2.0 Introduction

2.1 Definition of Negotiation

According to the text book, negotiation is a process of two differing parties trying

to influence each of the other party to fulfil their inter-dependence needs. Not

everything is negotiable, not anytime and anywhere negotiation can take place.

According to the Wikipedia, negotiation is a dialogue between two or more

people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or

gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of

action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy

various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is

a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for

themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches,

legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce,

parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory.

Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage

buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other

titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers.

According to Investopedia, negotiation is a strategic discussion that resolves an

issue in a way that both parties find acceptable. In a negotiation, each party tries to

persuade the other to agree with his or her point of view.

In advance of the negotiation, participants learn as much as possible about the

other party's position and what the strengths and weaknesses of that position are, and

are prepared to defend their positions and counter the arguments the other party will

likely make to defend their position.

Many offers that people assume to be firm and final are actually flexible. For

example, negotiation can be used to reduce debts, to lower the sale price of a house, to

get a better deal on a car or to improve the conditions of a contract. Negotiation is an

important skill when accepting a new job. Often, the employer's first compensation

offer is not a company's best offer, and the employee can negotiate for higher pay,

more vacation time, better retirement benefits and so on. Negotiating a job offer is

particularly important because all future increases in compensation will be based on

the initial offer.

According to Business Dictionary, negotiation explained as the below:

In general, negotiation is Bargaining (give and take) process between two or

more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to

discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of

mutual concern or resolve a conflict.

In banking, negotiation is Accepting or trading a negotiable instrument.

In Contracting, negotiation is uses of any method to award a contract other

than sealed bidding.

In Trading, negotiation is a Process by which a negotiable instrument is

transferred from one party (transferor) to another (transferee) by endorsement

or delivery. The transferee takes the instrument in good faith, for value, and

without notice of any defect in the title of the transferor, and obtains an

indefeasible title.

2.2 The Reasons of Why We Needs to be Win-Win Negotiator

The idea of zero-sum games is that every gain is offset by loss: there is a winner

and a loser. When something takes, something else has to give. This is the mindset

into which many people enter negotiations: “If I win, he loses. If he wins, I lose.” But

life isn’t a zero-sum game, and negotiation doesn’t have to be either. Maybe some

games have to have a loser; but win-win negotiations do not.

Technically, a win-win negotiation refers not to the specific process, but the

destination.  Usually, these sorts of outcomes are made more likely by an “interest

based” approach but this is not absolutely necessary.

When the destination is win–win, the hope is that the solution reached is the best

possible outcome, under the circumstances, for both parties. It does not always mean

that each side got exactly what it wanted – but sometimes this is possible. For our

purposes, a win-win refers to negotiation that provides a satisfactory outcome for each

party – one in which the interests of all parties are “tolerably satisfied” as Roger

Fisher likes to put it.

One of the reasons why mediation is so often preferable to litigation is that there

doesn’t have to be a verdict; both sides can emerge, if not happy, then at least

satisfied, with the outcome.  There are, of course, other reasons to strive for the win-

win over the win-lose.

Win-lose situations cause turmoil and hard feelings. Some parties behave

like a five-year-old who has just lost a game, kicking, screaming, and saying,

“It’s not fair!” Others behave like a five-year-old who has just won, gloating

and rubbing his opponent’s face in his victory. When one party loses in

negotiation, it can have long-term emotional as well as financial

consequences; it is to be expected that this will continue to cause turmoil and

discord.

The relationship will change with a win-lose situation – and not for the

better. If you have to continue working with the “winner,” it can be very

difficult to maintain a professional attitude, especially if they helpfully remind

you again and again that you lost. On the other side, it can be difficult working

with the loser, who is intent on focusing on the past instead of the future.

Sometimes the loser will be annoyed enough with the loss that the battle is not

truly over and you may suffer unforeseen consequences as that person tries to

“even the score”.

You move into conflict territory. Instead of having a disagreement that you

can settle, you instantly have a conflict situation where both sides feel the need

to win. The initial issue is buried, at least in part, by emotions and the need to

be right and usually no one really wins.

With win-win negotiations, both parties can explore a variety of options.

Sometimes the best solution is one you would never have thought of without

the prompting and input from a mediator and/or the other party. If you want to

resolve the problem, not necessarily “win,” exploring options with a creative

spirit is a very good place to start.

You avoid lose-lose negotiations. It’s like when you fight with a sibling over

a ball; you call mom in to mediate and she ends up taking the ball away. No

one wins. Negotiation should not leave you worse off than before.  Be sure to

do your research before you start to negotiate.  Maybe you are already getting

a better deal than it is reasonable to expect.

3.0 Body

3.1 Characteristic of Win-Win Negotiators

Here’s an idea: The best negotiators in the world never actually get the very best

deal. Well, I suppose that may depend on how you define best, but in my world, best

doesn’t mean I’ve won or beaten my opponent. To me, the best deal is the one that

both people walk away from happy and excited to do it again. The best negotiators

don’t get the very best deal for themselves; they get a great deal for everyone

involved.

The follow are the characteristics of a win-win negotiator:

Win-win negotiator develop the right mindset

1. Accept the fact that you need to negotiate. You may not like it. It might make

you feel awkward. The fact is, we all negotiate whether we want to or not. And if

choose to ignore it, then, you will lose. Very few people will try to create an outcome

that is harmful to you, but almost all people will do what is in their best interest. If

their best interest and your best interest don’t align, then you lose. That’s where

knowing the basics of negotiation – and learning how to use them – prevents you

from getting stepped on and pushed over.

2. Forget about the price tag and focus on what you are willing to pay. Economics

101: an item is worth what someone is willing to pay it. There is no reason to accept

the given price if you’re not willing to pay for it. The agreement between buyer and

seller happens during every purchase. There is nothing wrong, cheap, or immoral

about asking for a lower price.

3. Know how much value you hold. Do you know how valuable your business is?

For many businesses, the cost of acquiring a new customer is very high. Companies

pay for advertising, marketing, shipping, packaging, and a whole host of other costs

all just to get a product in front of you. Even if you buy a product or service for 50%

of the regular price you are making all of those costs worth it to the company because

they got a new customer. And if they do a good job, then maybe you’ll be a repeat

customer. So that first 50% was totally worth it. Negotiate for a discount, your

business is worth it.

4. Know what you are willing to accept. Not every negotiation can be planned ahead

of time, but you can prevent a dumb mistake by knowing where you are going to call

it quits before you start talking things out. Know what options are out there. How

much does that car usually sell for? What is a typical rental rate? Do your homework

and, if you can, bring proof.

5. Just try one new thing. If negotiation makes you uncomfortable, then only focus

on doing one thing out of your comfort zone. You don’t need to be a master

negotiator to get your desired result. Sometimes one little addition is all it takes.

When win-win negotiator starting of negotiation

6. The way you enter a room can dictate how the rest of an interaction will be.

Ever see someone slump through a doorway with a scowl on their face? Not very

inspiring. Keep your head high and smile when you enter. Starting things off with a

positive vibe is very important, no matter how small it is.

7. Find a person who can help you. The first person you talk to will not always be in

a position to deal with your situation. If they don’t have the ability to make the

changes you need or give you the discount you want, then politely ask to talk with

someone that does.

8. Don’t dismiss someone on a bad note. If you do need to switch to someone else,

then remind the person you are currently talking to that you’re happy with their

service and you appreciate their help, but you would like to talk with a manager.

9. Kick things off by talking about a mutual interest, making a true compliment,

or finding common ground. Talk about something you both like before starting to

ask for what you want.

10. Good listening skills. What do they really want and how can you give it to them?

11. Patience. Take care of them and neutralize their objections before they even know

what you’re asking for.

12. Compromise. What can you compromise on so that you get exactly what you

want in the areas that are most important to you?

Ways of win-win negotiator talking

13. Use the other person’s name. It’s so basic that almost everyone forgets.

14. Focus on creating a cooperative discussion instead of an adversarial

argument. Use the word, “We” to signify that you’re working through this together.

For example, “You know, $100 is a good starting place. Now we just need to work

out the details.”

15. Ask about alternative options. Most places have all types of discounts, reduced

rates, secondary options, and other alternatives that can be applied. You’ll never know

what options exist if you don’t ask. There is almost always more than one way to

solve a problem.

16. If you have a bill with multiple items, always negotiate each individual item

first. Go line by line and see if there is an alternative option, a discount, or if you can

simply eliminate that item altogether. Then, when you have made it through the full

list, you can ask for a group discount.

17. Ask open ended questions. For example, avoid asking, “Do you offer a

discount?” The obvious answer is, “No.” Instead say “What is your discount for…” as

it requires more of an explanation.

18. If you can, offer to pay in full right away. Paying in full saves the business from

the hassle of managing your payment plan or calling you in the future for money, so

that benefit should be worth a discount on your end.

19. Give yourself an out. Negotiations often go south because blame gets assigned to

one side or the other. Make it easier on both parties by referring to someone off the

scene. A simple, “I’ll have to run this by my spouse/business partner/attorney,” can

make it a lot easier. It prevents you from looking like the bad guy.

20. Listen more, talk less. You don’t need to say much. Typically, the person that

talks more ends up saying something they regret. Silence can make some people feel

awkward, but a well timed pause can say a lot.

21. Don’t offer an ultimatum. “This is my final offer.” “Take it or leave it.” “I

demand 20% off.” Nobody likes being told what to do. Ease up, Corleone.

22. Acting like price is the only thing you care about is disrespectful. Saying,

“What’s the most you will pay?” or “What’s the lowest price you can offer?” totally

eliminates any human element of the conversation. Think about the person on the

other end of the phone, other side of the screen, or other side of the counter.

23. Ask for what you want. The world is a good place with good people, but most of

them are too busy with their own jobs to figure out what you want for you. People are

willing to help, but you need to show them what to do by asking for what you want.

24. Don’t be vague. Stop beating around the bush or trying to tiptoe your way to a

discount. Instead of hinting at what you want and hoping they figure it out, just

clearly ask for your desired outcome. You’ll be surprised by how often you get it.

25. Ask the other side to help you. Another great tip from Baker:

The “what-would-you-do-in-my-shoes” question – My favorite way to initiate this

question is to say, “Here’s the main issue… [restate problem plainly]…  what would

you do in my shoes?” Asking questions like this is an effective way to generate all

sorts of creative ideas that you would never even thought to ask.  I often ask this to

customer service representatives after being told “no”. –Baker, Man vs Debt

How win-win negotiator finish the negotiation

26. Don’t put all that work in and blow it at the end. It’s easy to get nervous and

panic when you’re on the verge of getting what you want. If you’re excited and don’t

know what to do, then just ask for what you want and be quiet. Talking to much or

play it carefully at the end rarely works out well.

27. No deals on a handshake. If you get a new price, a discount, or any other benefit,

then ask for it in writing. Don’t just take their word for it unless you want to negotiate

for it again later. Just make it easier on everyone and get them to write it down.

28. Call back or come back. Sometimes you get the wrong person. Sometimes you

start off on the wrong foot. Sometimes you catch an employee on the wrong day.

Getting someone with the right personality can make all the difference in the world. If

your conversation isn’t getting anywhere, then hang up, head out, and try it again

some other time.

29. Treat people with respect. No discount is worth burning bridges, ruining

relationships, or making people feel disrespected. In the long run, you are better off

paying a higher price and keeping the good will.

30. Don’t take it personally. Maybe you’ll get what you want. Maybe you won’t.

Life will move on either way. Most people will never have a negotiation that will

make or break their life. Keep it real and don’t get emotionally involved.

Greats Negotiators should be:

Although everyone claims to want a "win-win" deal, the sad truth is that most

businesspeople are competitive and subconsciously want to "win" by making the

other person "lose."

Even when you enter negotiations with the best of intentions, it's fair to assume

that, at some level, your counterpart wants to see you "lose" at least something.

There's also probably a part of you that probably feels the same way about them.

Here’re some tips to become win-win negotiators

1. Sit on the same side of the table. When Dr. Leimbach explained this concept

to me, I believe he was speaking metaphorically, but the more I think about it, the

more it seems to me that the physical act of sitting on opposite sides of a table

automatically creates competition.

In most business situations, people who are working together--rather than

competing--tend to sit next to each other, sharing what they know in order to reach a

higher level understanding.

Therefore, it seems intuitive to me that you're more likely to get to a "win-win" if

your physical positioning encourages you to work towards that goal.

2. Depersonalize positions into problems.

When you use expressions like "my position is" or "my firm's position is" you are

taking ownership of position. This makes the position part of your identity, which in

turn makes it difficult to change or abandon that position.

Rather than owning a position, externalize it into a problem that both of you are

working to solve. For example: "If we crafted the arrangement like so: [idea], it would

work for me. How would that work for you?"

The idea is to turn the negotiation into a problem solving sessions where you help

each other figure out how to go forward... rather than butting heads.

3. Address the "why" behind the "what."

Understanding the chain of logic behind a negotiating position allows both

parties to figure out alternative (and possibly more elegant) solutions to the core

problem that's creating the position.

For example, suppose a customer takes the position "I absolutely must get the

lowest price." However, if you dig deeper into the "why" behind that "what," you

might discover that the real problem is a lack cash flow in the current budget.

Once you know this, you can work together on ways to minimize the effect of

purchasing on immediate cash flow, even if it means a higher price.

4. Introduce objective standards.

Another way to transcend competitive negotiating is to introduce independent

facts that define the parameters of the agreement. Such facts might include estimates

of market value, industry performance benchmarks, and credible third-party research.

When both parties agree upon such standards, it becomes easier for everybody

involved to evaluate a proposal or an idea from a position of common ground,

according to Dr. Leimbach.

"For example, if a customer needs to demonstrate to his or her manager that the

price for the deal is a good value, then an independent standard such as market

value/price can be used to justify or reinforce the customer's choice," he explains.

5. Have an alternative plan.

Enter every negotiation with a backup plan that comes into effect if you and your

counterpart can't reach agreement. (Dr. Leimbach calls this a BATNA: "Best

Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.")

For example, suppose you're working with a potential customer who simply

won't (or can't) pay you enough to make the deal profitable for you. In this case, your

BATNA might be to maintain contact and continue to investigate opportunities to

work together.

Having an acceptable BATNA frees you from the limiting perspective that you

MUST close the deal no matter what, thereby freeing you to negotiate without fear of

"losing."

3.2 Ways to Manage the Negative Emotions

Fear, the other emotion that most often affects negotiations, may be triggered by

feeling unprepared or inadequate, being unable to deal with the other side, having a poor

BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), or facing a more powerful

opponent. Some people even suffer from fear of fear—that is, they fear the physical

symptoms of fear. As with anger, the way to deal with fear involves being aware of it

first and then using techniques to address it.

It is important to note that even being aware of and recognizing our emotions

may not be enough to control behavior. Due to the way the human brain works,

sometimes very strong negative emotions, such as extreme fear or rage, may lead us

to act before we are even aware of the emotion. Also, most of our blood rushes to our

extremities when we experience anger. So, although we are well prepared for a

physical fight or for flight, our problem-solving abilities are not at their optimum, to

say the least. Thus, it is ideal to be able to head off strong negative emotions before

they arise; that is, to anticipate when they may arise and create an environment that

will minimize their occurrence. If and when they do arise, it is important to be able to

deal with them as early and as quickly as possible.

The various techniques and tools discussed below for dealing with strong

negative emotions work well at different stages in the negotiation process. Some help

deal with emotions when they arise during a negotiation, while others help anticipate

and dissipate emotions even before they have the chance to arise.

During the Negotiation

1. Taking a Break

So, how do you control the strong negative emotions you feel and may act upon

during a negotiation? Several techniques can help you immediately detach from the

thoughts and events that are generating the emotion. Seeing the interaction from a

distance allows calm rationality to prevail, and this gives you time to better analyze

what is happening. The first group of techniques involves mental pauses or breaks:

Say “let me think about that.”

Use an imaginary “pause button.” Visualizing a big round red button and

pressing it while you distance yourself from the immediate exchange will help

you distance yourself mentally.

Focus on physical sensations in the environment. Listen to the air flow in the

room, feel the sensation of your body on the chair, your hand on the table, the

position of words on a piece of paper. All of these will allow you to calm your

mind.

Think of a relaxing scene that you love and that touches you. It may be your

backyard in the summer, a flower, your child’s face, a beach. Any of these

scenes will transport you away from the current situation.

Adopt a relaxed position—find the tension in your body and relax it

intentionally.

The second group of techniques involves taking a physical break, actually

removing yourself from the negotiation:

Take a break for coffee or lunch.

Take a break to use the bathroom facilities.

Halt the negotiations and schedule them for another time. You can preface this

move by “I think this is a good time to take a break from negotiations.”

If you are negotiating on the phone, say that someone needs you urgently and

that you will call them back. However, use this technique sparingly and only if

you are unable to deal with strong negative emotions in other ways.

A break lets you step away and become a detached observer—to figure out what

you are feeling and why. William Ury describes this technique as “going to the

balcony.” As you relax and distance yourself emotionally, think about how to react

constructively. Breathing techniques are very beneficial to achieving calm during both

mental and physical breaks. Taking a deep breath in through your nose and letting the

air out slowly through your lips will help you calm down. Similarly, taking a deep

breath and letting the air out all at once, as if you were sighing, will also help you

calm down. Deep breathing activates the parasympathetic part of the autonomic

nervous system—the part you want activated during stress so that you can relax.

However, be careful about using the second breathing technique around other people;

they might think you are expressing frustration, despair, despondency, boredom,

anxiety, or fatigue.

2. Changing Your Emotions

Emotions are not fixed—they are fluid and can be changed. Hot feelings, which

are less adaptable and rational, can be changed to cool feelings, which are healthier

and less volatile. Thus, one way to deal with a strong hot negative emotion is to

change it into a weaker or cooler emotion. Since our feelings are related to our

thoughts and beliefs, we can change our feelings by changing our thoughts and

beliefs. One simple way to change our thoughts about a feeling is to redefine it. For

example, instead of labeling the emotion you are feeling as fury, identify it as

irritation or annoyance instead. This small step can change how you perceive the

emotion and consequently change how you feel it. Other examples include redefining

depression as sadness, severe guilt as regret, and anxiety as concern.

Still another way to change an emotion is to look at the thoughts fuelling that

emotion. Negotiators tend to have a bias that they are more cooperative than their

counterparts and that such counterparts are more competitive and hostile. Based on

this bias, a strong negative emotion could be created by the thought that the other side

is intentionally violating standards of fairness, standards that you are upholding to

your detriment. You may even tell yourself that the violation is a personal slight.

However, if you were aware of your thoughts and what you were telling yourself, you

would be able to change the thoughts and stop the emotion from building momentum.

You would be able to look at the situation more objectively and determine whether

your assessment is accurate. In a calmer state the behavior of the other side, if unfair,

could be addressed in a constructive manner using, perhaps, the communication

techniques discussed below.

3. Using Communication Techniques

There are specific communication techniques that are particularly effective in

defusing competitive verbal moves that are typically used to throw us off balance by

evoking strong negative emotions. These moves can include challenging competence

or expertise, demeaning ideas, criticizing style, and making threats. These techniques

are varied and include taking a break, naming the move, questioning the move,

correcting the assertion with accurate information, and diverting the focus back to the

substance in question. Examples of these techniques, or “turns,” appear in figure 1.

Active listening is yet another technique that works well to deal with a competitive

move.

Examples of Turns Figure 1

Turns Examples

INTERRUPTING

Take a break

“Let me think about that”/ “Let’s take a break”/

“Let’s get a coffee”

NAMING

Signal you recognize the move

“You’re questioning my credibility”/

“You’re undermining my authority”

QUESTIONING “Unreasonable?”/“Unfair?”

Question the substance of the statement or

rephrase the attack by turning the description

of your behavior into a question

CORRECTING

Correct the accusation or implication

“These are not my settlement figures, these are

industry standards”/“Here are the fees charged by

others—our fees are competitive”

DIVERTING

Ignore the move and refocus on the problem

“I would like to explore the concerns you

have”/“Let’s discuss some other options”

Source: Based on the moves and turns set out in D. Kolb, “Staying in the Game”

Harvard Negotiation Newsletter (December 2003).

Another technique for minimizing strong negative emotions is expressing

yourself assertively when others are acting aggressively toward you. Most people find

it hard to be assertive and instead take a stance that is either too hard (aggressive) or too

soft (submissive). Figure 2 presents examples of all three stances. The “too hard”

stance involves a very strong position that does not take into account the other

person’s feelings or beliefs. In contrast, the “too soft” stance has no regard for the

speaker’s concerns or feelings. The “just right” (assertive) stance allows the facts, as

viewed by the speaker, to be brought forward with an openness that both invites and

allows the other party to respond.

The Three Stances  Figure 2

Issue Stances

There are errors in the figures

provided by the other side.

Too soft: “This is probably stupid, but these figures don’t seem to add

up to me.”

Too hard: “Are you trying to rip me off?”

Just right: “Let’s look at these numbers. There appear to be

discrepancies we should look at.”

The other side is not making

any concessions on any issue.

Too soft: “I’m not sure that I have this right, but it seems to me that you

have not made any concessions.”

Too hard: “What’s with you? Don’t you even know how to make

concessions? Wasn’t that in the ‘Negotiation for Dummies’ book?”

Just right: “On several of the issues I have made concessions from my

initial position. Please help me to understand why you are not also able

to make concessions.”

Source: Based on the Goldilocks Test from K. Patterson et al., Crucial Conversation

Tools (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002) at 133.

Creating an assertive message can be difficult and, therefore, having a basic

structure to work with is helpful. One that works well is the three-part assertive

message put forward by Bolton. The three-part message consists of (a) a non-

judgmental description of behavior, (b) disclosure of how you feel about the effect of

the other’s behavior on you, and (c) a description of the concrete or tangible effect on

you of such behavior. For example, you may tell the other negotiator that setting the

agenda without your input makes you feel unfairly treated because items that are

important to you are not included. Or that when the other side is consistently late for

the negotiations, you feel frustrated because of the time wasted while you wait for

them. Figure 3 presents examples of assertive messages that use the three-part

structure.

Examples of Three-Part Assertive Messages Figure 3

Description of Behavior Disclosure of Feeling

Description

of Tangible Effect

When you use my car and don’t

refill the gas tank

I feel unfairly treated because I have to pay more money

for gas.

When you borrow my tools and

leave them out in the rain

I feel annoyed because they become rusty and don’t

work well.

When you call me at work and talk

at length

I feel tense because I don’t get all my work done

on time.

When you do not put your dirty

clothes in the hamper

I feel irritated because it makes extra work for me

when I do the wash.

Source: R. Bolton, People Skills: How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and

Resolve Conflicts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979) at 153.

An assertive message allows for firmness without dominance and should satisfy

the following six criteria:

1. There is a high probability that the other person will alter the troublesome

behavior being dealt with.

2. There is a low probability that you will violate the other person’s space.

3. There is little likelihood of diminishing the other person’s self-esteem.

4. There is a low risk of damaging the relationship.

5. There is a low risk of diminishing motivation.

6. There is little likelihood that defensiveness will escalate to destructive levels.

Expressing yourself assertively will prevent emotions from building momentum

and allow you to deal with bothersome behavior or issues in a way that is both

constructive and affirmative. In contrast, once emotions have built up, expressing

them in inappropriate ways can be damaging to the relationship and

counterproductive to achieving your negotiation goals. If you decide to express your

emotions to the other side, express them appropriately. Don’t vent, because venting

may make the situation even worse. Be clear. Describe your feelings carefully. Don’t

attribute blame or judge—just share. Try to relate the emotional tone to the

substantive issue. An important part of communicating about your emotions is tying

your emotions to your negotiation goals; for example, expressing your frustration

about the progress of the negotiation due to interests that are being ignored.

Emotion provides important information to you and the other side. If you are

able to express emotion in a constructive way and at an appropriate time in the

negotiation, rather than destroy or hurt the negotiation process, emotion can greatly

enhance it.

Before the Negotiation Begins

Having techniques and tools to deal with strong negative emotions as they arise in a

negotiation is important.

However, Fisher and Shapiro assert that it is even more important to anticipate that

strong negative emotions may arise and proactively stimulate positive emotions in a

negotiation instead.56 They propose that when negotiators address five core concerns

—appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role—strong negative emotions can

be anticipated (and, it is hoped, minimized). Fisher and Shapiro suggest that the core

concerns be used as a lens to understand the emotions of each side and as a lever to

stimulate positive emotions. Figure 4 presents the five core concerns and what

happens when each is ignored or met.

The Five Core Concerns Figure 4

Core Concerns When the Concern Is Ignored … When the Concern Is Met …

Appreciation Your thoughts, feelings, or actions are

devalued

Your thoughts, feelings, and actions are

acknowledged as having merit

Affiliation You are treated as an adversary and kept at a

distance

You are treated as a colleague

Autonomy Your freedom to make decisions is

impinged upon

Others respect your freedom to decide

important matters

Status Your relative standing is treated as inferior

to that of others

Your standing, where deserved, is given full

recognition

Role Your current role and its activities are not

personally fulfilling

You so define your role and its activities that

you find them fulfilling

Source: R. Fisher & D. Shapiro, Beyond Reason (New York: Penguin Books, 2005) at

17.

The central premise put forward by Fisher and Shapiro is that these five core

concerns motivate people in a negotiation; when both sides feel their concerns are

met, the relationship will be enhanced and the negotiation outcome will be improved.

So, for example, to create a positive negotiation environment, you will want to be

respectful and appreciative of the other party’s ideas, interests, thoughts, and

behavior. As well, you will want to be respectful of the other side’s autonomy—

including their ability to make decisions.

Support for the five core concerns comes from research on words and phrases

that trigger emotional responses. For example, labeling other people negatively and

telling them what they should or should not do triggers the greatest number of

emotional responses—the most typical one being anger.57 Thus, during the negotiation

planning stage, think about how to address the five core concerns and perhaps even

create some key phrases to use during the negotiation.

Negotiating without a plan to deal with strong negative emotions has been

compared to working in a hospital’s emergency department without procedures and

protocols in place for dealing with new patients.58 Thus, it is important to find out

which techniques and tools work best for you and are easiest to use. Experiment with

them during uncomfortable conversations rather than waiting to try them out during a

longer negotiation. Taking a break is always a good technique to use because it is easy

to do; it allows you to stop reacting, and it permits you to become more analytical

about what is happening. As part of your negotiation planning, list any responses,

topics, behavior, and attitudes that have triggered strong negative emotions in the past

during conversations or other negotiations. Try to analyze whether your core identities

or shadow characteristics were involved in your response. By doing this work, you

will be able reduce the occurrence and strength of your emotional responses and, as a

result, be better able to deal with them. Also, by becoming more aware of core

concerns and trigger points, you may be better able to anticipate and reduce the

chance of evoking strong negative emotions in others.

4.0 Conclusion

There are different kinds of negotiation styles employed by different people.

Obviously one person's personality, character, upbringing and a whole plethora of

factors come into play when one adopts a particular negotiation style over another.

One party could be a hard negotiator. She sets a high demand, and reduces it

slowly. Another could be a bottom-line negotiator. Go straight to (or close to) the

bottom line, and refuse to budge. One party could adopt an aggressive stance, but

conceals a kind heart. Another could be sweet and smiling, but is internally hard as

steel.

Is anyone negotiation style better than another? If we're merely talking about

styles, then I guess each person has his own style. Perhaps a better way to gauge

negotiation styles is by looking beyond the style to the substance.

Is the negotiator bringing value to the table? The value may not be in the form of

a compromise, but can be something entirely different altogether. A lateral solution, if

you like. As long as a negotiator is bringing value to the table, then I would think that

is a good negotiation. On the contrary, a negotiator who only seeks to chip away

another person's interest without offering any value in return would be a less than

desirable negotiator, no matter how sweet and smiling he/she may be.