Negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

Negotiation skills
Cross-Cutting Issues in Negotiation
Group 4:
Reuben Kimutai Koech HD333-0C10-0596/2014
Samuel Niyomugabo HD333-0C10-5803/2014
Solange Kayitesi HD333-0C10-5860/2014
9/3/2015Cross-cutting isues in Negotiation 1

Outline
• Introduction
• Key cultural variables that influence negotiations
• Basic approaches to negotiation
• Framing and reframing
• Who engages in negotiations, and how?
• Power and influence
• Conclusion

Introduction
• International business deals not only cross borders, they also cross cultures.
Culture profoundly influences how people think, communicate, and behave.
It also affects the kinds of transactions they make and the way they negotiate
them.
• Cross cutting issues; are topics which by their very nature, have a strong
impact on all operations in a given field and, therefore, must receive special
attention.

Key cultural variables that influence
negotiations
• Each person is a member of multiple cultures. While each of us is part of a
broad national culture that shares many characteristics in common, we each
also maintain memberships in our family, a community or communities, and
usually some form of workplace (company, government agency,
nongovernmental organization, school, and so forth), and each of these
represents a somewhat different culture or subculture.

Key cultural variables that influence
negotiations
• Organizational or work cultures probably exhibit the greatest variability, even
within a single country.
• Although there are general tendencies among most workplaces within a
national culture, some organizations are highly bureaucratic and regulated,
with explicit rules for almost every occasion (and therefore low context),
while others are informal and flexible, depending to a large extent on
unwritten rules and personal relationships to determine how to proceed (and
are therefore high context).

Key culture variables
Members of indirect-dealing cultures
are seldom explicit in exchanges and
often prefer to communicate through
intermediaries. They avoid strong
expressions of feelings or any hint of
disharmony.
The meanings of yes and no are not
obvious.
Members of direct-dealing cultures tell
you what they think, directly and in
person.
They do not mind expressing feelings and
will even shout and argue.
For them, a yes is a yes and a no is a no.
While harmony is a nice ideal, ‘‘you can’t
make an omelet without breaking a few
eggs.’’

High-context cultures understand
meaning in context—based on who you
are, your relationship with others, and
norms that are universally understood by
any member of the culture. Much is
implicit and unexpressed because it does
not need to be pointed out; everyone
(except outsiders) understands already.
Low-context cultures create meaning
through explicit expressions: clear and direct
speech, unambiguous messages, detailed
documents, rules, regulations, written norms
and expectations, and so forth.
Relationships are constantly formed,
reformed, and defined in the moment as
needed and, depending on the context,
through direct discussion. An outsider
coming into a low-context setting might even
be given a manual explaining exactly what is
expected 9/3/2015Cross-cutting isues in Negotiation 7

Relationship-oriented cultures depend on a
series of affiliations to function in life. These may
be based on long-term connections— family ties,
friendships, ethnic group membership, school or
university associations, business relationships, or
other affective bonds. The primary task in any kind
of negotiation is to establish or improve a
relationship, which will serve as the basis for any
future agreement or deal. In some cases, the
relationship may be more important than any
substantive element of a settlement, as it will
endure over time and provide the context for
resolving any misunderstandings or conflicts.
Task-oriented (or substantively oriented)
cultures focus on the substantive matters
at hand and the issues that have brought
negotiators together, whether a business
deal or a deep conflict. While members
of these cultures may spend some time
building a relationship, this is normally a
means to the real end: the substantive
deal.
In the extreme, task-oriented negotiators
will sacrifice a relationship for a more
advantageous settlement.

Holistic cultures do not separate relationships,
feelings, context, specific joint activities, and
substantive issues; they see them as integrally
connected. They would rarely compartmentalize
different elements of life: business relationships,
work, home, social life.
In these cultures, unwritten or verbal agreements
are strongly valued, and in some cases, they may be
seen as more valuable than written commitments
or contracts.
Contractually oriented cultures tend to
compartmentalize people, relationships, issues, and
diverse activities. They separate specific kinds of
relationships (business, family, social) and are likely
to make explicit agreements in each.
An old joke illustrates the extreme: ‘‘He would sue
his mother if he thought it would get him a better
deal.’’ Written contracts are the last word

BASIC APPROACHES TO
NEGOTIATION
Four factors influence how individuals or teams of negotiators approach
negotiations and related strategies, tactics, and behaviors (Quinney, 2002)

• Specific personality and personality traits of an individual negotiator or members of a negotiation
team
• The general context of negotiations and issues under discussion, such as whether parties are
involved in a transaction or resolving a dispute; are engaged in diplomatic, commercial, or other kinds of
talks; or are resolving substantive, procedural, or relationship or psychological issues
• Structural factors, such as the broader political-economic position of the negotiator or entities he or
she represents and those of the counterpart, the political or economic systems in which negotiations are
occurring, organizational structures, leadership, and decision-making structures and procedures
• The culture or cultures of the people involved, including gender, age, race/ethnic group, profession,
education, rank or status, region, or national origin
Factors influence how individuals or teams
of negotiators approach negotiations

Positional Negotiation (Hard bargaining or
distributive bargaining)
• This approach is often used when counterparts believe that a division of
goods, resources, or benefits will be required to reach a settlement and that
the end result will most likely be some form of compromise between their
two views on a desirable allocation (distribution).
• A positional approach is common when the outcome of negotiations is seen
by one or more parties as having a potential winner or loser.

Why do negotiators use positional bargaining
and strive for distributive outcomes to
negotiations?
It often has to do with the mind-sets and attitudes of individual parties and
broader cultural norms or accepted practices regarding what negotiations are
and how they should be conducted, plus the context and the issues at stake.

Negotiators often choose to conduct
positional negotiations in these situations:
• The stakes for winning are perceived to be high, and the negotiator cannot afford to lose
• The issue at stake is a matter of principle and requires a strong position to demonstrate the
strength of the negotiator’s commitment to it.
• Resources (time, money, psychological benefits, or something else) are perceived to be limited,
and the only possible outcome will result in a distribution of gains and losses
• The negotiator believes that the resource being negotiated is not divisible into multiple subissues
or sub-interests, which could facilitate trading items that are valued differently by the parties
• The interests related to the resource have been translated into symbolic solutions that are framed
in terms of specific numbers (money, time, number of units produced, number of acts to
perform a task) rather than proposals that meet the real interests or needs.

• Both parties want exactly the same thing for the same purpose, and it appears that a win for
one side automatically means a loss for the other
• The parties are not interdependent, will not pursue any future relationship or interaction, or
do not consider any future relationship more important than immediate substantive gain
• The parties control adequate resources and coercive power to attempt a forced solution and
damage the others if an impasse in negotiations occurs, and each believes that they can
withstand or overcome the costs that will result from the exercise of the other side’s
coercive power.
• Posturing for a constituency and presentation of an initial, and often public, high demand is
expected or required to maintain the credibility of the negotiator and the support of his or
her followers

• A negotiator believes that an initial high-demand or hard-line position is
needed to educate the other party about the importance of the issue, the
expected level of exchange, and the strong commitment of the initiator to a
high settlement. Parties enmeshed in international trade negotiations often
employ this tactic.
• The issue is not very important, it does not involve multiple interests to be
traded, and the parties need a mechanistic procedure to split differences and
arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Or the ritual of positional bargaining
is the norm and culturally expected.

Variations of the Positional Bargaining
Process
In the first variation, positional bargainer A presents an initial position early in
negotiations. They may or may not explain the interests it satisfies. If the initial
position is rejected by counterpart B, which it frequently is, positional bargainer
A explains more about his or her proposal and may ask why, and what interests
of counterpart B are not addressed or met by the position. If this information
is provided, negotiator A uses it to modify the initial position to make it more
acceptable or to develop a new position.

Variations of the Positional Bargaining
Process
The second variation begins much the same as the first. Positional bargainer A
presents an initial position and explains the interests that the proposal satisfies.
However, counterpart B, who is also a positional bargainer, rejects the initial position
outright (often without providing much of an explanation as to why) and immediately
proposes a counter-position that better satisfies his interests. In response, bargainer A
may ask counterpart B why his alternative position is preferable to the first proposal.
Bargainer A may also inquire about the merits of her proposal and problems inherent
in the initial offer.
Finally, A may ask explicitly about the interests satisfied by the counter-position from
B

Interest-Based Negotiations
• Interest-based negotiations represent alternative procedures for reaching
agreements.
• In the positional approach, parties focus on advocating positions or specific
solutions that meet their individual interests or needs and persuading opposing
parties to accept their proposals.
• In contrast, in an interest-based (or needs-based) process, negotiators focus first on
identifying the concerns, needs, or interests of all parties, and only then do they
individually or jointly develop integrative options to address them.

Three types of interests
• Substantive interests are tangible benefits a party wants to have satisfied or
exchanged through negotiations. They include financial remuneration, the
exchange of property, performance of specific acts or behaviors, and time
commitments.
• Procedural interests refer to preferences regarding the process by which
problem solving, negotiations, or dispute resolution occurs and the way that
agreements are reached or implemented. They include a desire for an
efficient and timely process, clearly understandable steps, and an opportunity
for all parties to present their views.

Three types of interests
• Relationship or psychological interests concern how individuals or
groups are treated, both in the negotiation process and outside it, as well as
how relationships are valued and shaped through negotiations. Psychological
interests include an individual negotiator’s desire to be trusted, respected, and
heard and to have feelings and experiences acknowledged.

Triangle of Satisfaction

Attitudes of Interest-Based Negotiators
• Interest- or needs-based negotiations begin with general mind-sets, attitudes,
and assumptions that are quite different from those common to positional
bargaining.

Interest based negotiators assumptions
• Zero-sum negotiations, in which one party will win and the other will lose,
are not as common as most people believe. Rather, the goal for bargaining
is to strive for benefits to both or all parties
• Resources being bargained over are not necessarily limited, and there may be
a way to maximize gains for all concerned parties
• Resources may be expanded through concerted action; each party has the
potential to gain more benefits from cooperation than from adversarial
initiatives

• Any negotiation includes substantive, procedural, and psychological interests
and needs that may be met in a variety of ways to reach joint gains.
• Interests that have been expressed in numerical form (such as money, time,
number of units produced, number of actions, and so forth) may be broken
down into subtopics and associated interests that can be traded or addressed
in a number of ways

• Parties may want different outcomes or benefits, value the items being
discussed differently, or want benefits at different times or in different forms,
providing the potential for trade-offs
• The ongoing relationship between the parties is valued both during and after
negotiations, and a focus on meeting each party’s interests will strengthen
this relationship

The Interest-Based Negotiation Process
• Define the issue or problem
• Educate each other about interests and needs
• Clarify interests and needs, and identify criteria for acceptable agreements
• Generate options.
• Engage in bargaining and persuasion
• Evaluate options
• Implement and monitor the agreement

Strategies for Coordinating Approaches to
Negotiation
Coordinatation Among Positional Bargainers.
• Continue advocating for the unacceptable position, with the hope that logic, the
exercise of some means of influence or leverage, or a change of circumstances will
encourage the other side to accept the proposal.
• Try to switch to an interest-based approach, encouraging each other to engage in joint
problem solving to satisfy all interests and needs.
• Modify proposals or make a counterproposal that better meets the needs or demands of
the other side, based on information gained about a counterpart’s needs and interests.
• Identify a compromise position or solution in which gains and losses are shared.
• Break off negotiations.

Negotiation
Coordination Among Interest-Based Negotiators
• If both parties begin negotiations using an interest-based approach, they may
still have several coordination tasks. They may need to jointly define issues so
that each party understands the problem or dispute to be addressed and
associated subissues.
• In addition, they must clearly identify the interests (substantive, procedural,
and relationship or psychological) that must be addressed and coordinate
procedures for generating and evaluating options

Negotiation
Coordination Between Interest-Based and Positional Negotiators
• The positional bargainer may continue to try to educate her counterpart about the
merits and logic of her position, and how it meets the interests and needs of her
counterpart—and, if they are persuasive enough, move toward agreement.
• The positional bargainer may continue to advocate for his original position as
stated, but at the same time will listen to what his counterpart has said, ask
questions, and collect more information about the other party’s interests. He may
then use this information to show how his initial position meets the other’s interests
or develop another position that better meets all parties’ interests

Negotiation
• The positional bargainer may use her opening position as a place marker, but put it on hold while
exploring the interests and needs of her counterpart. A counterpart using an interest-based
approach may be able to convince the positional bargainer to switch to a more collaborative
process of problem solving.
• The interest-based bargainer may become positional and begin to advocate for specific positions
or preferred solutions that meet his interests.
• The parties can divide up issues and apply different approaches to each, depending on whether
they are more amenable to integrative or distributive solutions.
• The interest-based negotiator may convert the positional negotiator to the use of an interest-
based approach.

Coordination Between Interest-Based and
Positional Negotiators
• Generally interest-based negotiators who want to persuade a positional
bargainer to use a more integrative and cooperative approach must
refrain from offering counter-positions or making explicit substantive
proposals early in negotiations. Rather, they either directly or indirectly
engage their counterpart in interest-based strategies and tactics.

Coordination Between Interest-Based and
Positional Negotiators
Coordination Between Relational and Positional or Interest-Based
Negotiation Approaches
• Relational orientations toward negotiations are principally focused on
creating positive emotional connections and commitments between parties
that can ultimately be translated into reciprocal bonds of respect and
obligation.

FRAMING AND REFRAMING
• Frames refer to the specific way that parties see or describe the situation in
which they are involved. A frame includes how you see the problem or
situation and your perspective on it. A party’s description (frame) not only
defines and assigns meaning to the broad underlying problem to be
addressed and often the goals to be achieved, but also guides a negotiator’s
actions to achieve desired ends
• SchÖn on and Rein (1994) define a frame or a general frame as the story that
a party tells himself or herself about a situation that for him or her is
troublesome and needs to be addressed.

• A negotiator’s frames lie behind the presenting problem or purpose of
negotiations. In that sense, each party’s framing of the purpose, issues,
problems, and interests remains relevant through the negotiation process.
This concept is useful throughout the phases.
• Because of the importance of how parties describe the purpose of
negotiations and frame the interests they hope to achieve, it is critical for
them to be aware of possible conceptualizations and how they will influence
negotiations. Negotiators need to be introspective throughout the process,
trying to articulate, at least to themselves, how they define problems to be
addressed and their underlying frames.
• They will then have to determine what should be expressed in negotiations,
how their perspective (frame) can best be described to a counterpart, and
what should be only privately acknowledged or remain unsaid.

Coordinating Purposes and General
Frames
• In many negotiations, parties articulate and readily agree on the general
purpose of discussions and have similar frames, or at least not mutually
incompatible ones
• In other negotiations, especially those initiated to resolve conflicts, parties
often have frames that are at odds. In this situation, negotiators have to make
efforts to coordinate their understandings of the purpose of negotiation and
how they frame the process.

Suggested strategies for coordination of general
frames
• Avoid explicit presentation of your general frame until your counterpart presents
his.
• Advocate a purpose and underlying general frame and reject that of your
counterpart, thus forcing him to accept your purpose and frame if he wants to
reach an agreement.
• Advocate a general frame, and then, if necessary, adapt it to make it acceptable to all
parties
• Propose a general frame, listen to that of your counterpart, and, through mutual
education, jointly shift to a totally new description of the purpose of negotiations
and general frame.

Framing Issues or Problems for
Negotiation
In general there are four ways to frame an issue: as a
(1) Neutral topic statement,
(2) Statement of a position,
(3) Statement about a party’s interests, or
(4) Joint problem to be addressed, which incorporates descriptions of two or
more parties’ interests or needs.

Case study: Israel vs Egypt (1975)
• Neutral topic statement: ‘‘We will discuss the issues of territory and security.’’
• Positional statements: ‘‘We demand return of our land.’’ And, ‘‘We refuse to leave,
as occupation ensures our security.’’
• Statement of interests: ‘‘We must regain control over our sovereign territory and
want to be treated with respect.’’ And, ‘‘Any agreement must include provisions that
guarantee our security from attacks through the Sinai.’’
• Joint problem statement: ‘‘How can we enable Egypt to regain control over its
territory, while at the same time guaranteeing Israel’s security from attack?’’

Untangling Frames Through Reframing
How an issue is framed affects whether a party is even
willing to talk about it, much less engage in productive
problem solving. When a party frames an issue in a way
that is unacceptable to the other party, one or the other will
eventually have to figure out a way to reframe the topic in a
manner that refrains from attacks, removes reference to a
fixed solution, and invites joint problem solving.

Different possibilities
• Translation from a win-lose or distributional approach to looking for joint
gains or an integrative approach that tries to meet all parties’ needs
Win-lose frame
Integrative frame
• Redefining issues in either more general or more specific ways that allow
problem solving.
Overly general frame
Reframe (more specific)

• Adjusting time frames if they are too short or constrained or too long and
unlimited.
Time-limited frame
Reframe
• Translate one-sided frames to address the concerns or interests of multiple
parties
One-sided frame
Reframe

• Remove toxic, adversarial, or judgmental language
Toxic frame
Reframe

WHO ENGAGES IN NEGOTIATIONS,
AND HOW?
• Another cross-cutting issue in global and intercultural negotiations concerns
the people who are involved and the roles they play.
• Within the same culture, the size, composition, and roles of negotiation
teams differ depending on whether the matter at hand is personal or familial,
commercial, communal, governmental, or in the realm of international
diplomacy

Individual Negotiators or Teams
• Individual negotiators, each representing himself or herself
• Individual negotiators, each representing larger entities, such as a community,
organization, company, government agency, or national government
• Multiple individuals, each representing themselves
• Multiple individuals, each representing larger entities
• Teams of two or more people, each representing a larger entity
• Multiple teams, each representing a larger entity

Team Unity or Diversity
• When teams are involved in negotiations, the situation becomes a bit more complex, and it is
important to determine how the team is composed and the dynamics within it.
• The team may represent one group or organization and hold unified views regarding the issues,
needs, interests, and outcomes that will be under discussion.
• The team may represent one group or organization, but individual members speak for different
parts of the entity (even rival units) and may have individual interests different from other
members of their team.
• The team may represent an informal or formal coalition of individuals or groups whose
members have fairly similar views regarding the negotiations and the issues. Examples are
representatives of an environmental coalition or a business association or trade group.
• The team may be composed of representatives of an informal or formal coalition of individuals
or groups, but the members do not represent a unity of views or interests regarding the issues to
be addressed in negotiations.

Team Organization, Composition, Size,
and Symmetry
• Team Organization and Decision Making. Teams representing national
or organizational hierarchical cultures are usually organized in a similar
manner, with a clear leader and other members in subservient positions

Team Composition
Issues involved in team composition include:
• The formal position and status of team members
• The personal or professional reputation and credibility of members
• The areas of expertise needed for the particular negotiations
• The personal style and perceived ability of individual members to promote
agreements

Additional Considerations Regarding Team
Composition
• Age, gender, rank, status, and qualifications or expertise all exert an influence
on the progress of deliberations,
• Symmetry Between the Position and Status of Negotiators Members of
some cultures wish to deal with individuals or groups of equivalent rank in
terms of organizational position, social status, or political influence
• Size of Negotiation Teams The size of these teams is influenced by culture,
as well as the context of talks and the complexity of issues under discussion.

SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR
COORDINATING TEAM COMPOSITION
ISSUES
• Determine what the norms of your counterpart are likely to be regarding the
presence, level of authority, and involvement of decision makers in
negotiations
• Identify the cultural norms for your culture and that of your counterpart
regarding the size and composition of negotiation teams
• What are your cultural norms and those of your counterpart regarding the
appropriateness, roles, and responsibilities of people of specific ages,
genders, or status in negotiations?

COORDINATING TEAM COMPOSITION
ISSUES
• Do the cultures draw strong distinctions or prohibitions regarding the acceptability
of younger or older people (women/men, high/low status) engaging in specific
negotiation activities?
• Decide if you want to adhere to your own norms or accommodate the norms of
your counterpart. What impact might your decision have on the negotiation
process?
• What are your cultural norms and those of your counterpart regarding the kind and
levels of expertise expected in negotiations? Think about the kind of expertise that
will be convincing to your counterpart.

POWER AND INFLUENCE
• Power is the capacity to get what you want or get something done.
• Influence involves acts performed to change another’s views or actions to
achieve desired ends
• Power comes in many forms—and each negotiator or negotiation team
possesses multiple kinds of power.

In order for power to work and achieve
desired ends, negotiators must:
• Distinguish between actual power, which they already have and can exercise immediately,
and potential power, which must be developed and cultivated before it can be used
• Develop the ability to mobilize their power and turn it into influence that can be used
effectively
• Determine the costs and benefits of exercising different types of power and influence
• Ascertain how much power or influence they will have to use for specific ends
• Cultivate the will to use power when necessary
• Select from among different sources of power to use at appropriate times to exert the
desired impact on a counterpart

Negotiations & Power
• In the context of negotiations, the least effective sources of power are
position and coercion.
• Positional power works only if the holder also possesses a number of the
other sources of power, such as perceived legitimate authority
• Coercive power is effective only if a party actually possesses it, is willing to
use it, can overcome resistance from a counterpart that the use of force
provokes, and has accurately assessed the ability of the counterpart to
withstand the exercise of this form of power

Establishing and Managing Role, Authority,
and Power Relationships
• Parties’ roles, rank, status, authority, and power relationships in relation to
each other are often established even before talks begin.
• However, the first face-to-face meeting or meetings is often the place where
power relationships and dynamics are exhibited and tested.
• Some parties are quite forceful, open, and explicit in projecting their power
and exercising influence, while others prefer more subtle signals.

Establishing and Managing Role, Authority,
and Power Relationships
• Personalities, the issues in question, the resources and power that each party
has at their disposal, and cultural norms for addressing and handling these
factors all affect how the parties interact and the means they use to achieve
desired ends.

Ways to establish rank, status and power
• One-up or one-down behavior, gestures, or body language
• Relationship-oriented statements that establish dominance versus more
egalitarian or cooperative relationships
• Emotional and positional statements versus more emotionally neutral
statements.

COORDINATION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY
ISSUES
• Assess how important status, rank, authority, and power are to you and your
counterpart
• Consider potential impacts of the use of power on the process of
negotiation and the likelihood of moving toward greater information
exchange, option generation, or reaching an agreement
• If you decide that you need to engage in positioning or posturing consider
ways of doing so that are less likely to cause resistance or damage potential
positive working relationships

ISSUES
• Think about how long you want to posture before beginning to share
information with your counterpart about your interests and needs
• Try revealing some information about your interests, and see if your
counterpart reciprocates
• If they persist in posturing, ask them whether the approach they are using is
achieving desired results, and propose a shift to a more in-depth exploration
of all parties’ issues, needs, and interests

ISSUES
• Determine what information you can share and at the same time minimize
potential risks to what you want to achieve

Conclusion
• In every negotiation, there are those important topics that are should be
taken such as the culture of both parties, teams and the nature of
negotiations to engage, knowing steps to be undertaken and processes based
on the culture.
• It’s also important to frame and reframe so that statements make sense.

Negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

Similar to Negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Negotiation skills cross cutting issues in negotiations

Editor's Notes