur, and know how to manage it.
o It may be as simple as cracking a joke to relieve the tension, or letting the other party vent their frustration without responding.
Acknowledging the Other’s Feelings: Active Listening
o When one party states their views and the other openly disagrees, the first negotiator often hears the disagreement as more than just disagreement.
§ They may hear a challenge, a put-down, an assertion that their statement is wrong or unacceptable, an accusation of lying, or another form of personal attack.
§ Whether this was the message’s intention or not, the negotiator must deal with how it was received so as not to escalate the conflict.
o There is a difference between accurately hearing what the other party said and agreeing with it.
§ You can let them know you heard and understood, but that does not mean you agree – this technique is called active listening.
§ It is frequently used in interviews to encourage a person to speak freely.
§ Comments may include:
· You see the facts this way
· You feel very strongly about this point
· I can see that if you saw things this way, you would feel threatened and upset by what I have said
Synchronized De-escalation
o One party decides on a small concession that both parties could make to signal their good faith and desire to de-escalate.
o The party should then make a public announcement, stating:
§ Exactly what the concession is
§ That the concession is part of a deliberate attempt to reduce tension
§ That the other side is explicitly invited to reciprocate in a specified form
§ That the concession will occur on a stated time schedule
§ That each party commits to make the concession without knowing whether the other will reciprocate
o The party who initiated the de-escalation then makes the concession.
§ The specific concession should be obvious, unambiguous, and subject to easy verification.
§ If the other party does not respond, the initiator follows through with the action and repeats the sequence, trying to attract the other into synchronized de-escalation.
§ If the other does respond, the initiator proposes a second action, slightly riskier than the first, and again initiates the sequence.
§ As the synchronized de-escalation takes hold, the parties can both propose larger and riskier concessions.
§ A variation is to use this process, each negotiator choosing from a list of concessions provided by the other side.
C. Improving the Accuracy of Communication
· The third step in conflict reduction is to ensure that both parties accurately understand the other’s position.
o During impasses, listening becomes so poor the parties are unaware of what their positions have in common – labeled the “blindness of involvement.”
o Several approaches can be used to rectify this situation.
Role Reversal
o Role reversal helps negotiators put themselves in the other party’s shoes and look at the issue from their perspective.
§ Although it will not identify exactly how the other party thinks and feels about the issues, the process can provide useful and surprising insights.
§ For example, see Box 17.3 on managing offensive comments.
o One purpose of role reversal is to highlight areas of commonality and overlap between positions – however, compatibilities must actually exits.
§ Without compatibility, role reversal may simply sharpen the differences.
§ If the parties’ goals are incompatible, integrative negotiation is impossible, and the sooner that is known, the better.
§ Role reversal can be a powerful tool for uncovering the true goals of both parties and determining how the negotiation should proceed.
Imaging
o Imaging is another method for gaining insight into the other party’s perspective.
o Parties in conflict are asked to engage in the following activities separately:
§ Describe how you see yourself
§ Describe how the other party appears to you
§ State how you think the other party would describe you
§ State how you think the other party sees themselves
o Parties then exchange this information, in order.
§ A common result is the parties recognize that many apparent differences and areas of conflict are not real, and they begin to understand those that are real.
· The successful use of role reversal or imaging techniques can:
o Clarify and correct misconceptions and misinterpretations
o Bring to the surface both parties’ interests, goals, priorities, and limitations
o Set a positive tone for the negotiation
D. Controlling Issues
· As conflict intensifies, the size and number of the issues expand.
o The challenge for negotiators in impasses, is to develop strategies to contain issue proliferation and reduce the negotiation to manageable proportions.
o We discuss several strategies next.
Fractionate the Negotiation
o Fractionating is a method of issue control that involves dividing a large conflict into smaller parts – there are several approaches, and they work as follows:
§ Reduce the number of parties on each side.
· The sheer number of parties in the negotiation can increase the complexity of the negotiation substantially – lawyers, experts, etc.
· One way to manage a conflict that has escalated to impasse is to reduce the number of participants.
· Reducing to just two individuals increases the chance of settlement.
· Box 17.4 provides 12 ways to manage dueling experts.
§ Control the number of substantive issues involved.
· A second way to fractionate a conflict is to keep the number of issues small enough to manage.
· At the same time, limiting negotiation to very few issues also raise problems – they lead to win-lose polarization.
§ State issues in concrete terms rather than as principles.
· Resorting to arguments of principle and policy is often a tactic used by high-power parties against any change from the status quo
· The long the discussion remains at the level of principle, the less likely it is that it will become specific enough to be successfully resolved.
· There are times when a single event is indicative of a new principle or policy and negotiators should specifically address it.
· Attempting to negotiate a concrete issue when the negotiation really should address the broader principle may result in frustration.
· It this occurs, it is wise to face the underlying issue and raise it directly – there are at least two tactics that can be used:
o Questions whether the issue needs to be addressed at the principle or policy level and suggest the immediate concrete issue be handled separately from the underlying principle or policy
o Assert that exceptions can be made to all policies and that principles and policies can be maintained even if exceptions are made under special circumstances
§ Restrict the precedents involved, both procedural and substantive.
· Another way to fractionate the negotiation occurs when the parties treat concessions on a single issue as creating a substantive or procedural precedent.
· Procedural precedents are at stake when parties agree to follow a process they have not followed before.
· Issues of precedent can be as difficult to manage as issues of principle.
· Negotiators should try to prevent single issues from being translated into major questions of precedent.
§ Search for ways to divide the big issues.
· Negotiators should try to find ways to slice a large issue into smaller pieces, known as using salami tactics.
· Issues expressed in quantitative, measurable units are easy to slice.
§ Depersonalize issues: separate them from the parties advocating them.
· People become identified with positions on issues, and vice versa.
· Effective negotiation requires separating the issues from the parties.
· This is even more important when negotiations are at impasse.
E. Establishing Common Ground
· Parties in escalated conflict tend to magnify perceived differences and minimize perceived similarities.
· A fifth step that parties can take to de-escalate conflict is to establish common ground and focus on common objectives – several approaches are possible, listed below.
· In general, as the conflict de-escalates, it becomes possible to move to an approach that accommodates a mix of distributive and integrative strategies, and to reduce the use of purely distributive approaches.
Establish Superordinate Goals
o Superordinate goals are common goals; both parties desire them, and both parties must cooperate to achieve them – see Box 17.5.
o To have a constructive impact on negotiations, superordinate goals must be wanted by both parties and must not be seen as benefiting one more than the other.
o Random events or events created by neutral third parties generate better superordinate goals than those sought or planned by the parties involved.
§ Natural disasters bring people together with a common purpose of survival; the same impact can be seen in negotiation.
Align against Common Enemies
o Common enemies are a negative type of superordinate goal.
o The parties find new motivation to resolve their differences to avoid intervention by a third party, or to pool resources to defeat a common enemy.
o Common enemies have the capacity to establish common ground between parties, who can then work to resolve impasses.
Establish Common Expectations
o Parties can manage the social context by devising ground rules to govern their conflict.
§ When ground rules are poorly chosen and mismanaged, they become part of the conflict rather than a process for effectively managing conflict.
o A more effective process is to move from ground rules to “higher ground” by creating common and shared expectations – creating a “group covenant.”
o A group covenant addresses differences, clarifies expectations, and establishes ground rules for moving a group forward.
o There are six key elements to this process:
§ Establish the need for creating shared expectations.
§ Educate and inspire people to create a new covenant that all will agree to follow.
§ Envision desired outcomes for the future, and then develop common ground rules that will enable the group to reach the future.
§ Promote full participation by giving everyone a voice in the process.
§ Be accountable by honoring the agreements contained in the new covenant.
§ Evaluate, modify, revise, and recommit to these new principles as necessary.
Manage Time Constraints and Deadlines
o Time can be a source of power and leverage, but can also be an impediment.
o The remedies for managing time constraints and deadlines to de-escalate impasses are straightforward:
§ Conduct thorough and open problem diagnosis and issue identification to clarify the motives of both parties.
§ Address and identify the clearly distributive issues early enough so they are not a surprise as the deadline approaches.
§ Be generous in estimating the time necessary to conclude the negotiation, allowing extra time to manage difficult or linked issues.
§ Recognize tentative deadlines for what they are, consider benchmarking progress against the time allotted, and let both sides reconsider tentative settlements before closing the discussion.
§ Consider the possibility of extending a deadline set early in the negotiation – if the deadline is not movable, pay additional attention to timing, pacing and especially benchmarking progress
Reframe the Parties’ View of Each Other
o Frames shape and misshape the ways parties perceive difficult-to-resolve disputes and the processes available for their resolution.
o Parties must be able to gain perspective on the dispute.
o This perspective taking requires standing back, observing the negotiation, and reflecting on it in a way that allows parties to recognize there is more than one way to view the other party, the issues, and the process of resolving it.
Build Trust
o Strong, constructive bargaining relationships are typically marked by conditions of high trust and low distrust, and accompanied by low vigilance and low monitoring behaviors between the parties
o The trust produced by successful collaboration— based on enhanced knowledge of the other party and their needs—reinforces itself through multiple iterations of bargaining situations.
Search for Semantic Resolutions
o Negotiations may reach impasse over key words, phrases, and expressions – see Box 17.6.
o Discovering how parties attach different meanings to some words, and exploring language that can accommodate both sides, is another approach to moving beyond impasse.
Use Analogical Reasoning
o One study proposes that the metaphorical process of analogical reasoning (the illustrative use of analogies) provides considerable power to reframe intractable conflict.
§ Analogical reasoning is defined as the inferential process by which a resemblance, similarity, or correspondence, perceived between two or more things, suggests that they will probably agree in other ways as well.
o Several kinds of analogies may prove useful:
§ Direct analogies, in which the problem is placed or examined in a totally different field of information – “This conflict is like a can of worms.”
§ Fantasy analogies, in which the problem is restated in terms of a party’s fantasized or wished-for state – “I wish I could sweep this thing away like a pile of dust.”
§ Personal analogies, in which a party puts themselves in the problem situation, attempting to identify with it or empathize with those in the situation – “You must feel like a large picture in a small frame”
§ Symbolic analogies, in which a different, often graphic image is conjured up to focus attention and provide a starting point for more open discussion – “This conflict reminds me of trying to land an airplane whose landing gear won’t do down”
F. Enhancing the Desirability of Options to the Other Party
· The sixth step parties can use to de-escalate a conflict is to make their desires and preferences appear more palatable to the other.
· Rather than focusing on their own interests and positions, negotiators should focus on the other’s interests.
o One powerful way to do this is to focus on why the other party wants what they want.
o Once the needs are understood, negotiators should move toward the other party, instead of trying to get the other party to come to them.
o This can be done is most cases by making offers rather than demands and threats.
o Some suggested alternative strategies are discussed next.
Give the Other Party a “Yesable” Proposal
o Negotiators should direct efforts to understanding the other side’s needs and devising a proposal that will meet those needs.
o This can be called a “yesable” proposal, one to which the only answer can be, “Yes, it is acceptable.”
o To succeed, this approach requires negotiators to consider what the other party wants or would agree with, rather than exclusively considering their own goals and needs
Ask for a Different Decision
o Rather than making demands more general, negotiators should endeavor to make them more specific.
o Reformulate, repackage, reorganize, rephrase, fractionate, split, divide, or make more specific.
o Inventing and refining ways in which both parties can succeed greatly enhance the likelihood that both parties can select a desirable option.
Sweeten the Offer Rather Than Intensifying the Threat
o Negotiators can also make options more palatable by enhancing the attractiveness of accepting them – placing emphasis on the positive rather than the negative.
o The approach should make the carrot more attractive rather than enlarging the stick.
o Promises and offers can be made more attractive in several ways:
§ Maximizing the attractive qualities and minimizing the negative ones
§ Showing how the offer meets the other party’s needs
§ Reducing the disadvantages of accepting the offer
§ Making offers more credible by providing third-party references or factual support
§ Setting deadlines on offers so they expire if not accepted quickly
Use Legitimacy or Objective Criteria to Evaluate Solutions
o Finally, negotiators may insist that alternative solutions be evaluated by objective criteria that meet the tests of fairness and legitimacy.
o Negotiators on all sides should demonstrate that their demands are based on sound facts, calculations, and information and that preferred solutions are consistent with those facts and information.
o The more these data are open to public verification, the more convincing it will be that the position is independent of the negotiator who advocates it, and the more persuasive the positions will be in achieving a settlement.
G. Section Summary
· In this section, we reviewed six major strategies that negotiators can use to get derailed negotiations back on track and return to a more productive flow of events:
o Agreeing on the ground rules
o Reducing tension
o Improving communication
o Controlling issues
o Finding common ground
o Making options more attractive for joint resolution
· Taken together, these strategies create a large portfolio of alternative that negotiators can pursue to mange derailed discussions, enhance deteriorating communications, and find ways to invent acceptable solutions.
· These techniques are ways that parties can work together to overcome intractability and improve the odds that successful resolution can occur.
Chapter Summary
Through several different avenues—breakdowns in communication, escalation of anger and mistrust, polarization of positions and refusal to compromise, the issuance of ultimatums, or even the avoidance of conflict—negotiations can hit an impasse. Productive dialogue stops. The parties may continue talking, but the communication is usually characterized by trying to sell or force one’s own position, talking about the other’s unreasonable position and uncooperative behavior, or both. When these breakdowns occur, the parties may simply agree to recess, cool off, and come back tomorrow. More commonly, however, the parties break off negotiation and walk away angry and upset. Although they may privately wish there was some way to get back together, they usually don’t know how to start the reconciliation.
This chapter explored various reasons that conflicts become difficult to resolve and likely to reach impasse. The fundamental nature of difficult-to-resolve conflicts was discussed, as well as four dimensions that make them difficult to resolve: the characteristics of the issues, the characteristics of the parties, the negotiation environment, and the negotiation setting. We then examined several common mistakes that negotiators make that result in derailed negotiations and impasses. Finally, six strategies were suggested that the parties could use to attempt to resolve a dispute on their own.
The tools discussed in this chapter are broad in function and in application, and they represent self-help for negotiators in dealing with stalled or problematic exchanges. None of these methods and remedies is a panacea, and each should be chosen and applied with sensitivity to the needs and limitations of the situations and of the negotiators involved. Their successful application requires a significant amount of interpersonal communication skill. A truly confrontational breakdown, especially one that involves agreements of great impact or importance, sometimes justifies the introduction of individuals or agencies who themselves are not party to the dispute.
中国经济管理大学|中国经济管理大学|中国经济管理大学|中国经济管理大学培训|MBA实战|中国经济管理大学|MBA培训|硕士研究生|职业资格|管理培训
中国经济管理大学 官网 ：www.eauc.hk 中国经济管理大学MBA公益课堂
中国经济管理大学 MOOC（慕课站） 美华管理传播网：www.mhjy.net
中國經濟管理大學版權所有