Conflict Management

Why It Matters: Conflict and Negotiation

Why learn about strategies for managing conflict and negotiation in the workplace?

Negotiation and conflict management events are everywhere, and the organization that faces them head on and looks to them as opportunities rather than obstacles will win the day. Think about the good that comes from negotiation and conflict management processes:

• Teachers' unions work with school boards to get increased pay for overworked educators and additional budgets for much-needed educational materials.
• City governments use tax incentives to bring new business into the area, increasing job opportunities for the community and bringing new potential revenue into the city.
• A brewery strikes up a deal with a bourbon distillery to remove used barrels from their property that may have otherwise been discarded, so they can turn around and use them to add a bourbon taste to their beer products.
• A teenager takes her life savings to the car dealership and purchases her first used car.

Negotiation and conflict management don't just make the business world go 'round, they're a part of life. Mastering these skills and understanding how to leverage the techniques will help you be more successful in work and life.

---

Source: Lumen Learning, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-organizationalbehavior/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Introduction to Conflict Management

What you'll learn to do: Describe why conflict resolution, "crucial conversations," and other higher stakes communication is necessary to study in organizations

The moment there were just two automobiles on the highway, there was a potential for a vehicle crash. This is true not only of the network of open roads, but also in an organization, where just two employees can just as easily "crash" in some sort of conflict.

No matter what the size of the business, conflict is going to be a natural part of its existence. So, naturally, we need to understand how to dissect and navigate conflict and be prepared to have those conversations that lead to conflict resolution. Otherwise, conflict could result in a stalemate that stifles the purpose of the organization.

What Is Conflict?

Learning Outcomes

• Define conflict

The word "conflict" tends to generate images of anger, fighting, and other ugly thoughts that leave people bruised and beaten. Conflict isn't uncommon in the workplace, and it isn't always good. But it isn't always a bad thing, either. Let's talk a little bit about what conflict is and how we think about it.

Conflict is a perception - meaning it only really exists if it's acknowledged by the parties that are experiencing it. If Teresa and Heitor have a heated discussion about the path the company should take to win more customers, but they walk away from the disagreement unfazed and either don't think about the issue again or think the issue is resolved, then no conflict exists. If Teresa and Heitor both walk away feeling that their ideas weren't heard by the other, that the other is wrong, that the other needs to come around to a better point of view . . . then conflict exists.

Teresa's and Heitor's situation could be viewed as a competition rather than conflict. Some people use competition and conflict interchangeably; however, while the terms are similar, they aren't exactly synonymous. Competition is a rivalry between two groups or two individuals over an outcome that they both seek. In a competition there is a winner and a loser. Teresa might want to attract more customers by a direct mail campaign and Heitor may be championing a television campaign. They may be competing for a finite amount of marketing budget, and if Heitor's idea is rewarded, then he is the competition's winner. Teresa is the loser. They may shake hands after the fact, shrug it off and go on to compete another day.

Conflict is when two people or groups disagree, and the disagreement causes friction. One party needs to feel that the other's point of view will have a negative effect on the final outcome. Teresa may feel strongly about direct mail campaigns because she's done several with great results. Heitor may feel television is the way to go because no one reads their mail anymore - it just gets thrown out! Each of them may feel that the other's approach is a waste of the marketing budget and that the company will not benefit from it. Teresa will jump in and prevent Heitor from trying to further his goal for television advertising, and Heitor will do the same to Teresa.

Conflict can be destructive to a team and to an organization. Disadvantages can include:

• Teams lose focus on common goals
• Winning eclipses any other goals of the group
• Judgement gets distorted
• There is a lack of cooperation
• Losing members lack motivation to continue participation

But if managed well, conflict can be healthy and spark creativity as parties try to come to consensus. Some of the benefits of conflict include:

• High energy
• Task focus
• Cohesiveness within the group
• Discussion of issues

There has been plenty of conflict over how conflict is viewed in the workplace over the years. Just like our concept of teams, our concepts of managing people and how they're motivated, our concepts of stress in the workplace have changed as we've learned.

Traditional View

Early in our pursuit of management study, conflict was thought to be a dysfunctional outcome, a result of poor communication and lack of trust between co-workers. Conflict was associated with words like violence and destruction, and people were encouraged to avoid it at all costs.

This was the case all the way up until the 1940s, and, if you think about it, it goes right along with what we thought we knew about what motivated people, how they worked together and the structure and supervision we thought we needed to provide to ensure productivity. Because we viewed all conflict as bad, we looked to eradicate it, usually by addressing it with the person causing it. Once addressed, group and organization would become more productive again.

Many of us still take the traditional view - conflict is bad and we need to get rid of it – even though evidence today tells us that's not the case.

The Human Relations View

Since the late 1940s, our studies of organizational behavior have indicated that conflict isn't so thoroughly bad. We came to view it as a natural occurrence in groups, teams and organizations. The Human Relations view suggested that, because conflict was inevitable, we should learn to embrace it.

But they were just starting to realize, with this point of view, that conflict might benefit a group's performance. These views of dominated conflict theory from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.

The Interactionist View

In the Interactionist View of conflict, we went from accepting that conflict would exist and dealing with it to an understanding that a work group that was completely harmonious and cooperative was prone to becoming static and non-responsive to needs for change and innovation. So this view encouraged managers to maintain a minimal level of conflict, a level that was enough to keep the group creative and moving forward.

The Interactionist View is still viable today, so it's the view we're going to take from here on as we discuss conflict. We know that all conflict is both good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate, and how we rate conflict is going to depend on the type of conflict. We'll discuss types of conflict next.

Types of Conflict

Learning Outcomes

• Differentiate among types of conflict

In literature, fledgling writers learn that there are many different kinds of conflict that arise in literature. One might see a plot that outlines the "man vs. man" scenario, and another might be "man vs. nature."  When examining workplace conflict, one sees that there are four basic types, and they're not terribly different from those other conflicts you learned in freshman literature except that they all deal with conflict among people. They are:

• Intrapersonal
• Interpersonal
• Intragroup
• Intergroup

Intrapersonal Conflict

The intrapersonal conflict is conflict experienced by a single individual, when his or her own goals, values or roles diverge. A lawyer may experience a conflict of values when he represents a defendant he knows to be guilty of the charges brought against him. A worker whose goal it is to earn her MBA might experience an intrapersonal conflict when she's offered a position that requires her to transfer to a different state. Or it might be a role conflict where a worker might have to choose between dinner with clients or dinner with family.

Interpersonal Conflict

As you might guess, interpersonal conflict is conflict due to differences in goals, value, and styles between two or more people who are required to interact. As this type of conflict is between individuals, the conflicts can get very personal.

Intragroup Conflict

Intragroup conflict is conflict within a group or team, where members conflict over goals or procedures. For instance, a board of directors may want to take a risk to launch a set of products on behalf of their organization, in spite of dissenting opinions among several members. Intragroup conflict takes place among them as they argue the pros and cons of taking such a risk.

Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict is when conflict between groups inside and outside an organization disagree on various issues. Conflict can also arise between two groups within the same organization, and that also would be considered intergroup conflict.

Within those types of conflict, one can experience horizontal conflict, which is conflict with others that are at the same peer level as you, or vertical conflict, which is conflict with a manager or a subordinate.

Answer:

Creating good conflict is a tough job, and one that's not often done right. But organizations that don't encourage dissent won't be around for very long in today's world. Companies today go out of their way to create meetings where dissension can occur, reward people who are courageous enough to provide alternative points of view, and even allow employees a period of time to rate and criticize management.

The Conflict Process

Learning OUtcomes

• Identify stages of the conflict process

The conflict process - that is, the process by which conflict arises - can be seen in five stages. Those stages are:

• Potential opposition or incompatibility
• Cognition and personalization
• Intentions
• Behavior
• Outcomes
  
  

Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

The first stage in the conflict process is the existence of conditions that allow conflict to arise. The existence of these conditions doesn't necessarily guarantee conflict will arise. But if conflict does arise, chances are it's because of issues regarding communication, structure, or personal variables.

• Communication. Conflict can arise from semantic issues, misunderstanding, or noise in the communication channel that hasn't been clarified. For instance, your new manager, Steve, is leading a project and you're on the team. Steve is vague about the team's goals, and when you get to work on your part of the project, Steve shows up half the way through to tell you you're doing it wrong. This is conflict caused by communication.
• Structure. Conflict can arise based on the structure of a group of people who have to work together. For instance, let's say you sell cars, and your co-worker has to approve the credit of all the people who purchase a vehicle from you. If your co-worker doesn't approve your customers, then he is standing between you and your commission, your good performance review, and your paycheck. This is a structure that invites conflict.
• Personal variables. Conflict can arise if two people who work together just don't care for each other. Perhaps you work with a man and you find him untrustworthy. Comments he's made, the way he laughs, the way he talks about his wife and family, all of it just rubs you the wrong way. That's personal variable, ripe to cause a conflict.
  
  

Cognition and Personalization

In the last section, we talked about how conflict only exists if it's perceived to exist. If it's been determined that potential opposition or incompatibility exists and both parties feel it, then conflict is developing.

If Joan and her new manager, Mitch, are having a disagreement, they may perceive it but not be personally affected by it. Perhaps Joan is not worried about the disagreement. It is only when both parties understand that conflict is brewing, and they internalize it as something that is affecting them, that this stage is complete.

Intentions

Intentions come between people's perceptions and emotions and help those who are involved in the potential conflict to decide to act in a particular way.

One has to infer what the other person meant in order to determine how to respond to a statement or action. A lot of conflicts are escalated because one party infers the wrong intentions from the other person. There are five different ways a person can respond to the other party's statements or actions.

• Competing. One party seeks to satisfy his own interests regardless of the impact on the other party.
• Collaborating. One party, or both, desire to fully satisfied the concerns of all parties involved in the conflict.
• Avoiding. One party withdraws from or suppresses the conflict once it is recognized.
• Accommodating. One party seeks to appease the opponent once potential conflict is recognized.
• Compromising. Each party to the conflict seeks to give up something to resolve the conflict.

We'll talk about this a little more in the next section when we use these styles to manage conflict.

Behavior

Behavior is the stage where conflict becomes evident, as it includes the statements, actions and reactions of the parties involved in the conflict. These behaviors might be overt attempts to get the other party to reveal intentions, but they have a stimulus quality that separates them from the actual intention stage.

Behavior is the actual dynamic process of interaction. Perhaps Party A makes a demand on Party B, Party B argues back, Party A threatens, and so on. The intensity of the behavior falls along a conflict oriented continuum. If the intensity is low, the conflict might just be a minor misunderstanding, and if the intensity is high, the conflict could be an effort to harm or even destroy the other party.

Outcomes

Outcomes of a conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional:

• Functional outcomes occur when conflict is constructive. It may be hard to think of times when people disagree and argue, and the outcome is somehow good.  But think of conflict, for a moment, as the antidote to groupthink. If group members want consensus, they're bound to all agree before all the viable alternatives have been reviewed. Conflict keeps that from happening. The group may be close to agreeing on something, and a member will speak up, arguing for another point of view. The conflict that results could yield a positive result.
• Dysfunctional outcomes are generally more well known and understood. Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to sever ties and eventually leads to the dissolution of the group. Organizations meet their ultimate demise more often than you'd think as a result of dysfunctional conflict. People who hate each other and don't get along can't make decisions to run a company well.
  
  

Answer:
intentions stage

Managing conflict in today's business world is a must. We'll look next at how that's done.

Conflict Management Styles

Learning Outcomes

• Discuss the appropriate use of various conflict management styles

We talked earlier about the "intentions" stage of conflict when we discussed how conflict develops. The intentions stage discusses how each player in the conflict interprets the statements and actions of the other conflict participant, and then the reaction that they give. Those reactions are the basis for conflict management.

Whether you're managing the conflict of two subordinates or embroiled in the midst of your own conflict, you make a choice on how the conflict should be managed by weighing the importance of the goal against the importance of the relationships in questions.

Each person brings his own innate style of conflict management to the party. Are they all right or all wrong? Let's look at Teresa and Heitor's situation once more - they're charged with the task of bringing new customers to their business. Teresa wants to use direct mail to bring attention to their company's offerings, and Heitor wants to move forward with an expensive television ad campaign. Teresa thinks that Heitor is wasting dollars by putting the message out there for an untargeted audience of viewers, and Heitor thinks that Teresa is wasting dollars by sending something out that's just going to get tossed in the trash.

The avoiding style of conflict resolution is one where one has low concern for his or her ultimate goal and low concern for his or her relationship with the other. In this situation, Heitor might avoid any discussion with Teresa, not wanting to start any fights. He's just not that kind of guy. But his idea isn't getting furthered along, nor is hers, nor is the company meeting its goals. The conflict hasn't gone away, and the job just isn't getting done.

The accommodating style of conflict resolution is where one party focuses on the needs of the other, and not the importance of the goal. If Heitor were one to adopt the accommodating style, he might look at Teresa as a valued team player who really needs a break after a couple of tough months. Without thought to the goal and the outcome the company expects, he tells Teresa to go ahead with the direct mail program.

The competing style of conflict resolution is defined by one party pushing ahead with his or her own mission and goals with no concern for the other party in the conflict. If Teresa were to adopt the competing style of conflict resolution, she might move forward with the plan to use direct mail and ignore anything to do with Heitor's suggestion. She'd take her idea to their boss and implement and run right over any objections Heitor had. As you might guess, this approach may exacerbate other conflicts down the road!

Right in the middle of Figure 1 is the compromising style of conflict management. Here, moderate concern for others and moderate concern for the ultimate goal are exhibited, and a focus is placed on achieving a reasonable middle ground where all the parties can be happy. For Heitor and Teresa, this might mean a joint decision where they devote half of their marketing funds to the direct mail campaign that Teresa wants to do, and the other half to the television spots that Heitor wants to do. Neither party has gotten exactly what he or she wanted, but neither party is completely dissatisfied with the resolution.

Finally, the collaborating style is one where there is high concern for relationships and high concern for achieving one's own goal. Those with a collaborating style look to put all conflict on the table, analyze it and deal openly with all parties. They look for the best possible solution: a win for each party in the conflict. In this situation, Heitor and Teresa would sit down, look at the possible conversion rate of each of their planned marketing campaigns. Perhaps they would find that a third option - online advertising - would provide a more targeted audience at a discounted price. With this new option that both parties could get behind, conflict is resolved and both feel like the company's goal will be satisfied.

For Teresa and Heitor, the conditions were right for a collaborating style of conflict resolution, but it's easy to see how a different style might have been more appropriate if the situation had been different.

So, now we understand what conflict is, how it develops and how to respond. We're ready to face conflict when we find it! But…where will we find it? Where, within an organization, does conflict lurk?

Sources of Conflict in an Organization

Learning Outcomes

• Identify organizational sources of conflict

Personality conflicts make work rough. When you're not in the office, you get to choose who you hang out with, but during the work day, the cast of characters is chosen for you. If an organization is looking to hire people that fit with the company culture, then chances are good you'll get along with most of them! However, it's likely that there will be at least one coworker that you don't get along with 100 percent.

Organizational sources of conflict are those events or factors that cause goals to differ. Personality conflicts, irritating as they may be, don't actually qualify as an organizational source of conflict. They may be the most aggravating part of your day and, certainly, they're something organizations need to watch for if it interferes with daily work, but these organizational sources produce much bigger problems. Those sources are

• Goal incompatibility and differentiation
• Interdependence
• Uncertainty and resource scarcity
• Reward systems
  
  

Goal Incompatibility and Differentiation

Organizational sources of conflict occur when departments are differentiated in their goals. For instance, the research and development team at an electronics company might be instructed to come up with the best new, pie-in-the-sky idea for individual-use electronics - that thing consumers didn't know they needed. The R&D team might come up with something fantastic, featuring loads of bells and whistles that the consumer will put to excellent use.

Then, the manufacturing team gets together to look at this new design. They've been told that management likes it, and that they need to build it by the most economical means possible. They start make adjustments to the design, saving money by using less expensive materials than what were recommended by the R&D team. Conflict arises.

Goal incompatibility and differentiation is a fairly common occurrence. The manufacturing team disagrees with research and development. The sales department feels like the legal department is there to keep them from getting deals signed.  Departments within the organization feel like they are working at cross-purposes, even though they're both operating under the assumption that their choices are best for the company.

Interdependence

Interdependence describes the extent to which employees rely on other employees to get their work done. If people all had independent goals that didn't affect one another, everything would be fine. That's not the case in many organizations.

For instance, a communication department is charged with putting together speaking points that help their front-line employees deal with customer questions. Because the communications department is equipped to provide clear instructions but are not necessarily the subject matter experts, they must wait for engineering to provide product details that are important to the final message. If those details are not provided, the communication department cannot reach their goal of getting these speaking points out on time for their front-line staff to deal with questions.

The same holds true for a first-, second-, and third-shift assembly line. One shift picks up where another leaves off. The same standards of work, production numbers, and clean-up should be upheld by all three teams. If one team deviates from those standards, then it creates conflict with the other two groups.

Uncertainty and Resource Scarcity

Change. We talked about it as a source of stress, and we're going to talk about it here as an organizational source of conflict. Uncertainty makes it difficult for managers to set clear directions, and lack of clear direction leads to conflict.

Resource scarcity also leads to conflict. If there aren't enough material and supplies for every worker, then those who do get resources and those who don't are likely to experience conflict. As resources dwindle and an organization has to make do with less, departments will compete to get those resources. For instance, if budgets are slim, the marketing department may feel like they can make the most of those dollars by earning new customers. The development team may feel like they can benefit from the dollars by making more products to sell. Conflict results over resource scarcity.

Reward System

An organization's reward system can be a source of conflict, particularly if the organization sets up a win-lose environment for employee rewards.

For instance, an organization might set a standard where only a certain percent of the employees can achieve the top ranking for raises and bonuses. This standard, not an uncommon practice, creates heavy competition within its employee ranks. Competition of this nature often creates conflict.

Other forms of rewards that might incite conflict include employee of the month or other major awards that are given on a competitive basis.

Conflict can occur between two employees, between a team of employees, or between departments of an organization, brought about by the employees, teams, or organizations themselves. Now that we understand conflict, we're ready to take on negotiation. It's different from conflict, but it's easy to see how some of the skills one uses to be a great negotiator are snatched from conflict resolution.

Practice Question

Why do organizational sources of conflict occur?
Responses

1. Because different shifts don't all produce the same or keep the area as clean
2. Because people often do not get along.
3. They occur because organizations often do not have solid conflict management plans in place
4. They occur because of the hierarchy, management, goal structure or rewards and recognition system an organization has in place.

Conflict Management

Learning Outcomes

• Identify stages of the conflict process
• Discuss the appropriate use of various conflict management styles
• Identify organizational sources of conflict

Introduction to Negotiation

What you'll learn to do: Discuss the history of negotiating techniques within organizational behavior

Now we understand what conflict is and ways it can be managed, we will move onto negotiation. And if you think conflict causes anxiety, wait until you meet negotiation!

People are intimidated by the negotiation process, and the reason for it is because they think negotiation is personal issue. But negotiation is about solving problems and arriving at win-win solutions for all the parties involved. The people component should only add benefit to the negotiation process, not add an element of dread.

Negotiation skills are highly valuable in the business world, and here we're going to talk about techniques that bring about successful issue resolution.

Negotiation vs. Conflict Management

Learning Outcomes

• Discuss how negotiating is different from managing conflict

We negotiate every day. We might be looking for a better job, trying to purchase a used car, or walking down the street on the right side and seeing someone coming right toward us, seemingly unwilling to step to the left. We don't necessarily think about whether we won or lost a negotiation when we step to the left and let the walker pass, but it's a negotiation, nonetheless.

Negotiation is the process of discussing each individual's position on a topic and attempting to reach a solution that benefits both parties. We often step in and negotiate when a conflict is taking place, but conflict doesn't have to exist for there to be an opportunity for negotiation. It can be a discussion of an exchange of goods and services (or just jockeying for position on a sidewalk).

All negotiations share four common characteristics:

• The parties involved are somehow interdependent
• The parties are each looking to achieve the best possible result in the interaction for themselves
• The parties are motivated and capable of influencing one another
• The parties believe they can reach an agreement

If these conditions don't exist, neither can a negotiation. The parties have to be interdependent - whether they are experiencing a conflict at work or want to do business with one another. Each has an interest in achieving the best possible result. The parties are motivated and capable of influencing one another, like a union bargaining for better working conditions. A worker doesn't have influence over a manufacturer, but a union of workers does, and without that influence as a factor, both parties won't be motivated to come to the table for discussions. Finally, the parties need to believe they can reach an agreement; otherwise any negotiation talks will be futile.

Answer:

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions. Anything one party gains in the deal is lost by the other party. There can be a winner and a loser, and parties are usually opposing each other. Any relationship between the two parties is usually short term, as at least one party will walk away a "loser" of sorts and animosities can build.

Integrated Negotiation

Integrated negotiation features a variable amount of resources to be divided. In integrated negotiations, both parties can walk away winners. Their primary interests don't make them "opposing parties," but rather they're convergent or congruent with one another. In integrated negotiations, the relationship can be of longer term, because feelings are preserved and no one walks away a loser.

Stages of Negotiation

Learning OUtcomes

• Describe the stages in the process of negotiation

Negotiation, in simplified terms, is a five-step process. Those steps are shown in Figure 1.

Let's take deeper look into each step.

Preparation and Planning

In the preparation and planning stage, you (as a party in the negotiation) need to determine and clarify your own goals in the negotiation. This is a time when you take a moment to define and truly understand the terms and conditions of the exchange and the nature of the conflict. What do you want to walk away with?

You should also take this moment to anticipate the same for the other party. What are their goals in this negotiation? What will they ask for? Do they have any hidden agendas that may come as a surprise to you? What might they settle for, and how does that differ from the outcome you're hoping for?

This is a time to develop a strategy for the negotiation. We'll talk more about strategies in the next section.

Definition of Ground Rules

After the planning and strategy development stage is complete, it's time to work with the other party to define the ground rules and procedures for the negotiation. This is the time when you and the other party will come to agreement on questions like

• Who will do the negotiating - will we do it personally or invite a third party?
• Where will the negotiation take place?
• Will there be time constraints placed on this negotiation process?
• Will there be any limits to the negotiation?
• If an agreement can't be reached, will there be any specific process to handle that?

Usually it's during this phase that the parties exchange their initial positions.

Clarification and Justification

Once initial positions have been exchanged, the clarification and justification stage can begin. Both you and the other party will explain, clarify, bolster and justify your original position or demands. For you, this is an opportunity to educate the other side on your position, and gain further understanding about the other party and how they feel about their side. You might each take the opportunity to explain how you arrived at your current position, and include any supporting documentation. Each party might take this opportunity to review the strategy they planned for the negotiation to determine if it's still an appropriate approach.

This doesn't need to be - and should not be - confrontational, though in some negotiations that's hard to avoid. But if tempers are high moving into this portion of the negotiation process, then those emotions will start to come to a head here. It's important for you to manage those emotions so serious bargaining can begin.

Bargaining and Problem Solving

This is the essence of the negotiation process, where the give and take begins.

You and the other party will use various negotiation strategies to achieve the goals established during the preparation and planning process. You will use all the information you gathered during the preparation and planning process to present your argument and strengthen your position, or even change your position if the other party's argument is sound and makes sense.

The communication skills of active listening and feedback serve the parties of a negotiation well. It's also important to stick to the issues and allow for an objective discussion to occur. Emotions should be kept under control. Eventually, both parties should come to an agreement.

Closure and Implementation

Once an agreement has been met, this is the stage in which procedures need to be developed to implement and monitor the terms of the agreement. They put all of the information into a format that's acceptable to both parties, and they formalize it.

Formalizing the agreement can mean everything from a handshake to a written contract.

Books have been written, and classes have been taught on the art of negotiation. The ability to master negotiation strategy is a coveted skill in the business world. Now that we understand the basics of the negotiation process, let's take a look at some of the negotiation "experts" that are out there and how they finesse the process to get the best results.

Types of Negotiating Strategies

If someone is looking to become skilled in the art of negotiation, that person would not have to look very far to find some help. The business section of your local bookstore has a shelf that's probably jammed with books promising to make you a better negotiator. There is no shortage of people who claim to have the best strategy, and each offers differing suggestions, tactics, and techniques to be used within the negotiation process that will help you get more out of your negotiations.

While there are slew of opinions and sources on the subject, we'll focus on three popular texts:

• Getting to Yes by William Ury and Roger Fisher
• Getting More by Stuart Diamond
• Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss with Tahl Raz

Getting to Yes by William Ury and Roger Fisher

When it was first released, Getting to Yes in particular got everyone's attention and changed the game for people trying to make a deal. The book was initially published in 1981, but with new editions published in 1991 and 2011 (both of which added Bruce Patton as a co-author) Getting to Yes remains among the most popular books on negotiation. Getting to Yes was written by William Ury and Roger Fisher, two Harvard University researchers and members of Harvard's Negotiation Project.

This book, and the concept of principled negotiation that it introduced, was determined to change the way people make deals, and millions of readers flocked to it to digest its sage advice. In principled negotiation, one moves successfully through the process by determining which needs are fixed and which needs are flexible for the negotiators. It was meant to be a negotiation strategy by which agreements could be made without damaging business relations. There are five major points that one should consider in the negotiation process:

1. Separate the people from the problem. This describes the way the parties should interact with each other throughout the negotiation process. Negotiators are only people, and they have personal interests in their positions. If the Party A attacks the position of Party B, it can feel as though he or she is attacking Party B personally. If parties can go into a negotiation committed to clear communication, and do their best to acknowledge the emotions that are attached to the negotiation process, there will be a better chance for amicable resolution.

2. Focus on interests, not positions. This is an aspect to be considered throughout the negotiation process, starting with planning and preparation and revisited in clarification and justification. A party's position is something he has decided upon. His interests are the reason why he's made that particular decision. Each party should attempt to explain their interests clearly and have a full understanding of the other party's interests.

3. Invent options for mutual gain. It's during this stage, that falls within the bargaining discussion part of the process, that parties should get together and try to generate as many possible options for resolution. Parties can focus on shared interests to generate as many win-win solutions as they can during the brainstorming sessions. Once all possible solutions are exhausted, evaluation of those proposed solutions can begin.

4. Insist on using objective criteria. Using objective criteria can keep the discussion polite and the relationship preserved during the negotiation process. This objective criteria can be introduced during the ground rules stage, or at any point thereafter, and parties should agree to its use. Objective criteria can be statistics, past legal judgments, professional standards or other data that is legitimate and practical.

5. Understand your "BATNA". The BATNA – the best alternative to a negotiated agreement – is the most advantageous course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and an agreement can't be made. A party should never accept a negotiated deal that leaves him or her worse off than his BATNA. The BATNA is a leverage point in negotiations, and without a clear idea of BATNA a party is negotiating blindly.

With these suggestions, Fisher and Ury made a huge impact on the art of negotiation. People didn't look anymore to just get a "piece of the pie". They wanted to "expand the pie" and keep relationships intact by applying these integrated bargaining techniques to their next negotiation opportunities.

Getting More by Stuart Diamond

Do Fisher and Ury provide the only way to negotiate? Of course not! Many books out there take Fisher and Ury as the starting place and work from there. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Wharton Law Professor Stuart Diamond was the associate director of the Harvard Negotiation Project (with which Fisher and Ury were affiliated), and he takes a different approach to negotiation strategy in his book Getting More.

In Getting More, which encompasses many of the lessons taught in his class at University of Pennsylvania, Diamond's approach focuses on finding and valuing the perceptions and emotions of others rather than using the traditional tactics of power, logic, and leverage. "Think of yourself as the least important person in the negotiation," a written quote on his website suggests. "Even with hard bargainers, it has to begin with their feelings and perceptions, their sensibilities".

Getting More emphasizes valuing the trust aspect of negotiations, encouraging participants to be transparent and constructive, not manipulative. He even encourages parties to "make emotional payments," that is, tapping into the other party's emotional psyche with empathy or simply by valuing them. Getting More takes the idea of preserving a relationship during the bargaining process and escalates it to the next step by actually leveraging the personal connection.

This negotiations model has been adopted by U.S. Special Operations Command for the training of U.S. Special Forces, Green Berets, U.S. Navy Seals, the U.S. Marines and other units, and Google has used the book to train 12,000 of their employees worldwide. The book rivals Ury and Fisher's Getting to Yes with its 1.5 million copies sold.

Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss with Tahl Raz

Former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss took a different stance on the negotiation process in his recent book Never Split the Difference, where he promotes the idea of "tactical empathy".

In Chris Voss's negotiation strategy, by empathizing with the other party, the negotiator is able to win trust and bring that other party over to his side, where he then involves her in the solving of "her problem". This is following Stuart Diamond's book, valuing people by acknowledging their intelligence, after which the negotiator advances his own point of view by asking the other party's opinion. The process relies simply on the idea that both parties understand each other's point of view when it comes to this subject.

Chris Voss also provides some psychological techniques that help connect you, as the negotiator, to the other party. He suggests "mirroring" what the other party says by repeating their last three words before adding your own thoughts. Mirroring helps the other party feel more secure and heard. The negotiator can also help foster a level of security with the other party by giving them the chance to offer up a few "no" responses to requests. "Pushing too quickly for a yes can lead to mistrust," he says. By asking questions that "bait the 'no,'" Voss helps the other party feel in control. "Is this a bad time to talk?" he might ask. "No," the other party might reply, "this is a good time".

This differs from Diamond's approach to negotiation in that Diamond is advocating for genuine personal connection to put the other party at ease, while Voss uses techniques and tactics that do the same without having to make a personal investment. But both strategies take Ury's and Fisher's recommendation of "separating the person from the problem" to a more thoughtful, purposeful level.

Cialdini's Influence: The Power of Persuasion and Kerry Patterson's Crucial Conversations are also popular reads on the subject and offer slightly different ways to hone your negotiation talents. Overall, it's important to understand that each of these approaches to negotiation strategy has something to offer and, used correctly by the right kind of negotiator, the strategies can yield excellent results.

Issues in Negotiation

As you might guess, negotiations don't always go smoothly. Before you step into a negotiation, you'll want to understand what kind of issues could throw a wrench into the bargaining machinery and how others manage those variables. Let's take a look at some common issues that contemporary negotiators face, and how they can be overcome.

Personality

If "talent is just personality in the right place," then what are the right and wrong kinds of personality traits for negotiation? Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of business psychology at University of London and Columbia University, suggests that high emotional intelligence is key if a negotiator is going to be successful. Emotional intelligence is the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.

In his article, "The Personality Traits of Good Negotiators," for the Harvard Business Review, Chamorro-Premuzic cites people who show neurotic tendencies and "Machiavellianism" (a term that describes a person's tendency to exploit and manipulate others) as those who can expect to experience less attractive results at the negotiation table.

If the process is followed and strategic considerations are made for the problem and people involved, personality should neither help nor hinder the negotiation process.

Gender

Men and women don't necessarily negotiate differently; studies show that men negotiate slightly better outcomes than women do in the same situations, but the difference is often nominal. Continued emphasis is placed on collaborative, integrative negotiation, and both men and women can succeed with this approach. But there is evidence that gender affects the outcome of bargaining. Why is that?

Statistically speaking, women tend to fall short of their male counterparts is when they're negotiating for themselves; however, research has shown that when women negotiate for others, they often outperform men. What's the trick to getting past this? Fatimah Gilliam, founder and CEO of The Azara Group, a leadership development and strategy consulting business, offered advice on overcoming this hurdle in an article for University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. "Change your perspective…think beyond yourself," she said. "You're negotiating for your family. You're negotiating, if it's compensation, so that you can have more money to take care of your parents when they're old, right?"

Research also shows that women have less confidence in their negotiation abilities, which may lead to hesitation to engage in negotiation practices. Women penalize themselves by avoiding these situations when engagement is in their best interest.

Cultural Differences

Negotiation styles vary across cultures, and it's helpful to keep in mind cultural differences when engaging in negotiations. While we don't want to risk sounding stereotypical, here are some examples of how different cultures approach negotiation:

• Italians, Germans, and French don't "soften up" a party in the negotiation with praise, and hearing another party do this seems manipulative to them.
• The French enjoy conflict, so they tend to be longer in the negotiation process and aren't terribly concerned with whether the other party likes them.
• The Chinese also draw out negotiations because their belief is that they never end, so when parties from other cultures feel like they're coming to a conclusion, the Chinese party may just decide to start over.
• Japanese negotiators work to develop relationships, so tying up loose ends and details in an agreement may have no importance to them.
• The British often complain that their U.S. counterparts talk too much.
• Indian executives often interrupt each other, and when other parties are listening intently and not interrupting, they feel as though they aren't being heard.
• Americans mix business and personal lives, and other cultures compartmentalize them, so when Americans ask, "How was your weekend?" it can seem intrusive to other cultures.
• Russians ignore deadlines and make no concessions because they view concessions as a sign of weakness.

The cultural aspect of negotiation significantly affects the amount of time for preparation and planning, so the negotiator can determine how to handle these cultural differences.

Negotiations are often difficult even when there are no obstacles involved, but being aware of issues triggered by personality, gender and culture can help the parties overcome  them and deal with the matter at hand.

Unethical Negotiations

When a person is in a negotiation process to get something he or she needs, ethical concerns may surface. How far do you go to get what you want? Should you always tell the truth and reveal your plan, or does doing so compromise your position? Difficult questions like these arise often in negotiations.

Some unethical (or at least questionable) behaviors that often occur during negotiations include:

• Selective disclosure: highlighting positive information and downplaying (or omitting) negative information
• Misrepresentation: negotiators misstate facts or misstate their position (e.g., they are willing to accept a lower price than they originally stated)
• Deception and lying: negotiators provide factually incorrect information that leads to incorrect conclusions
• False threats and false promises: negotiators mislead the other party as to actions they might take at the end of the negotiation process
• Inflicting direct or indirect harm: negotiators intentionally sabotage the other party's chances of success

Just because something is unethical does not mean that it's illegal. A lot of unethical behavior is still on the right side of the law. The most you can do to monitor ethical behavior in a negotiation is to bring it to the table yourself and be willing to say no and walk away if the other party does not.

Mistakes in Negotiation

Preparation and planning are key in avoiding common negotiation mistakes, but even the most experienced negotiator can still make them. Perceptual bias and poor decisions account for most of them. Let's look at a couple:

• Winner's curse. This is when a negotiator makes a high offer quickly and it's accepted just as quickly, making the negotiator feel as though he is being cheated. Lack of information and expertise are chief among the issues that cause this mistake.
• Mythical fixed pie. The negotiator assumes that what's good for the other side is bad for his side. For instance, imagine that two parties that want an orange. If a negotiator makes the mythical-fixed-pie mistake, he divides that orange in half and gives each party a piece. He's let competitiveness get in the way of coming up with a creative solution, and if he'd listened, he'd have understood that one party wanted the meat of the orange and the other wanted the rind.
• Overconfidence. The negotiator puts too much stock in his ability to be correct, and thus uses high anchors for his initial offers and adjustments. His lack of information and distorted self-perception will cost him a fairly negotiated deal.
• Irrational escalation of commitment. This is when the negotiator continues a course of action long after it's been proven to be the wrong choice. Causes of this include an insatiable need to win and ego, and it shows a lack of commitment to actually arriving at a fair deal.

Again, preparation and planning can help a negotiator avoid these issues, but practice is another way to get better at avoiding mistakes!

Responses

1. third party negotiations
2. gender issues
3. mistakes
4. ethics

Answer: mistakes

Third-Party Negotiations

Learning Outcomes

• Discuss third-party negotiations

For every negotiation that goes well, there is one that crashes and burns. In the last section, we talked about some of the ways a negotiation can go wrong - one of the parties might have an abrasive personality, might be from a different culture, or even be unethical. Or perhaps there seems to be no resolution that will satisfy all parties. Whatever the reason you're stalled in the negotiation process, you should know that help is available: it's called the third-party negotiator.

If you're surprised that such a "job" as third-party negotiator exists, you'll be even more surprised to find out that they're pretty common. A judge, a lawyer, and even an agent for a movie star is a third-party negotiator. Anyone who negotiates on your behalf or listens to your pleas and then decides your fate fits into the third-party negotiator role.

There are four basic third-party negotiator roles: arbitrator, conciliator, consultant, and mediator. Each of these third-party negotiator roles provides a specific service for the parties who have employed him or her, and their services are often situation-dependent. Let's take a look at each role and how it functions.

Arbitrators

An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary or forced on the parties of a negotiation by law or contract. The arbitrator's power varies according to the rules set by the negotiators. He might be limited to choosing one of the party's offers and enforcing it, or he may be able to freely suggest other solutions. In arbitration, there is always settlement.

Often used in the U.S. legal system, an arbitrator is used in lieu of a judge (though, technically, a judge is also an arbitrator!). If two people are, for example, involved in a car accident, they might agree to use an arbitrator in order to determine a fair amount of repayment for damages caused. In entering into the arbitrator situation, both parties agree to let that person make the final decision.

Conciliators

A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides communication between the negotiating parties. This approach is used frequently in international, labor, family and community disputes, and, if you're a fan of The Godfather movies, it's the role that Robert Duvall's character played for the Corleone family. Conciliators often engage in fact finding, interpreting messages, and persuading parties to develop an agreement.

Very often conciliators act only as a communication conduit between the parties and don't actually perform any specific negotiation duties.

Consultants

A consultant is a third-party negotiator who is skilled in conflict management and can add their knowledge and skill to the mix to help the negotiating parties arrive at a conclusion. A consultant will help parties learn to understand and work with each other, so this approach has a longer-term focus to build bridges between the conflicting parties.

A real estate agent is an excellent example of a third-party negotiator who is considered a consultant. People who are looking to buy a house might not understand the ins and outs of earnest money deposit, title insurance and document fees. A real estate agent will not only explain all of that, but prepare the purchase agreement and make the offer on behalf of their client.

Mediators

Finally, a mediator is a neutral, third party who helps facilitate a negotiated solution. The mediator may use reasoning and persuasion, they may suggest alternatives. Parties using a mediator must be motivated to settle the issue, or mediation will not work. Mediation differs from arbitration in that there is not a guaranteed settlement.

Mediators are most commonly found as third-party negotiators for labor disputes. If a labor union and a company come together to discuss contract terms, a mediator may be employed to assist in ironing out all the issues that need extra attention - like vacation days and percentage of raise.

Answer: Mediator

All negotiations are going to experience issues and obstacles, and how you handle them is going to dictate your success. Every negotiation is different - it's why applying one particular strategy to a negotiation can be so complicated - but continued practice and awareness of the issues that will trip you up are a good start toward a successful negotiation meeting.

Negotiation

Putting It Together: Conflict and Negotiation

Where two people come in contact with one another, there is a potential for conflict, and anything that can be done to mitigate that conflict increases productivity. Conflict causes stress, it creates distraction, and it can bring operations to a standstill. However, it can also spark creativity and healthy competition if it's managed right. Understanding where the line has to be drawn and keeping conflict on the right side of it is tantamount to success.

We gave you a couple of examples when we talked about why conflict and negotiation matter to an organization. The teacher's union went into negotiations with the school board for more pay for teachers, and a bigger budget for much needed supplies. Conflict between employees and their governing board might have resulted in a teacher's strike. But instead, negotiations were put into gear and both parties come away satisfied.

Conflict can result in the need for negotiation - or the need for negotiation can arise out of two parties' willingness to exchange goods and services. Being able to look at the whole picture and see creative solutions beyond the zero sum game, where both parties can win, can help business (and people) flourish.

Earlier, we talked about the city government that wanted to bring new businesses into the area. The city government used negotiation skills, carefully straddling the balance between much needed tax income and tax breaks that would provide incentive for businesses to operate within their city limits. When these new businesses open their doors, more people come into the city to work. They also get their morning coffee at a city business, eat their lunch there, do their grocery shopping on the way home within the city limits. The new business takes advantage of tax breaks to increase profitability in its early years of operation, and the city benefits from additional commerce and more residents employed.

Now we understand what conflict is, where it comes from and how to manage it. We understand how the negotiation process works, including how to apply strategy and avoid pitfalls. It's not difficult to see how these skills will benefit the organization for which you work, and make your life better, too.