Chapter 10

RELATIONSHIPS IN
NEGOTIATION
NEGOTIATING THROUGH OTHERS
WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP

• The Adequacy of Established Research for

Understanding Negotiation within Relationships

• Forms of Relationships

• Key Elements in Managing Negotiations within

Relationships
ADEQUACY OF ESTABLISHED RESEARCH
FOR UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATION
WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• Current negotiation theory is based on transactional research. Only

recently have researchers begun to examine negotiations in a
relationship context:

• Negotiating within relationships takes place over time

• Negotiation is often not a way to discuss an issue, but a way to learn

more about the other party and increase interdependence

• Resolution of simple distributive issues has implications for the

future.
ADEQUACY OF ESTABLISHED RESEARCH
FOR UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATION
WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• Distributive issues within relationships can be emotionally

hot

• Negotiating within relationships may never end

 Parties may defer negotiations over tough issues in order to start on
the right foot
 Attempting to anticipate the future and negotiate everything up
front is often impossible
 Issues on which parties truly disagree may never go away
ADEQUACY OF ESTABLISHED RESEARCH
FOR UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATION
WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• In many negotiations, the other person is the focal

problem.

• In some negotiations, relationship preservation is

the overarching negotiation goal, and parties may
make concessions on substantive issues to preserve
or enhance the relationship
 FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS
Four fundamental relationship forms:
1. Communal Sharing: Group needs above individual, shared resources.
(Family)

2. Authority Ranking: Hierarchy, power dictates resource access. (Military)

3. Equality Matching: Balance, equal contributions & returns. (Friends splitting

a bill)

4. Market Pricing: Value-based exchange, often using money. (Buying/selling)

FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS

1. Communal sharing
• A relation of unity, community, collective identity, and
kindness, typically enacted among close kin
• Such relationships are found in:
 Families
 Clubs
 Fraternal organizations
 Ethnic Groups
 Neighborhoods
FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS
• 2. Authority ranking
• A relationship of asymmetric differences, commonly
exhibited in a hierarchical ordering of status and
precedence
• Examples include:
 Subordinates to bosses
 Soldiers to their commander
 Negotiators to their constituents
FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS
3. Equality matching
• A one-to-one correspondence relationship in which
people are distinct but equal, as manifested in
balanced reciprocity (or tit-for-tat revenge)
• Examples include:
 College roommates
FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS

4. Market pricing
• Based on metrics of valuation by which people
compare different commodities and calculate
exchange and cost/benefit ratios
• Examples can be drawn from all kinds of buyer–
seller transactions
NEGOTIATIONS IN
COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS
• Parties in a communal sharing relationship:
• Are more cooperative and empathetic

• Craft better quality agreements

• Perform better on both decision making and motor tasks

• Focus their attention on the other party’s outcomes as well as

their own

• Focus attention on the norms that develop about the way that
they work together
NEGOTIATIONS IN
COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS
Parties in a communal sharing relationship
(cont.):
• Are more likely to share information with the other and less
likely to use coercive tactics
• Are more likely to use indirect communication about conflict
issues, and develop a unique conflict structure
• May be more likely to use compromise or problem solving
strategies for resolving conflicts
KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• Reputation
• Trust
• Justice
KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• Reputation
• Perceptual and highly subjective in nature
• An individual can have a number of different, even conflicting,
reputations
• Shaped by past behavior
• Influenced by an individual’s personal characteristics and
accomplishments.
• Develops over time; once developed, is hard to change.
• Negative reputations are difficult to “repair”
KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

• Trust
• “An individual’s belief in and willingness to act on the
words, actions and decisions of another”
• Three things that contribute to trust
[Link]’s chronic disposition toward trust

[Link] factors

[Link] of the relationship between the parties

KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS

Two different types of trust:

• Calculus-based trust
• Individual will do what they say because they are rewarded for keeping their
word or they fear the consequences of not doing what they say

• Identification-based trust
• Identification with the other’s desires and intentions. Trust exists because
the parties effectively understand and appreciate each other’s wants;
mutual understanding is developed to the point that each can effectively
act for the other.
KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN RELATIONSHIPS
• Trust is different from distrust
• Trust is considered to be confident positive expectations of
another’s conduct
• Distrust is defined as confident negative expectations of
another’s conduct – i.e., we can confidently predict that some
other people will act to take advantage of us
• Trust and distrust can co-exist in a relationship
ACTIONS TO MANAGE DIFFERENT
FORMS OF TRUST IN NEGOTIATIONS

How to increase calculus-based trust

• Create and meet the other party's expectations

• Stress the benefits of creating mutual trust

• Establish credibility; make sure statements are honest and

accurate

• Keep promises; follow through on commitments

• Develop a good reputation

ACTIONS TO MANAGE DIFFERENT
FORMS OF TRUST IN NEGOTIATIONS

How to increase identification-based trust

• Develop similar interests

• Develop similar goals and objectives

• Act and respond like the other

• Stand for the same principles, values and ideals

• Actively discuss your commonalities and develop plans to

enhance and strengthen them
ACTIONS TO MANAGE DIFFERENT
FORMS OF TRUST IN NEGOTIATIONS

How to manage calculus-based distrust

• Monitor the other party’s actions
• Prepare formal agreements
• Build in plans for “inspecting” and verifying commitments
• Be vigilant of the other’s actions; monitor personal
boundaries
• Use formal legal mechanisms if there are concerns that the
other might take advantage of you
ACTIONS TO MANAGE DIFFERENT
FORMS OF TRUST IN NEGOTIATIONS

How to manage identification-based distrust

• Expect disagreements
• Assume that the other party will exploit or take advantage
of you; monitor your boundaries regularly
• Verify information, commitments and promises of the other
party
• Minimize interdependence and self-disclosure
• “The best offense is a good defense”
RECENT RESEARCH ON
TRUST AND NEGOTIATION
• Summary of findings about the relationships between trust and
negotiation behavior:
• Many people approach a new relationship with an unknown other party with
remarkably high levels of trust

• Trust tends to cue cooperative behavior

• Individual motives also shape trust and expectations of the other’s behavior

• Trustors, and those trusted, may focus on different things as trust is being built

• The nature of the negotiation task can shape how parties judge the trust
RECENT RESEARCH ON
TRUST AND NEGOTIATION

• Summary of findings about the relationships between trust and

negotiation behavior (cont.):

• Greater expectations of trust between negotiators leads to greater

information sharing

• Greater information sharing enhances effectiveness in achieving a good

negotiation outcome

• Distributive processes lead negotiators to see the negotiation dialogue, and

critical events in the dialogue, as largely about the nature of the
negotiation task.
RECENT RESEARCH ON
TRUST AND NEGOTIATION

Summary of findings about the relationships between trust

and negotiation behavior (cont.):
• Trust increases the likelihood that negotiation will proceed on a
favorable course over the life of a negotiation

• Face-to-face negotiation encourages greater trust development than

negotiation online

• Negotiators who are representing other’s interests, rather than their

own interests, tend to behave in a less trusting way
KEY ELEMENTS IN MANAGING
NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN
RELATIONSHIPS

• JUSTICE
Can take several forms:
• Distributive justice
• The distribution of outcomes

• Procedural justice
• The process of determining outcomes

• Interactional justice
• How parties treat each other in one-to-one relationships

• Systemic justice
• How organizations appear to treat groups of individuals
 REPAIRING A RELATIONSHIP

• Diagnostic steps in beginning to work on improving a

relationship:
• What might be causing any present misunderstanding,
and what can I do to understand it better?
• What might be causing a lack of trust, and what can I do
to begin to repair trust that might have been broken?
 REPAIRING A RELATIONSHIP

• Diagnostic steps (cont.):

• What might be causing one or both of us to feel
coerced, and what can I do to put the focus on
persuasion rather than coercion?
• What might be causing one or both of us to feel
disrespected, and what can I do to demonstrate
acceptance and respect?
 REPAIRING A RELATIONSHIP

• Diagnostic steps (cont.):

• What might be causing one or both of us to get
upset, and what can I do to balance emotion and
reason?
Chapter 11

AGENTS,
CONSTITUENCIES,
AUDIENCES
 THE NUMBER OF PARTIES
IN A NEGOTIATION

The basic possible roles for parties in a negotiation:

• A negotiating dyad: Two individuals negotiating directly

• Negotiating teams: Groups negotiating on behalf of larger entities.

• Agents and constituencies: Representatives acting for others (e.g., lawyer

for client).

• Bystanders and audiences: Observing the negotiation, may influence it

indirectly.

• Third parties: External individuals helping to resolve the negotiation (e.g.,

mediator).
A NEGOTIATING DYAD AND
AGENTS AND CONSTITUENCIES

• A Negotiating Dyad
• When two isolated individuals negotiate for their own needs
and interests

• Agents and Constituencies

• A negotiator is not acting for himself but for others. We call
the negotiator in such situations an agent and the
individuals he is representing a constituency
A NEGOTIATING DYAD;
ONE HAS A CONSTITUENCY
 BYSTANDERS AND AUDIENCES

• Bystanders
• Those who have some stake in a negotiation, care about the issues or the process
by which a resolution is reached
• Negotiators do not formally represent bystanders

• Audience
• Any individual or group of people not directly involved in or affected by a negotiation
• They may offer:
• Input
• Advice
• Criticism
NEGOTIATORS WITH CONSTITUENTS,
BYSTANDERS AND AUDIENCES
THIRD PARTIES

• Third parties
• Bystanders who may be drawn into the
negotiation specifically for the purpose of helping
to resolve it
• Third parties often can reshape a polarized
situation into a constructive agreement
ADVICE FOR MANAGING AGENTS

Points of advice:

1. Decide whether you and the agent are compatible

2. Be clear with your “contract” and expectations

3. The agent should have no authority to make a binding

commitment on any substantive issues

4. The agent should have the discretion to design and develop an

effective overall negotiation process
ADVICE FOR MANAGING AGENTS

Points of advice: (cont’d.)

5. The constituent should focus communication to the

agent on interests, priorities, and alternatives, rather
than specific settlement points.

6. The constituent should establish clear expectations

about the frequency and quality of reporting back to
the constituent.
ADVICE FOR MANAGING AGENTS
Points of advice: (cont’d.)

7. The agent’s authority should expand as the agent and constituent

gain insight about the other parties through the negotiation process.

8. Specific instructions to the agent by constituents should be put in

writing and be available to show to the other side.

9. The constituent should instruct the agent on what the agent can
disclose in negotiation—interests, ranges of acceptable settlement,
key facts, the principal’s identity, etc.
HOW AGENTS, CONSTITUENTS AND
AUDIENCES CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS
There are three primary negotiating relationships:

1. The first negotiating relationship is between the agent

and constituent who must decide on their collective view
of what they want to achieve in the negotiation

2. The second relationship is with the other party – the

negotiator and the opposing negotiator who attempt to
reach a viable and effective agreement
HOW AGENTS, CONSTITUENTS AND
AUDIENCES CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

• 3. The third type of relationship is composed of

external bystanders and observers.
• They are affected by the negotiation outcome or have a
vantage point from which to observe it
• They have some strong need to comment on the process
or the emerging outcome.
HOW AGENTS, CONSTITUENTS AND
AUDIENCES CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

Characteristics of audiences:
• Audiences may or may not be dependent on the negotiators for the outcomes
derived from the negotiation process

• Audiences affect negotiations by the degree of their involvement in the

process
 Direct involvement

 Indirect involvement

• Audiences may vary in identity; composition; size; relationship to the

negotiator, and role in the negotiation situation
HOW AGENTS, CONSTITUENTS AND
AUDIENCES CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

• Audiences make negotiators “try harder”

• Negotiators seek a positive reaction from an

audience

• Pressures from audiences can push negotiators

into “irrational” behavior

• Audiences hold the negotiator accountable

TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL
STRUCTURE DYNAMICS: THE NEGOTIATOR’S
DILEMMA

• Question: How can a negotiator satisfy both the

constituency’s demands for firmness (and a settlement
favorable to their interests), versus the other party’s
demand for concessions (and a settlement favorable to the
other party or to their mutual gain)?

• Answer: A negotiator must build relationships with both

the constituency and the other party
COMMON TACTICS FOR MANAGING
CONSTITUENCIES AND AUDIENCES

• Clarify the role expectations and performance

contract
• Complex agent roles could include those of a bargainer,
an advocate, a mediator or a fact-finder

• Clarify the authority to make agreements

• Decide how much authority they have without consulting
the constituents
COMMON TACTICS FOR MANAGING
CONSTITUENCIES AND AUDIENCES

• Manage constituency visibility

• Limit one’s own concessions by making negotiations
visible
• Use the constituency to show militancy

• Use the constituency to limit one’s own authority

• Use great caution in exceeding one’s authority

COMMON TACTICS FOR MANAGING
CONSTITUENCIES AND AUDIENCES

• Manage constituency visibility (cont’d.)

• Increase the possibility of concession to the other
negotiator by reducing visibility to constituencies
• Establish “privacy” prior to the beginning of negotiations
• Screen visibility during negotiations
• Be aware of time pressure

• Establish a reputation for cooperation

COMMON TACTICS FOR MANAGING
CONSTITUENCIES AND AUDIENCES

• Communicate indirectly with audiences and constituents

 Communicate through superiors
 Communicate through intermediaries

• Communicate directly to the other party’s constituency

• Communicate directly to bystanders

• Build relationships with audiences, constituents and
other agents
INDIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH
OPPONENT THROUGH A MANAGER
INDIRECT COMMUNICATION
THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY
INDIRECT NEGOTIATING THROUGH
CONSTITUENTS/AUDIENCES/BYSTAND
ERS
WHEN TO USE AN AGENT
• When the agent has distinct or unique knowledge or skills in the issues

• When the agent has better negotiation skills

• When you care more about the outcome than the relationship

• When the agent has special friends, relationships or connections

• When you are very emotionally involved in an issue or problem

• When you want the flexibility to use negotiation tactics that require several parties

• When your natural conflict management style is to compromise, accommodate or

avoid

• When there are higher stakes to gain

WHEN TO NEGOTIATE FOR
YOURSELF
• When you want to develop or reestablish a strong personal relationship with
the other negotiator

• When you need to repair a damaged relationship

• When you want to learn a lot before you craft an agreement

• When your negotiation skills are better than those of any available agent

• When hiring an agent may be too costly

• When the “image” of being represented by an agent may make the other side
suspicious

• When the agent is too emotionally involved, defensive and caught up in game
playing
Chapter 12

COALITIONS
SITUATIONS WITH MORE THAN
TWO PARTIES

Variations on a three-party negotiation:

1. One buyer is representing the other and two negotiations are
occurring

2. The seller is conducting a sequenced series of one-on-one

transactions

3. The seller is about to unwittingly compromised by the buyers (this

happens when the parties form coalitions or subgroups in order to
strengthen their bargaining position through collection action).
A SELLER AND TWO BUYERS
WHAT IS A COALITION?
• Interacting groups of individuals

• Deliberately constructed and issue oriented

• Exist independent of formal structure

• Lack formal structure

• Focus goals external to the coalition

• Require collective action to achieve goals

• Members are trying to achieve outcomes that satisfy the interests of

the coalition
 TYPES OF COALITIONS
• Potential coalition: an emergent interest group that has
the potential to become a coalition by taking collective
action but has not yet done so.
• Two forms:

1. Latent coalitions
 Emergent interest group that has not yet formed

2. Dormant coalitions
 Interest group that previously formed, but is currently inactive
TYPES OF COALITIONS
• Operating coalition: one that is currently operating, active, and in
place.
• Two forms:

1. Established coalition
 Relatively stable, active, and ongoing across an indefinite time and space
 Members represent a broad range of interests

2. Temporary coalition
 Operates for a short time

 Focused on a single issue or problem

TYPES OF COALITIONS

• Recurring coalitions: may have started as

temporary, but then determined that the issue or
problem does not remain resolved
• Members need to remobilize themselves every time the
presenting issue requires collective attention
HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP

When coalitions form:

• Parties come together to pool efforts and resources in pursuit of

common or overlapping goals

• Control over resources becomes the basis for two critical pieces of
the coalition formation process:
 What each member brings to the coalition

 What each member should receive if the coalition forms

HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP
• Coalition formation is studied by:
• A classic coalition game: The 4–3–2 game
• Real-world examples: The European Economic
Community (EEC)
• Coalitions form to preserve or increase resources
• Coalitions form in order to avoid a poor outcome
that will occur if individuals acts alone (a “social
dilemma”)
HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP

How coalitions develop:

• Coalitions start with a founder

 Successful founders have extensive networks

 Founders’ benefits from early coalitions are likely to be small

• Coalitions build by adding one member at a time

 The founder finds an ally;

 The founder can benefit if he or she understands the others’

interests
 HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP

• Coalitions need to achieve critical mass

• Find their “joining threshold”
• A minimum number of people get on board
• Others join because friends and associates are members

• Coalitions exclude weaker members who can’t

contribute
 HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP
• Linking new members—“ties”—become critical:
• Strong ties: a new member who can bring a lot to the coalition, but
demands a lot in return;
• Weak ties: a new member who only brings a small amount to the table—
enough to leverage the coalition to a “win”—but will not demand as
much in return.

• Hence, weak ties can create strength for coalition founders:

• Founders who have a large, diverse network of weak ties are often in a
better situation to form a coalition than those who have a small, tightly
organized network of strong ties
 HOW AND WHY COALITIONS
FORM AND DEVELOP

• Many successful coalitions form quietly and disband quickly

• Revenge of the vanquished: pits coalitions against each other so that each
one’s sole objective is to keep the other side from succeeding
• Turmoil within: public acknowledgment of the coalition could damage future
coalition activity
• Desire for anonymity: the more publicly identified members become with
the coalition, the more others may see their future actions as motivated by
coalition membership and not by their own interests.
 STANDARDS FOR COALITION
DECISION MAKING

Coalition decision rules

• Three criteria to determine who receives what from the results of the coalition’s
efforts
1. Equity standard
-- Anyone who contributed more should receive more (in proportion to the
contribution made)
2. Equality standard
-- Everyone should receive the same
3. Need standard
-- Parties should receive more in proportion to some demonstrated need for a larger
share of the outcome
STANDARDS FOR COALITION
DECISION MAKING

Where is the strength in coalitions?

• When is “strength is weakness” true?
• Any winning coalition obtains the same payoff
• Actors are interchangeable
• Contribute fewest resources, have least power or exert the least influence

• When is “strength is strength” true?

• The more resources a party holds or controls, the more likely he or she will
a critical coalition member
 POWER AND LEVERAGE IN
COALITIONS

How is power related to coalition formation?

• Strategic power
 Emerges from the availability of alternative coalition partners

• Normative power
 Derives from what parties consider to be a fair or just distribution of the
outcomes

• Relationship-based power
 Shaped by the compatibility of preferences between parties
HOW TO BUILD COALITIONS –
PRACTICAL ADVICE

• Say no when you mean no

• Share as much information as possible

• Use language that describes reality

• Avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance

PROSPECTIVE COALITION MEMBER ROLES
PROSPECTIVE COALITION
MEMBER ROLES
• Allies
• Parties who are in agreement with a negotiator’s goals and vision, and whom
the negotiator trusts

• Opponents
• People with whom a negotiator has conflicting goals and objectives, but who
can be trusted to be principled and candid in their opposition

• Bedfellows
• Parties with whom a negotiator has high agreement on the vision or
objectives, but low to moderate levels of trust
PROSPECTIVE COALITION
MEMBER ROLES
• Fence Sitters
• Parties who will not take a stand one way or the other

• Fear taking a position because it could lock them in, be

politically dangerous, or expose them to risk

• Adversaries
• Adversaries are low in agreement and cannot be trusted.
ACTION STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN COALITIONS
• With allies
• Affirm agreement on collective vision or objective

• Reaffirm quality of the relationship

• Acknowledge doubt and vulnerability with respect to achieving vision and collective goal

• Ask for advice and support

• With opponents
• Reaffirm relationship based in trust

• State vision or position in a neutral manner

• Engage in problem solving

ACTION STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN COALITIONS

• With bedfellows
• Reaffirm the agreement; acknowledge caution exists

• Be clear about expectations in terms of support

• Ask what they want from you

• Reach agreement on how to work together

• With fence sitters

• State your position; find out where they stand

• Apply gentle pressures

• Focus on issue; have them tell you what it would take to gain their support
ACTION STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING
RELATIONSHIPS IN COALITIONS

• With adversaries
• State your vision or goals

• State your understanding of your adversary’s position in

a neutral way
• Identify your own contributions to the poor relationship

• End the meeting by restating your plan but without

making demands
Chapter 13

MULTIPLE PARTIES
AND TEAMS
TWO SITUATIONS THAT
INVOLVE MULTIPLE PARTIES

• Multiple parties are negotiating with one another and

attempting to achieve a collective or group
consensus.

• Multiple individuals are present on each “side” of the

negotiation
 The parties to a negotiation are teams against teams
A MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATION,
EACH REPRESENTING A CONSTITUENCY
THE NATURE OF MULTIPARTY
NEGOTIATIONS
Differences between two-party and multiparty
negotiations:

• Number of parties

• Informational and computational complexity

• Social complexity

• Procedural complexity

• Strategic complexity
WHAT IS AN EFFECTIVE GROUP
IN A MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATION?

Effective groups and their members:

1. Test assumptions and inferences

2. Share all relevant information

3. Focus on interests, not positions

4. Explain reasons behind statements

5. Talk in specific terms and use examples

6. Agree on what important words mean

7. Disagree openly with any member of the group

8. Make statements, then invite questions and comments

WHAT IS AN EFFECTIVE GROUP
IN A MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATION?
Effective groups and their members (cont.)
9. Design ways to test disagreements and solutions

10. Discuss “undiscussable” issues

11. Keep discussions focused

12. Avoid taking cheap shots or distracting the group

13. Expect participation by all members in all phases of the process

14. Exchange relevant information with nongroup members

15. Make decisions by consensus

16. Conduct self-critiques

MANAGING MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATIONS

• The prenegotiation stage

• Characterized by many informal contacts among the parties

• The formal negotiation stage

• Structures a group discussion to achieve an effective and
endorsed result

• The agreement phase

• Parties select among the alternatives on the table
THE PRENEGOTIATION STAGE
• Establish participants

• Form coalitions

• Define group member roles

• Understand the costs and consequences of no

agreement

• Learn the issues and construct an agenda

THE PRENEGOTIATION STAGE
• Agendas as effective decision aids:

• Establish the issues that will be discussed

• Define how each issue is discussed

• Set the order in which issues are discussed

• Introduce process issues (decision rules, discussion norms,

member roles, discussion dynamics), and substantive issues

• Assign time limits to various items

THE FORMAL NEGOTIATION STAGE
• Appoint an appropriate chair

• Use and restructure the agenda

• Ensure diversity of information and perspectives

• Key process steps:
 Collect thoughts and composure before speaking

 Understand the other person’s position

 Think of ways both parties can win

 Consider the importance of the issue

 Remember parties will likely work together in the future

THE FORMAL NEGOTIATION STAGE

• Ensure consideration of all available information

• The Delphi technique
• An initial questionnaire, sent to all parties, asking for input
• Brainstorming
• Define a problem and generate as many solutions as possible
without criticizing any of them
• Nominal group technique
• Brainstormed list of solutions ranked, rated, or evaluated
THE FORMAL NEGOTIATION STAGE
• Manage conflict effectively

• Review and manage the decision rules

• Strive for a first agreement

• Manage problem team members

 Be specific about problem behaviors

 Describe problem as team problem (use “we” versus “you”)

 Focus on behaviors the other can control

 Wait to give constructive criticism

 Keep feedback professional

 Verify that the other has heard and understood

THE AGREEMENT PHASE
• Select the best solution

• Develop an action plan

• Implement the action plan

• Evaluate outcomes and the process

THE AGREEMENT PHASE

Group chair or facilitator steps in moving toward a

successful completion:
• Move the group toward selecting one or more of the options

• Shape and draft the tentative agreement

• Discuss whatever implementation and follow-up needs to

occur
• Thank the group for their participation, hard work and efforts

• Organize and facilitate the postmortem

INTERTEAM NEGOTIATIONS
• Integrative agreements more likely when teams are
involved

• Teams are sometimes more competitive than

individuals and may claim more value

• Accountability pressures are different for teams

• Relationship among team members affects negotiation

process and outcomes
Thank you
Nguyễn Công Hòa (MBA)
Mobile: 0949.288.786
Email: hoanc@[Link]