Strategy and Tactics in Negotiation

What is strategy in a negotiation?

Strategy is the orientation or holistic approach of an individual toward achieving an outcome or objective. Strategy is often used to identify the plan for achieving that objective. Collectively, we will use the term strategy to refer to:

Strategic Orientation – This is the orientation toward a conflict of interest or dispute.

Strategic Objective – This is a method for achieving a desired outcome or objective.

Strategic Plan – A plan for achieving that outcome or objective that implements specific tactics.

Generally, a party develops a plan, objectives, and orientation together. Tactics, which are often confused with strategies, are short-term, adaptive moves designed to enact or pursue broad strategies. Strategy is carried out through tactics. Tactics are subordinate to strategy in that they are structured, directed, and driven by strategic considerations.

General (and commonly understood) negotiation strategies include:

Accommodation (Yielding)- This is an orientation toward avoiding conflict by accommodating another parties interests or objectives. It generally involves an imbalance of outcomes, as the accommodating party generally claims less of the total value in the negotiation than the accommodated party. Individuals focusing on a minimum outcome or result may employ this strategy. This strategy, however, can by very useful when concealing a weaker negotiation position or setting the stage for future negotiations.

Competition (Contending) – Competition is when one partys objective is to beat or fair better than the other party. This strategic orientation seeks primarily to grab value rather than create value in the negotiation. As such, it is generally more effective in distributive (win-lose) bargaining. It is generally ineffective to create long-term relationships or value in future negotiations.

Collaboration (Problem solving or Integrating) – This is an integrative or win-win orientation. This strategic orientation seeks to cooperate in a way that creates additional total value in the negotiation. If a negotiator pursues an integrative strategy without regard to the others strategy, then the other may manipulate and exploit the collaborator and take advantage of the good faith and goodwill being demonstrated.

Avoidance (Inaction) – As the name implies, this strategic orientation seeks to achieve an acceptable outcome by not addressing the conflict of interest or dispute. It relies largely upon acceptance of a BATNA or the counterpartys unilateral willingness concede acceptable terms.

Compromising – Demonstrates an intention to engage in the back-and-forth that characterizes negotiation. The orientation focus on this-for-that tradeoffs.

Two commonly understood negotiation approaches, which are actually tactics that fall under the aegis of the broader strategic categories, are: 1) being tough or 2) being soft. These two tactics generally relate to a competitive or accommodative bargaining strategy. Negotiators who have fixed-pie perceptions usually take a suboptimal approaches in a negotiation, such as employing soft bargaining tactics as part of an accommodation strategy or hard bargaining as part of a competitive strategy.

• Source: What is strategy in a negotiation?

How does Motivational Orientation affect a negotiators strategic orientation and objectives?

Basic motivations (along with other cognitive factors) influence individual behavior. They can also influence an individuals approach to a negotiation or method for achieving a particular outcome. (See Ch. 8 – concerning Cognitive Aspects of Negotiation for more information on how mental processes affect negotiation strategy and execution.) Motivations dictate and can often-times be synonymous with a strategic orientation. Common motivation-based influences on negotiation practice include:

Interests-based Motivation – This is a dominant or singular focus on furthering ones interest in the negotiation. That is, the negotiating party places utmost importance on the interests at stake. She attempts to acquire value to the extent that it meets her needs or objectives. Interest-based motivations often lead to one of two strategic orientations – individualistic or cooperative. The individualistic negotiator prefers to maximize her own goals or objectives and is indifferent to how much the other person receives in the negotiation. The cooperative negotiator prefers to maximize equality and minimize the difference between negotiators outcomes. Interests-based negotiators might employ any number of tactics in furtherance of their objectives, such as: attempting to learn about the others underlying needs, desires, and concerns or attempting to reconcile different interests among the parties in a way that addresses their most pressing needs and concerns.

Rights-based or Legalistic Motivation – This concerns a focus on ones actual or perceived entitlement(s) in a situation. Restated, this approach focuses on perceived fairness. The individual negotiator seeks primarily to secure value in the negotiation commensurate with what she believes she deserves or to which she is are entitled. Rights-based negotiators apply standards of fairness, terms of agreement, legal rights, precedent (prior courses of action), or expectations based upon norms (such as societal or cultural norms) to an analysis of the negotiation scenario to determine what they deserve. Tactics associated with this motivation include attempting to convince the other party through logic or recognition of the sources of individual rights.

Power-based Motivation – This concerns a focus on what you are able to coerce out of the other party. It focuses on belief in ones own ability to use power to overcome the will of the other party. This is primarily a competitive disposition in which a negotiator simply tries to win or beat the other party. Power-based negotiators use tactics related to status, rank, threats, intimidation, or other power tactics to affect the other party or the situation in pursuit of their objectives.

Note: While power may be the motivating force behind a individuals decision to negotiate, the possession of power is always a defining dynamic in any negotiation. In a subsequent section, we discuss the role of power in ones strategic orientation.

Generally, a skilled negotiator assumes an interest-based strategy in negotiations; though, interest-based and power-based motivations can be effective in limited situations. A rights-based approach is appropriate when a party fails to fully understand the mechanism for resolving conflicts and rules at play in the negotiation. A power-based approach is most appropriate when the other party refuses to come to the table or when negotiations have broken down and parties are at an impasse; when the other party needs to know you have power or when someone violates a rule or commonality of understanding. It can also be used to effectuate social change (such as repositioning ones self) in the relationship. Used correctly, a power-based approach can be extremely effective.

Note: Even when employing a rights or power-based approach, use of coercion should generally relate to the other partys interests. The rights or power involved should be clear and transparent, and any threat of power should be credible. Be careful not to allow these approaches to destroy relationships.

• Source: How does Motivational Orientation affect strategic orientation?

How does power in a negotiation effect selection of a strategic orientation?

An overarching theme that guides the selection of a strategic orientation in a negotiation. Power in a negotiation is used to dominate and control the other party. This tactic generally aligns with a competitive or distributive marketing strategy. A power tactic can be benign and supportive or oppressive and abusive. It can also be used to work together with the other if the power holder jointly develops and shares power with the other. That is, a tactic may be designed to enhance the negotiators own power or to diminish the others power, and to create a state of either power equalization or power difference. Seeking power in negotiation usually arises from a negotiator believing she currently has less power or needs more power than the other party to increase the probability of securing a desired outcome. Conversely, a negotiator may employ tactics designed to create power equalization or minimize the other partys ability to dominate the relationship.

• Note: Individuals have a tendency to view power as an attribute of the actor only and ignore elements of power that are derived from the situation or context in which the actor operates.

The major sources of power are embedded into five different groupings:

• Informational power – derived from the negotiators ability to assemble and organize facts and data to support his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes.

• Personality-based power – Personality is made up of personal, cognitive, and motivational orientation. Personal orientation is the cognitive, motivational and moral orientations to a given situation that serve to guide ones behavior and responses to that situation. Cognitive orientation is made up of three ideological perspectives unitary, radical, and pluralist each of which operates as a frame, shaping expectations about what one should pay attention to, how events will evolve, and how one should engage situations of power. Motivation orientation focuses on differences rooted more in needs and energizing elements of the personality, such as disposition and skills, moral orientation, and moods.

• Positional (structural) power – This type of power is divided into legitimacy and resources. Legitimate power relates to social structure, such as occupying a particular job, office, or position in an organizational hierarchy. People can acquire legitimate power through birth, election, appointment or promotion to some organizational position (legitimate authority). This power structure derives from the willingness of others to acknowledge the legitimacy of the organizational structure and the system of rules and regulations that empowers its leaders. Resource power the control of resources and the capacity to give them to someone who will do what they want and withhold them (or take them away) from someone who doesnt do what they want. The power is greater in environments where resources are aggregated in the face of scarcity. Resources may include money (or other assets), supplies, human capital, time, critical services, etc.

• • Note: It is also possible to apply the notion of legitimacy to certain social norms or conventions that exert strong control over people, such as reciprocity, equity, and responsibility or dependence.

• Network location power – This type of structural power comes from location in an organizational structure, but not necessarily a hierarchical one. In this case, power is derived from critical resources that flow through a particular location. The particular location in the structure allows individuals to become powerful because of the way that their actions and responsibilities are embedded in the flows of information, goods and services, or contacts. Tie strength is an indication of the strength or quality of relationships with others. Tie content reflects that the more content, the stronger the relationship, and the more trust and respect created for each other. Network structure is the overall set of relationships (centrality, criticality or relevance, flexibility, visibility, and coalitions) within a social system.

• Relationship Power – This regards the level of dependence between the negotiations. Goal interdependence refers to how the parties view their goals and how much achievement of their goal depends on the behavior of the other party and how likely parties will be to constructively use power. Referent power is often based on an appeal to common experiences, common past, common fate, or membership in the same groups. It is made salient when one party identifies the dimension of commonality in an effort to increase their power (usually persuasiveness) over the other.

• Power through Context – This is power based in the context, situation, or environment in which negotiations take place. The availability of a Best Alliterative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) offers a negotiator significant power because she now has a choice between accepting the other partys proposal or the alternative deal. Culture is a system of basic assumptions, norms, and/or common values that individuals in a group or organization share about how to interact with each other, work together, deal with the external environment, and move the organization into the future. Culture often shapes what kinds of power are seen as legitimate and illegitimate or how people use influence and react to influence. Cultureboth organizational and nationaloften translates into deeply embedded structural inequalities in a society. Agents, constituencies and external audiences can give rise to contextual power discrepancies. Negotiations become significantly more complex when negotiators are representing others views.

Any form of power can be further classified as follows:

• Potential power – Power that an individual has the ability to bring forward or exercise in the negotiation. The underlying capacity of the negotiator to obtain benefits from ones agreement.

• Perceived power – This is the power that a negotiators believes she and the counter-party they have. The source of this perceived power may not be real, but it still provides a point of influence in the negotiation. A negotiators assessment of each partys potential power, which may or may not square with reality.

• Realized power – Power that has been employed or exercised to influence the other party. The extent to which negotiators have claimed benefits from the interaction.

• Power tactics – Measures used to demonstrate potential power, cause perception of power, or the realization (or exercise of) actual power to influence the other party. Refers to the behaviors designed to use or change the power relationship.

• Source: How does power in a negotiation effect selection of a strategic orientation?

What is a strategic objective in a negotiation?

Effective strategic planning will incorporate an orientation and method for achieving a particular outcome or objective. Notably, the motivation to negotiate and the sources of power in a negotiation relate closely to the methods for achieving a strategic objective. Recall, a strategic objective is more broad than a desire for a specific outcome. It encompasses the means or method for effectuating the strategy. Further, tactics are used to achieve the objective in a manner consistent with the strategic orientation. You will notice how these strategic objectives are closely related to the drivers of a strategic orientation.

Claiming Value – Claiming value is a hallmark of a distributive negotiation. It focuses on securing value for oneself at all costs (namely at the expense of the other party). This strategy generally leads to a loss of value in an integrative negotiation.

Interests vs Positions – Parties may attempt to address the needs and interests (not positions) of all parties. Understanding the other partys priorities are not the same as your own is a cornerstone of effective negotiation.

Free Flow of Information – Recall that parties selectively disclose information about themselves to, in turn, extract information about the other party. This tactic seeks to uncover information that can be a source of power in the negotiation. Notably, fostering the free flow of information in a negotiation promotes the development of good integrative solutions. In contrast, a willingness to share information is not a characteristic of distributive negotiations.

Commonalities – Focus on emphasizing the commonalities between the parties and minimizing the differences. This approach can generate empathy, and emotional connection, and a cooperative orientation in the parties.

Options for Mutual Gain – Search for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides, which is critical to the success of an integrative negotiation. Be wary of competitive behavior that seeks to diminish mutual gain.

• Source: What is a “strategic objective” in a negotiation?

What are some strategic objectives associated with negative outcomes?

In some situations the objectives sought by a negotiator can result in less than optimal outcomes. Some common examples include:

Under-aspiring negotiator (winners curse) – This characterizes a situation in which a negotiator makes an offer or requests something that is immediately accepted by the opponent. The rapid acceptance indicates that the offer was below (often substantially below) what the other party expected or was willing to concede. As such, the under-aspiring negotiator fails to claim value that is ready to be conceded by the other party.

Over-aspiring – The over-aspiring negotiator seeks more (or far more) value in the negotiation that the other party is willing to concede. Such action risks appearing unreasonably and alienating the other party.

Note: Some negotiators will setting an outcome objective that has no justification or basis. This is known as a focus point. Remember, a target point should be researched and realistic.

Positional negotiator – Such a negotiator determines a set of terms desired in a negotiation, presents those terms, and refuses to budge on any dimension of any issue. This effectively makes the target point and reservation point the same. Drawing a line in the sand and an unwillingness to make concessions will often cause the other party to walk away from the negotiation. In some scenarios, the target point is outside of the other partys reservation point. Other times it may cause the other party to perceive a procedural unfairness in the negotiation.

Grass-is-greener negotiator (reactive devaluation) – This concerns the tendency of a negotiator to devalue an option previously considered to be attractive (or more attractive), merely as a consequence of it being offered by the counter-party. It is natural to be wary of concessions from an adversary. A good negotiator, however, realizes that concession between parties allow for the creation of integrative bargains in which value is created. As a result, all parties are better than they would have been without negotiating.

Irrational escalating negotiator – This concerns the tendency to over extend ones self irrationally in a negotiation. This tendency is closely related to the concept of sunk costs. Sunk costs are monies or other value invested that cannot be recovered. Too often a negotiator will focus on these when assessing a target or desired outcome. The expenditure of these funds has no effect on the prospective outcome in the negotiation. As such, prior expenditures should not be considered when determining whether to invest future resources or effort in a venture. This means that sunk costs should not be an influence when negotiating a potential agreement regarding the subject of these expenditures. Another related concept is the endowment effect. This is a propensity of individuals to pay more to retain something that they own (or believe they own). Focus on the value of the respective item subject to negotiation without regard to who enters the negotiation as owner.

• Source: What are some strategic objectives associated with negative outcomes?

What is the process for developing a strategic negotiation plan.

There is no single method for developing a strategic plan in a negotiation. Any plan, however, should incorporate the strategic objectives and tactics used in a manner consistent with your strategic orientation. Effective strategic preparation for a negotiation, at a minimum, encompasses four general abilities:

Self-assessment – Evaluate the personal motivations and position (BATNA, Reservation Point, Target Point, etc.)

Assessment of the counter party – Evaluate the personal motivations and position (BATNA, Reservation Point, Target Point, etc.).

Assessment of the situation – Situational aspects might include the location, medium, and time period of negotiation.

Assessment of the social context – The social aspects might include the relevant customs, understanding, history between the parties.

Each of these abilities should be manifest in an ordered manner. Once again, this a proposed structure that could take any number of forms or orders. Ultimately, these assessments should result in the development of plans of action for the success or failure of the negotiation.

• Source: What is the process for developing a strategic negotiation plan?

What is Self Assessment when strategically planning a negotiation?

A good negotiator begins by the strategic planning process by assessing her interests, BATNAs, and otherwise framing up their side of the negotiation. In doing so, she will seek to understand both sides of the negotiation. Understanding ones own position, however, must come before a party is able to understand the other partys position. Relevant aspects include:

Interests – Identify the interests at stake in the negotiation. Prioritize these interests based on personal objectives. If interests are interrelated, attempt to determine optimal outcomes for combinations of interests.

Alternatives & Resistance (Reservation) Point – After determining the interests at stake (or potentially at stake) in a negotiation, determine the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for each interest. This will allow you to identify a reservation point as to that interest. Recall, the reservation point regards the point at which you are indifferent as to whether you reach an agreement or pursue an available alternative. After determining the BATNA for each interest, consider all of the interests collectively. Unfortunately, there may not be a single BATNA for all interests collectively. Nonetheless, by considering interests together, you should be able to envision an agreement concerning multiple (or all) interests that is more valuable than if you were to choose your BATNA for any single interest. That is, agreeing to accept an outcome that is worse than your BATNA for any individual interest may allow you to grab far more value from the other available interests.

Target or Desired Outcome – Once you have identified all the relevant interests in a negotiation, you should identify the desired outcome for each of these interests. From there, you can establish a target point, which is the upper limit of what you expect to get out of the negotiation. Note that what is ideal for each interest may not be reasonable. So, setting your target point may require some give and take among the interests. There is a fine line between expecting too much and conceding too much in setting the target point. The following can be negative dispositions for a negotiator with regard to a target outcome.

Risk Propensity – Risk is the probability of an undesirable outcome. Understanding that risk is a part of any structured negotiation, try to understand your willingness to accept the possibility of an outcome that is negative or does not meet your interests. Understanding your risk propensity will help you in determining or setting your negotiation BATNA. Concepts related to risk propensity include:

• Source: What is Self Assessment when strategically planning a negotiation?

How should you proceed to Assess the Other Party when strategically planning a negotiation?

Assessing a counterparty simply means taking steps to uncover any relevant information about her. The most salient attributes to determine include:

Interests or Objectives – Begin with the understanding that the other partys interests (and the value of those interests) may differ from your own.

Resistance Point and Alternatives – The other party will likely have a resistance point with regard to these interests. The resistance point will likely be tied to the options available for a given interest or the collective interests at issue.

Assessing these attributes of the counterparty can be quite difficult. Often, these attributes cannot be ascertained. Thus, a party must make assumptions or estimates regarding the other partys dispositions. In any event, a negotiator should attempt to uncover as much of said information as possible. Counterparty research should be carried out through two approaches:

Indirect Assessment – Indirect assessment might include: observations, consulting documentation and publications, speaking to knowledgeable individuals (such as friends, acquaintances, or experts), etc. It might also include anticipating the other partys interests (as if you were in their shoes).

Direct Assessment – This includes any straightforward method of determining key information about the other party. It might include asking the other party to discuss her goals (either at the table or before negotiations begin) or otherwise persuading the party to reveal this information. It might include conducting a preliminary interview, such as a broad discussion of what the other party would like to achieve in the upcoming negotiations (focus on broad interests, not just issues). It may also include seeking this information from records or third parties.

• Source: How should you proceed to Assess the Other Party when strategically planning a negotiation?

How do you Assess the Situational Aspects when strategically planning a negotiation?

Situational aspects of a negotiation represent any characteristic of the negotiation situation that are not personal to the negotiators or characteristic of the social climate between them. The situational aspects are innumerable. Common examples of situational aspects might include:

What are the interests at stake (and are they related)?
What is the timing of the negotiation?
What is the geography or location of the negotiators?
What communication methods are employed?
Is this a single or repetitive negotiation?
Is there a power dynamic present?
What resources are available to support the negotiation?
Note: Scarce Resource Competition exists when people perceive one another as desiring the same limited resources.
Are beliefs or ideologies an influence on the negotiation?
Note: Consensus Conflict occurs when one persons opinions, ideas, or beliefs are incompatible with those of another.
Is the negotiation a transaction or a dispute situation?
Are the negotiations public or private?

Again, these are examples of contextual attributes that may be relevant to the negotiation. Every negotiation is unique situational aspects that should be explored prior to and during the negotiation process.

• Source: How do you Assess the Situational Aspects when strategically planning a negotiation?

How do you assess the Social Context when strategically planning a negotiation?

A negotiator must understand the social context of the negotiation. Negotiation occurs in a context of rules, such as customs, habits, situations, cultural norms, religious doctrine, laws, and political pressures. Understanding the social constraints on the negotiation, particularly social pressures, is extremely important. The negotiation becomes far more complex when there are multiple parties in the negotiation. Team negotiations involve multiple individuals representing each negotiating party. Multiple parties often lead to the formation of factions and coalitions. Negotiators may also have constituents whom they serve in the negotiation. Multiparty or team negotiations is discussed in detail in Ch. 10. The following sample questions may be useful in understanding the social context:

Are there team dynamics at stake on either side of the negotiation?
Are there any third parties of interest, such as constituents represented in the negotiation?
Will anyone else be affected by the negotiation outcome?
Is there a prior relationship between the parties?
Will the relationship be affected by the outcome of the negotiation?
What social norms, customs, or rituals apply to the negotiation?
Are there legal or political pressures at stake?

• Source: How do you assess the Social Context when strategically planning a negotiation?

What other factors are understood to affect strategic objectives and planning in a negotiation?

Cognitive Disposition – In Ch. 6, we address the effect of cognitive disposition on the negotiation process. Logic is the starting point for negotiation strategy. That is, a party must understand the elements of a negotiation and a partys logical response to those elements. A partys perception of a negotiation and all of its contextual elements may change given any number of influences on the negotiator. Most notably, emotions can affect the strategic orientation of a negotiator. Specifically, emotions (or lack thereof) are known to influence an individuals behavior and alter or take the place of logic. In turn, they can alter the perception of interests. Emotions can also affect a negotiators self-belief or self-efficacy. Emotional intelligence is the ability of people (and negotiators) to understand emotions in themselves and others and to use this understanding to effect positive outcomes.

Communication – In a separate article, will discuss the communication process and how it affects the negotiation. In summary, negotiations are a communication exercise. This is the method by which negotiators carry out their strategies.

Trust, Relationships, and Ethics affect Negotiations – In Ch. 8, we discuss the role of trust, relationships, and ethics in the negotiation. These are all personal factors that affect how negotiators interact. Each of these elements involve emotions and can affect ones objectives. In summary, individuals do not always act logically when affected by emotions. These factors can affect ones approach to and objectives in the negotiation.

Ethics – In a separate article, we discuss the ethical considerations present in a negotiation. We explore how ethics can affect the negotiation process and outcome.

Multi-party or Team Negotiation – In a separate article, we discuss team and multi-party negotiations. The team dynamics in a negotiation affect the strategy and tactics employed. Further, it can affect the interests or objectives in the negotiation. Further, the human element of team-based negotiation is the propensity to form coalitions in support or against others. These factors can affect the process and outcome of the negotiation.

Cross-cultural Negotiation – In a separate article, we discuss cross-cultural negotiation. Individuals from diverse cultures may place differing levels of value upon the outcomes (interests or objectives) and process of negotiation. As such, culture stands to greatly influence the negotiation context and process.

Medium of Negotiation – In a separate article, we explore negotiation through information technology. Negotiation is effectively an exercise in communication. Negotiation through a medium other than face-to-face can alter the context of the negotiation, as well as how other factors (such as ethics, trust, etc.) affect the negotiation. As such, a negotiator must adjust her strategy and tactics accordingly.

• Source: What other factors are understood to affect strategy in a negotiation?

What are power tactics in a negotiation?

Power is an overarching theme that guides the selection of a strategic orientation, objective, plan, and tactics employed in a negotiation. As discussed in other sections, power in a negotiation may be used to dominate and control the other party. This is often referred to as a power-use tactic. Sometimes, power tactics are used to effect the power balance itself by enhancing the negotiators own power or diminishing the others power. This is referred to more broadly as a power tactic. Here we will refer to these tactics collectively as power tactics. While a power tactic most often aligns with a competitive or distributive strategy, it can also be used as leverage to further a cooperative or collaborative strategy. As such, power tactics still play an important role in integrative negotiations.

Any form of power can be classified categorically as follows:

Potential power – Power that an individual has the ability to bring forward or exercise in the negotiation. The underlying capacity of the negotiator to obtain benefits from ones agreement.

Perceived power – This is the power that a negotiators believes she and the counter-party they have. The source of this perceived power may not be real, but it still provides a point of influence in the negotiation. A negotiators assessment of each partys potential power, which may or may not square with reality.

Realized power – Power that has been employed or exercised to influence the other party. The extent to which negotiators have claimed benefits from the interaction.

Power tactics can be defined as measures used to demonstrate potential power, cause perception of power, or the realization (or exercise of) actual power to influence the other party. These tactics are designed to use or change the power relationship.

The following are major types of power. (French & Raven, 1959)

Expert Power – This refers to the influence supplied by knowledge or ability.

Reward Power – This refers to the ability to compensate or reward others for their activity.

Coercive Power – This refers to the ability to control individual conduct through threat of negative consequences.

Legitimate Power – This is power exerted by an individual with a special post, title, or position in an organizational hierarchy.

Referent Power – Is a form of social status yielding admiration and respect from others.

The following are widely accepted sources of power:

Information – Such power is derived from the negotiators ability to assemble and organize facts and data to support his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes. It may also spring from possession or awareness of facts that are unknown to the other party. Remember that all negotiations are exercises in communication. Selectively revealing facts concerning one partys position is inherent to negotiation practice.

Personality-based – Personality is how an individual projects outward to others and how others perceive the individual.

Position – This type of power is divided into legitimacy and resources. Legitimate power relates to social structure, such as occupying a particular job, office, or position in an organizational hierarchy. Resource power regards the control of resources and the capacity to give them to someone who will do what they want and withhold them (or take them away) from someone who doesnt do what they want.

Relationship Power – This regards the level of dependence between the negotiators.

Context – This is power based in the situation or environment in which negotiations take place, such as the time, location, method of communication, alternatives, third party involvement, and culture can be a source of power.

A party with greater power in a negotiation has a wider range of options regarding strategy.

• Source: How does the presence of power in the negotiation influence tactics?

What is the role of persuasion as a tactic in a negotiation?

In the absence of power to control a negotiation and coerce another party, a skilled negotiator must use tactics to persuade the other party. Persuasive tactics are generally separated into central route and peripheral route.

Central-route persuasion tactics – These include direct, mindful, information-based routes to persuasion. Generally think central-route persuasion as invoking deep thought on the topic through logic and emotion. Examples of central-route persuasion tactics include:

Control agenda – Lay out issues in a manner that reflects ones own interests. Try to garner information and discuss with the other party what may be a hidden agenda.
Generate alternatives – Generate multiple alternatives for a bargaining issue that benefit ones self or that are of equal value to you. Present multiple alternatives to allow the other party to evaluate and select among the available options. The power of contrast (the psychological contrast effect) can make one option appear more favorable when presented alongside seemingly lesser options. For this purpose, try to invent irrelevant alternatives for the counterparty to consider.
Influence understanding – Attempt to influence the other partys interests or understanding of their alternatives. This is generally achieved by selecting presenting attributes of the interests at stake. Even presenting interests and alternatives in a given order can prove persuasive.
Commitment and consistency (the consistency principle) – Commit to ones message (based upon beliefs, feelings, etc.). There is a fundamental human tendency to be consistent in ones beliefs, feelings, and behaviors, not only to others, but also to ourselves. Interjecting such elements into a negotiation message contains both peripheral and central route persuasion.
Reframe the negotiation – Reframing the negotiation can shift the focus on interests. It can stop an individual from becoming entrenched in a position or perspective. This is important if a partys resistance point is not within the zone of potential agreement.
Evoke fairness heuristics – Fairness or rights in a negotiation are a primary motivation for a negotiator. Egocentric bias is a negotiators tendency to focus on themselves. Creating a sense of empathy as to what is fair can alter the path of negotiation.
Apply time pressure – Time pressure can affect an individuals processing of an option. Specifically, it has been shown to cause hasty and irrational decisions.
Peripheral route persuasion tactics – These tactics, rather than use cognitive or mindful work, they employ automatic responses to subtle cues to persuade. The.

Leverage Status – An individuals status or position in an organization or society can lend itself to persuasiveness. Primary status characteristics are indicators of legitimate authority that are relevant to accomplishing a specific task; e.g., rank, title, previous experience, etc. Secondary status characteristics (or pseudo-status characteristics) are highly-visible, personal qualities (such as sex, age, or ethnicity) that have little to do with a persons authority, legitimacy, or ability, but are often treated as though they do.

Leverage Gender – Recognizing cultural stereotypes (or exposing negative stereotypes) can provide advantage in a negotiation.
Social networks – This regards the tendency of individuals to follow the herd. A negotiator who is part of a social network is likely to be influenced by the actions, decisions, and beliefs of those in the network.

Social proof – This is a situation in which we look to the behavior of others to determine what is desirable, appropriate, or correct.

Physical appearance – Individuals have a tendency to associate closely with individuals who have a similar physical appearance. This aids in understanding, communication, and can aid in the effectiveness of persuasive tactics. Further, some individuals show a level of submissiveness to individuals of far larger stature.
Priming the pump – The process by which subtle cues and information in the environment can impact our behavior (at a level below our conscious awareness). Wearing colors, hanging art, using descriptive words are just example of subtle cues that can influence an individuals perceptions in a situation.
Reciprocity – This is the practice of showing others the deference that they show us. If a negotiator is accommodating or makes a concession, the other party is likely to reciprocate.
Reactance technique – A negotiation strategy also known popularly as reverse psychology, wherein a negotiator plays on the opponents innate need to assert his or her individual freedom when it is threatened or controlled.
Foot-in-the-door technique – A technique in which a person is asked to agree to a small favor and then is confronted with a larger request. People who accede to the small favor first are more likely to agree to the larger request later.
Door-in-the-face technique (or rejection-then-retreat tactic) – A persuasion tactic in which a person makes an initial, extreme request to another party, making it more likely that they will secure agreement to a subsequent, smaller request.

Thats-not-all technique (or sweetening the deal) – This is a technique in which negotiators will offer to add more to a negotiated package or deal in order to persuade the other party to accept it.

• Source: Tactics aimed at persuading a counterparty?

5. What are some general tactics to facilitate (or finalize) a bargain that is within the zone of agreement?

Too often, parties are within the negotiation ZOPA, yet the negotiation stalls or fails. Parties must become familiar with tactics designed to bring parties to a final agreement. Some examples of effective tactics include:

Provide Alternatives Creative negotiators will determine the interests or objectives of the counterparty and bundle options or scenarios in unique ways to appeal to these interests. Begin thinking of possible combinations of interests and how they rank with regard to value. Understanding which interests are most valuable to you is imperative. Presenting multiple options (all representing concessions) simultaneously will allow the counterparty to choose. Packaging offers of similar or equal value can to negotiator can help to identify aspects of greater interest to the counterparty. This will allow the negotiator to avoid anchoring with regard to any aspect of the negotiation. Presenting bundled offers will deflect the parties interest in a single interest and can overcome impasses. Identifying packages of offers makes it appear that you are not a positional negotiator. Remember, packages should all be of equivalent value or attractiveness.

Note: Providing alternatives may be difficult in distributive negotiations. Often, there is a single finite source or interest or benefit for which the parties are negotiating.

Assume the Close Confidence is a formative communication tool and tactic in a negotiation. Communicating with a counterparty in a manner that assumes an agreement or resolution of a conflict creates cognitive incentives to reach an agreement. Further, it may create an emotional state in which the other party continues to negotiate in pursuit of an agreement in attempt to avoid disappointing the negotiator.

Split the difference Generally, splitting the difference between points of negotiation is not a strong tactic. It leave money on that table for a party who may be able to claim greater value through continued negotiation. This strategy is effective, however, when the parties are very near to an agreement and must overcome a small separation in value being claimed. Splitting the difference entails fairness theories of equality. It fits within a logical paradigm and can creative positive emotions in the other party.

Exploding offers An exploding offer is an initial offer or concession that must be accepted within a stated time period or it is withdrawn. Generally, distributive negotiations are competitive. It may not be to the advantage of a negotiator to add an additional layer of competition. Making an offer or concession with a tight deadline, however, is a competitive tactic that may be very useful in urging a party to agreement. An offer that contains an extremely tight deadline in order to pressure the other party to agree quickly could be the measure to convince the other party to accept the settlement and to stop considering outcomes.

Sweeteners A sweetener is an additional benefit added to an offer that is already being contemplated by the coutnerparty. The sweetener is used to make a seemingly good offer great and nudge the counterparty into acceptance. A party must be careful using sweeteners. These are often seen by the counterparty as icing on the cake. A negotiator may forgo the value of the sweetener unnecessarily if the counterparty was already resolute in accepting the negotiators offers. As such, the sweeter is a tactic that should be used sparingly to achieve a strategic objective.

• Source: Tactics to facilitate bargain within the Zone of Potential Agreement?

What are some distributive negotiation tactics and how should you employ them?

Distributive tactics are any tactics used to claim value in a negotiation at the expense of the other party. They are most closely associated with what is commonly called hardball tactics. Hardball tactics are measures used in a negotiation to set a competitive tone. It generally involves using some form or power, leverage, or persuasion to coerce the other party into changing their objectives, expectations, or position in the negotiation. Hardball tactics are generally poorly received and should be used sparingly in any negotiation. These measures can, however, be effective in single deals or transactions where there is no expectation of continued dealings or building a relationship. Further, individual competitive tactics employed as party of a mix of cooperative actions can be effective and not ill received. Some common strategies closely associated with hard-ball tactics are:

Good Cop, Bad Cop – This tactic is commonly used when negotiating with an individual who is not forthcoming or otherwise willing to negotiate. While it may be effective in stand-off situations, the weaknesses are that it is relatively transparent and difficult to orchestrate effectively.

Lowball – Highball – This tactic makes an extreme proposal (either very high or very low) in the negotiation. This is a sort of fishing to determine if the other party is informed about the actual value of the interest at hand. It is generally only successful when the other party is uninformed or in extreme need with little other option. The risk in using this tactic is that the other party will think it is a waste of time to negotiate and stop the process.

Note: Approaches for dealing with this tactic might include: Insisting that the other party start with a reasonable opening offer and refusing to negotiate further until he or she does; Stating your understanding of the general market value of the item being discussed, supporting it with facts and figures, thus showing the other party that you wont be tricked; Threatening to leave the negotiation, showing dissatisfaction in the other party in using this tactic; or responding with an extreme counter offer.

Bogey – Negotiators use this tactic to pretend that an issue is of little or no importance to them, when it actually is quite important. This is useful to disguise the value that the negotiator is receiving in a proposed concession or package deal.

The Nibble – The nibble is when a negotiator seeks small or menial concessions immediately before a deal closes. It is not a hold-out tactic, but is seeks gains that are largely inconsequential at a point when it would create administrative hassle or stall the deal if they are refused. Be cautious when employing this tactic. A counterparts may perceive this as procedural unfairness if the party using the nibble did not bargain in good faith.

Chicken – Combining a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to chicken out and give in to a request. A serious weakness of chicken tactic is that it turns the negotiation into a serious game in which one or both parties find it difficult to distinguish reality from postured negotiation positions.

Note: It is difficult to defend against this tactic. One method is to deemphasize the ultimatum by ignoring it in a way that allows it to pass. A party who lays down an ultimatum often has a difficult time in backing away. Ignoring it allows her to save face and rethink the tactic before it negatively affects the negotiation.

Intimidation – An attempt to force the other party to agree by means of an emotional ploy. Negotiators intimidate by using anger, increasing the appearance of legitimacy, or by invoking guilt.

Note: To deal with this tactic, parties will remain logical and stick closely to their resistance points. It will avoid irrational decisions based upon emotion.

Aggressive Behavior – Aggressive tactics include a relentless push for further concessions, asking for the best offer early in a negotiation, or asking the other party to explain and justify her proposals.

Snow Job – Snow jobs occur when negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that she has trouble determining which facts are real or important and which are distractions.

When dealing with these typical hardball tactics in a negotiation, there are several general choices about how to respond:

Dialogue – Opening a dialogue regarding the counterparties tactics is a strong tool that can reduce the force of hard ball tactics and can dissuade further use of these tactics. This takes a logical and measured approach to responding to the tactics that may mitigate the emotion reaction that they tend to invoke.

Ignore them – A party that recognizes these hardball tactics, is not easily subject to persuasion or intimidation, is in control of her emotions, and has confidence may be able to effectively ignore the counterpartys competitive behavior for the duration of the negotiation.

Respond in kind – Responding in kind fully embraces the competitive environment. It creates a super (win-lose) environment that plays to the egos of each party. For parties with greater confidence in their positions (interests and alternatives), this can be a good response. It does, however, result in a negative emotional reaction in the losing party. This tactic should only be used when there is no intended relationship, continued dealings, or reputation on the line.

Co-opt the other party – This tactic seeks to embrace the hardball tactics of the other party and continue to bring them around to your way of thinking. It seeks to divert the energy of the competitive tactics and use it to your advantage. This generally requires an interplay of passive and aggressive responses that keeps the counterparty off guard with your responses. For example, it could mean making counter-intuitive concessions or spontaneously changing the focus of interest in the negotiation.

There is no roadmap for dealing with hyper-competitive behavior in a negotiation. Recognizing this behavior and employing readily accepted tactics for responding will allow a negotiator to remain in control of an otherwise difficult scenario.

• Source: Dealing with Distributive Negotiation Tactics?

What are some integrative negotiation tactics and how should you employ them?

Expand and Modify the Resource Pie add resources in such a way that both sides can achieve their objectives.

Use Nonspecific Compensation allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay off the other person for accommodating his interests.

Cut the Costs for Compliance one party achieves her objectives and the others costs are minimized if he agrees to go along.

Find a Bridge Solution when the parties are able to invent new options that meet all their respective needs they have created a bridge solution. Successful bridging requires a fundamental reformulation of the problem so that the parties are not discussing their positions but disclosing information that will satisfy needs.

Super-ordination when “the differences in interest that gave rise to the conflict are superseded or replaced by other interests.”

Compromise compromises are not considered to be a good integrative strategy except for circumstances where parties are very entrenched and it is unlikely that a more comprehensive agreement is possible.

Brainstorm generating as many solutions (including non-obvious solutions) to the problem as possible. The following rules should be observed when engaging in brainstorming.

Take Surveys asking a large number of people to list all possible solutions they can imagine.

Perspective-taking – Ask questions about interests and priorities and provide information about your interests and priorities. Avoid the illusion of transparency in which negotiators believe they are revealing more than they actually are.

Unbundling and Bundling – Begin by unbundling (or identifying separately) the issues. Once all issues are understood, make package deals (rather than single-issue offers).

Logrolling Successful logrolling requires the parties to establish (or find) more than one issue in conflict; the parties then agree to trade off among these issues so that one party achieves a highly preferred outcome on the first issue and the other person achieves a highly preferred outcome on the second issue.

Multiple Simultaneous Offers – Make multiple offers of equivalent value simultaneously. An approach to this tactic might include:
devise multiple-issue offers;
devise offers that are all of equal value to yourself; and
make the offers all at the same time.

The advantages for the negotiator are that she can be aggressive in anchoring; can gain better information about the other party (inductive reasoning); can be persistent and persuasive regarding the value of an offer; and can overcome concession aversion.

Contingency Contracts – Contingency contracts are those that change based upon some designated occurrence or non-occurrence. Structure contingency contracts by capitalizing on differences in valuation, expectations, risk attitudes, time preferences, and capabilities. This is an extremely useful tactic to bring parties together when there is a standstill. Note that, effective contingency contracts:
should not create a conflict of interest;
should be enforceable and may require a written component;
should be clear, measurable, and readily evaluated; and
should require continued interaction among parties.

Common errors by negotiators that often do not lead to a win-win or integrative outcome include:

Overcommitment – Parties may commit to reaching a win-win deal while having an incorrect idea about what win-win is. This overcommitment can ignore the realities of the negotiation and cause a loss of value or failed negotiation.

Compromise – Collaborating is a fundamental aspect of integrative negotiations. Often, however, negotiators confuse collaboration with compromising between the two parties positions. While this may be necessary, it can also occur at the expensive of value creation and result in a more distributive process. It is important to remember that compromise means slicing the pie, rather than expanding the pie through integrative tactics.

Relationship Focus – Understanding the nature of the relationship at stake is imperative in distributive and integrative negotiations. Focusing on a long-term relationship, however, may result in accommodation by one party. It is important to remember that a long-term relationship can be a win-win throughout multiple negotiations, but that is not absolutely certain. Before taking an accommodative stance to build a long-term relationship, determine whether such a relationship will yield value in the future.

• Source: Integrative negotiation tactics?