problem solving decision making negotiation and compromise

ChatGPT & AI in Procurement Course Free Preview Lesson

Written by Marijn Overvest | Reviewed by Sjoerd Goedhart | Fact Checked by Ruud Emonds | Our editorial policy

Compromising Negotiation — 3 Powerful Strategies + Examples

Table of content

• What is Compromise
• Compromising Negotiation Style
• Compromising Negotiation Strategies
• Examples of Compromising Negotiation
• When To Use It?
• Case Lesson
• Advantages 
• Disadvantages
• Procurement Expert’s Insights

In Conclusion

Frequently asked questions.

Key take-aways

• Compromising negotiation let the parties simply agree to meet in the middle.
• Compromising negotiation is different from the other styles as no one wins or loses. 
• One of the best times to use this style is when there are issues that are out of control.

What exactly goes through your mind when you hear about the compromising negotiations style? Is it about negotiating while trying to get a better deal between you and your opponent? At most times, people assume that the compromising style is all about making promises or concessions .

The concessions part is half-true, but we will get more into that later on.

What is Compromise?

In negotiation, compromise is a basic negotiation process in which both parties will give up something that they want for them to get something else that they want more.

Compromise often happens in win-lose scenarios when there is a fixed pie that needs to be divided in which way the other party wins and the other one loses.

In this situation, neither side gets what they really want. However, the parties make concessions to reach an acceptable agreement.

Compromising Negotiation Style – What is it?

The compromising negotiation style is one of several negotiation styles that focuses on striking a balanced deal between you and your opponent. In simple terms, it is a negotiation tactic where no one has the upper hand in the end; both you and the other party simply agree to meet in the middle. No one wins and no one loses.

Sounds boring, yes? Well, there will always be negotiations where sometimes, pushing for something too much or too less are both bad for you. And the same thing can also happen to your opponent. Therefore, it is also a good idea for both parties to simply gain an understanding right in between one another.

Thus, this negotiation style is quite opposite to two other negotiation styles; the collaboration negotiation style (where it’s a win-win situation for you and the other party) and the usual hardball distributive negotiation style (where you are out to win at all cost against the other party).

And that’s why, dear negotiators and procurement managers, is the reason why it’s called the compromising negotiation style .

Compromising Negotiation Strategies to Apply Yourself

Strategy 1 – Be quick and decisive

When using the compromising negotiation style, you need to be quick in determining what the middle ground is. When you’ve recognized what it is, wait until there is no longer an option of negotiating further.

If the outcome of the negotiation is going to be a lose-lose situation, you need to be decisive in putting the middle ground right in front of you and your opponent. Place your card on the table and be quick in delivering it as well.

Louise is having a hard time trying to win an argument with her co-workers. The company wants to have a get-together and her proposal is an out-of-town beach party. However, her co-workers are budget conscious and would prefer to do some local activities instead.

While running her hand on a local tourism app, she sees a local beach that is just a few meters away from the office.

Louise: “Okay, I just saw a local beach in town and it’s not too far away from our office. Since everyone wants to save money, I think this is the best place for us to hold our get-together party. Does anyone have other ideas?”

Strategy 2 – When decided on the middle ground, reaffirm it via voice and paper again for everyone to agree on.

Once you and the other party have agreed on the compromise, always make sure to reaffirm it again both on voice and on paper so that everyone present during the negotiation is aware of what transpired and what both parties have agreed upon.

This way, both parties understand what was agreed upon and that later negotiations can be held again without wasting anyone’s time.

For any documentation, make sure to send everyone a copy of it.

Tony and his associates decided on a compromise of selling their product for half the price at twice the agreed-upon number by the opposing party.

Tony: “Again, let me reaffirm that my associates and I agree on selling our products for half the price but we will sell at twice the agreed amount. The details can also be seen on paper here, which I will be sending to each one of you after the meeting.”

Strategy 3 – Always decide on the next negotiation after building the compromise.

Because of the nature of how compromise is almost in any case needed to end negotiations and close deals, always assume that the end is only temporary and that neither party is ever fully satisfied with the outcome. Thus, always decide on when the next negotiation will be after building the compromise itself.

This also holds true if one of the members of the negotiating table is not present at the moment.

Even if the other party makes no mention of another upcoming negotiation, it is always a good practice to be ready for anything. This will also give the other party an idea as to when to expect another call from you if you are not fully satisfied with the compromise.

Examples of Compromising Negotiation Style

The following are some of the examples of compromising style in negotiation:

1. Earn Out Agreement

In the world of business sales, it’s not uncommon for the person selling a company and the person buying it to have different ideas about how much it’s worth. When they can’t agree on a price, they sometimes use a strategy called an “earn out.”

Here’s how it works: Let’s say someone wants to sell their business for $6 million, but the potential buyer thinks it’s only worth $4 million. To meet in the middle, they come up with an earn-out arrangement. In this setup, the buyer agrees to pay $4 million upfront, and then the remaining $2 million gets paid later, like after a year. But, here’s the catch: the extra $2 million will only be paid if the business performs well and achieves specific goals during that time.

So, it’s kind of like a compromise. The seller gets some money right away, which is closer to what the buyer thinks the business is worth. And then, if the business does really well after the sale, the seller might get the extra $2 million, making the total closer to what they originally wanted.

This earn-out is a way for both the seller and the buyer to find middle ground when they can’t agree on the price. The buyer doesn’t have to put up all the money upfront, and the seller still has a chance to get the full amount they hoped for if things go well. It’s like saying, “Okay, we’ll do it your way for now, but if things turn out better than expected, then I get what I wanted too.” It’s a bit of a give-and-take to make a deal happen.

2. Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement served as a good illustration of an effective compromise negotiation, where various nations address the challenges brought by climate change and how they can stop it.

Here is why the agreement is a good example of a compromise negotiation:

Fair shares : Countries agreed to do their part based on how much they had contributed to causing the problem. This way, everyone took responsibility, but it wasn’t too hard for anyone.

Personal Plans : Instead of having one strict rule for everyone, each country decided what they could do to help. This was fair because different countries have different needs.

Big Goal, Step by Step : They all decided on a big goal: to keep the Earth’s temperature from going up too much. It’s like agreeing on a limit to how hot things can get. This goal made everyone work together.

Helping Each Other : Rich countries said they would help poorer countries with money and knowledge to fight climate change. This was like sharing resources to make sure everyone could contribute.

Checking and Learning : Countries promised to check on each other’s progress and share their efforts. This way, they could learn from each other and make sure they were doing what they said they would.

3. My Experience in Using Compromising Negotiation Style

Negotiation styles are a very important variable to master to achieve great deal results. Your ultimate deal will be determined by how skilled you are as a negotiator. The more skilled you are in using different styles, the more the other party will be drawn to settle close to your ideal outcome and closer to their limit.

Your selection of negotiation style should depend on your personality and the results of your earlier research on the styles that will probably be used by your negotiating counterpart . Getting to recognize the different negotiation styles will help you to negotiate way more efficiently! It’s important to know how and when to use particular styles to get more of what you want from the negotiation.

“In my time as a Procurement Manager, I had to deal with 1500 different products delivered by 70 suppliers every year. Suppliers were traditionally better equipped; most account managers that I had been dealing with, only had to focus on one customer and thus the negotiator: me. This led to what I call, the knowledge gap. They had way more time to prepare for negotiations . Most of them kept detailed notes on my negotiation style, likes and dislikes, interests, family details, and so on. In general, they were in a better position to choose the most appropriate style to approach me in the upcoming negotiation. My advantage, on the other hand, was the fact that I was negotiating all day & year: that experience leveraged the knowledge gap mostly: I practiced a full year with changing styles & using tactics. This helped me to have one important skill in any negotiation: I was not predictable.”

Do you also want to learn to apply effective tactics yourself and become unpredictable? There are a large number of styles & tactics that you can use in negotiations! In our Certificate Program, we will teach you when which styles to use and in what way you should use them to your advantage!

Want to check out more negotiation case studies? We actually created an overview with 13 inspiring real-life negotiation examples .

Compromising Negotiation Style – When to use it?

So when does a professional negotiator or procurement manager use the compromising negotiation style.

One best instance is when a negotiation can’t be held to the fullest because of certain issues that are out of control.

For example, when the negotiator for the other party cannot meet with you because of an emergency on his side or if the negotiator is present but the deciding factor or person on their end is not available, then a compromise will have to be agreed upon by both parties.

Other instances where the compromising negotiation style is effective to use are the following:

• An urgent yet temporary decision is needed to settle a complex issue
• When a decision is needed urgently because there is a lack of time.
• When both parties cannot come to a decision despite a lengthy negotiation timetable.

Compromising Negotiation Style Case Lesson

• Arthur Hahn from Germany is a procurement manager for a non-profit organization that plants trees.
• He asks a local store for help in procuring 200 shovels for an upcoming tree-planting activity.

Arthur contacts the store for help with purchasing 200 shovels for the members of his non-profit organization for a tree planting activity. Because it is non-profit, the organization is entirely dependent on donations from its members and does not have very deep pockets, so to say.

The owner of the store checks his inventory and tells Arthur the exact price for the 200 shovels. Arthur is crestfallen when he realizes that his organization does not have enough money for the purchase, but he also knows that the trees needs to be planted. The owner is apologetic and suggests to Arthur to ask for more donations to help in getting more money.

However, an idea sparks in Arthur’s mind. Instead of buying shovels, Arthur asks the owner if he is able to give a small discount for customers who are going to join the tree planting activity and want to buy a shovel themself. The owner agrees to the idea and provides all customers that are planning on planting trees, a 40% discount.

While it does not solve Arthur’s initial task of getting 200 shovels for his non-profit organization, this final outcome is even better for as well Arthur and the store owner: when the final day of planting is there, all 200 persons joining the tree-planting activity have been bringing in their own shovels.

Advantages – Compromising Negotiation Style

Since both parties are going to decide on the middle ground, then surely there are a lot of advantages to using the compromising negotiation style.

Some of the advantages of this negotiation tactic are as follows:

• You save time by deciding on the middle ground quickly with the other party.
• It may restore confidence among your peers by quickly identifying and deciding a middle ground with the other party.
• Minimize what may seem a loss by quickly deciding on a compromise with the other party.
• By deciding on a compromise for now, you can retreat and gather more intel about the upcoming negotiation.
• For critical negotiations, a compromise is a much better deal compared to a loss.
• You can also establish a good starting relationship with a new business due to a compromise.

Disadvantages – Compromising Negotiation Style

Are there any disadvantages to the compromising negotiation style?

It is weird to talk about disadvantages regarding this negotiation style because there is already a compromise between the two parties, right?

A compromise is not always a good thing because remember when negotiating, your aim is always for the things that you want. So if you’re going for the middle ground, neither you nor your opponent wins. And if no one wins, then no one really gains anything.

Other disadvantages when using the compromising negotiation style are as follows:

• No one is fully satisfied with the outcome. Thus, the agreement could be short-lived and will usher in more negotiations in the future.
• More negotiations mean more time and effort used.
• Short-lived agreements over a complex issue can be frustrating and exhausting for you and the other party.
• Just because a compromise is reached doesn’t mean that you or the other party is happy about it. It could strain your relationship with the other party in the future.
• You quickly gain the middle ground during a negotiation could be taken as a sign of weakness or laziness.
• Quickly conceding a negotiation to the middle ground could damage your reputation as a skilled negotiator or procurement manager.

Procurement Expert’s Insights on Compromising Negotiation Style

For this article, we asked an experienced procurement expert to share her insights on compromising negotiation style.

Hilce Vallenilla Procurement Manager, Sanofi

LinkedIn Profile: linkedin.com/in/hilce-vallenilla

1. Do you use compromising negotiation in your dealings? If yes, what is the most important thing you learned about compromising negotiation?

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned about negotiation is the significance of honoring agreements with clear rules and possible exceptions. Once an agreement is reached, it is crucial to stick to the terms diligently. Clear documentation plays a vital role in this process, ensuring that both parties have a comprehensive understanding of their commitments and any specified exceptions. This not only promotes transparency but also establishes a foundation of trust between the negotiating parties. Proper documentation serves as a reference point, reducing the risk of misunderstandings and providing a solid framework for the successful implementation of the negotiated terms.

2. What tips can you give procurement professionals when compromising negotiation?

A piece of advice that I would offer to procurement professionals who engage in compromising negotiations is to make sure they have enough decision-making or empowerment authority. Having the power to make compromises on behalf of oneself or the company is essential. This empowerment not only speeds up the negotiation process but also enables quick decision-making.

The compromising negotiation style is a strategic approach to finding a middle ground between parties in a negotiation. It aims to avoid pushing too hard or conceding too little, which could be detrimental to both parties. Instead, it focuses on reaching a practical solution that benefits everyone involved.

The style involves quick and decisive decision-making, followed by thorough reaffirmation to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings. It’s also important to plan for future negotiations after reaching a compromise, recognizing that compromises may be temporary solutions.

While effective in time-sensitive or temporarily complex situations, the compromising style comes with drawbacks. For instance, it may lead to short-lived agreements, dissatisfaction among parties, and the risk of damaging professional relationships. Therefore, it’s important to navigate this delicate balance skillfully to avoid being perceived as weak or hasty in negotiations.

What is compromising negotiation?

It is a negotiation tactic where each party plays at a compromise. This means a balanced deal between you and the other party.

When to use compromising negotiation?

A compromise is used when there’s too little time during the negotiations. It is also used when both parties cannot decide on an outcome after hours of negotiations.

Why would you use a compromising negotiation style?

A compromise can be agreed upon by both parties to stall for time. This means either party can come back for another round of negotiations.

About the author

"> "> My name is Marijn Overvest, I’m the founder of Procurement Tactics. I have a deep passion for procurement, and I’ve upskilled over 200 procurement teams from all over the world. When I’m not working, I love running and cycling.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 (page 10) p. 10 Frameworks of negotiation: Winning for self or problem solving for all?

• Published: September 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter provides four different frameworks for analyzing negotiations: Adversarial- Distributive-Competitive; Integrative-Collaborative; Accommodative-Sharing; and Mixed-Allocative. First one must assess what is at stake—the res (thing) subject matter of negotiation, then assess whether materiel is scarce, sharable, or capable of being enhanced or increased. Choices of how to behave in a negotiation depend on what is at stake, how many parties, whether one-off or ongoing relationship, and the timing of negotiation and effects on others. The chapter provides analysis of different modes of conflict resolution behavior, including competition, compromise, collaboration, accommodation, and avoidance, and suggests criteria for selection of appropriate behavioral choices to reach agreements. Many important terms are defined and illustrated, e.g. ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement), alternatives to negotiated agreements, target points and aspirations, reservation prices. The chapter suggests how to use various conceptual frames to develop creative solutions to complex problems.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Negotiation and bargaining.

• Wolfgang Steinel Wolfgang Steinel Leiden University, Department of Psychology
•  and  Fieke Harinck Fieke Harinck Leiden University, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.253
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve.

There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate.

Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation.

Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

• negotiation
• negotiation style
• multiparty negotiations
• motivated information processing

Bargaining and negotiation, the “back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2012 , p. xxv), are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2021 ).

Negotiation and bargaining are common terms for discussions aimed at reaching agreement in interdependent situations, that is, in situations where parties need each other in order to reach their goals. While both terms are often used interchangeably, Lewicki et al. ( 2021 ) distinguish between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation. Distributive refers to situations where a fixed amount of a resource (e.g., money or time) is divided, so that one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. In such win–lose situations, like haggling over the price of a bicycle, bargainers usually take a competitive approach, trying to maximize their outcomes. Integrative refers to situations where the goals and objectives of both parties are not mutually exclusive or connected in a win–lose fashion. In such more complex situations that usually involve several issues (rather than the distribution of only one resource), interdependent parties try to find mutually acceptable solutions and may even search for win–win solutions, that is, they cooperate to create a better deal for both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

The distinction between bargaining and negotiation reflects the research tradition, where bargaining has largely been investigated from an economic perspective, focusing on the dilemma between immediate self-interest and benefit to a larger collective. Negotiation has mostly been investigated from the perspective of social psychology, organizational behavior, management, and communication science and has mainly focused on the effect on, and behavior and cognition of people in richer social situations.

Research Paradigms

Negotiation research has applied various paradigms. Game-theoretic approaches, such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma and related matrix games, in which simultaneous choices together influence two parties’ outcomes, explore how people handle the conflict between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests (see Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013 , for a review). A paradigm to investigate behavior in purely distributive settings is the Ultimatum Bargaining Game (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982 ). It models the end phase of a negotiation: one player offers a division of a certain resource (e.g., €100 split 50–50), and the other player can either accept, in which case the offer is carried out, or reject, in which case both players get nothing. Studies in ultimatum bargaining have consistently shown that even in distributive one-shot interactions, bargainers not only try and maximize their own outcomes, but are also driven by other-regarding preference, can reject unfair offers (Güth & Kocher, 2014 ), are concerned about being and appearing fair (Van Dijk, De Cremer, & Handgraaf, 2004 ), and are affected by their own and a counterpart’s emotions (Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef, 2012 ).

While ultimatum bargaining is a context-free simulation of a distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation has predominantly been studied in richer contexts that simulate real-life decision-making. Research has largely relied on negotiation simulations to identify and analyze participants’ behaviors and measured economic outcomes (Thompson, 1990 ). Field studies on negotiation behavior have been conducted to a much smaller extent (Sharma, Bottom, & Elfenbein, 2013 ).

The remainder of this article will first describe the strategy and planning for negotiations, and the behavior and outcomes of negotiations. It will then cover research on factors that affect behavior and outcome in integrative negotiation, starting with intrapersonal factors, such as cognitions and emotions. Then aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, culture, and group constellations will be covered, before moving on to aspects of the situational context, such as time, communication media, and conflict issues, and concluding with some emerging lines of research.

Negotiation Preparation and Goals

The goal of negotiations.

The goal of negotiations may be deal-making or dispute resolution. Before entering the actual negotiation, well-prepared negotiators define the goals they want to achieve and the key issues they need to address in order to achieve these goals (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Deal-making (e.g., a student selling his bike) involves two or more parties who have some common goals (e.g., transferring ownership of the bike from the seller to the buyer) and some incompatible goals (receiving a high price vs. paying a low price), and try and negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo (the seller keeping the bike) or any alternative agreements with third parties (e.g., selling the bike to someone else or buying a different bike). Negotiation with the aim of dispute resolution (e.g., a student complaining about the noise a flatmate makes) occurs when parties who are dependent on each other (e.g., because they share a flat) realize that they are blocking each other’s goal attainment (preparing for an exam vs. listening to punk rock) and negotiate what can be done to solve the problem.

Preparing for Negotiations

Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets, and limits, and to prepare an opening offer (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Figure 1 shows the key points in the example of a student selling his bike to another student. The target point is the point at which each negotiator aspires to reach a settlement. For example, the seller hopes to sell his bike for €280, and the buyer hopes to buy it for €190. By making opening offers beyond their targets, negotiators create leeway for concessions while pursuing their goal. In the bike example, the seller has prepared an opening offer (e.g., an asking price) of €320, while the buyer planned to start the negotiation by offering to pay €150. Well-prepared negotiators define their limits before entering a negotiation by setting a resistance point, that is, the price below which a settlement is not acceptable (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). If, for example, the seller would accept any price above €200 and the buyer is willing to pay up to €280, it is likely that they settle on a price somewhere in this range. This zone between the two parties’ resistance points is called zone of potential agreements (ZOPA; Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1. Overview of Key Points in Negotiation Preparation (Example).

Well-prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reaching a deal in the upcoming negotiation, in particular of their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA; Fisher et al., 2012 ). As the quality of a negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement, and thus their dependency on their counterpart, attractive BATNAs increase a negotiator’s power.

Deal-making and dispute resolution differ in the way parties are dependent on each other: in deal-making, both parties can have independent alternatives that they can unilaterally decide to turn to instead of reaching a deal (the buyer may find a different seller, and the seller might find another potential buyer). Disputes that occur between parties who share a common fate, like flatmates, parents of a child, co-owners of a company, or different ethnic or religious groups living on the same territory, can only be solved by the parties working together. The alternative to not solving a dispute for both disputants therefore is conflict escalation (e.g., sabotaging the stereo installation), a victory for one (and a grudge for the other) or a stalemate in which neither party is willing to abandon their position. These alternatives usually do not last or they damage the relationship between the parties.

Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes

Negotiation is communication. Parties communicate either directly, or through agents, and exchange offers and counteroffers, usually alongside arguments, questions, proposals, cooperative statements, commitments, threats, and so on. How people behave in negotiations is influenced by their preferred negotiation style. The Dual Concern Model (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ) describes how two types of concerns jointly determine negotiation styles. These two concerns, which can both range in intensity from low (i.e., indifference) to high, are the concern about a party’s own outcome and the concern about the other’s outcome, as displayed in Figure 2 . Importantly, the model does not postulate concern about a party’s own interests (also called concern for self or self-interest) and concern about the other’s outcomes (also called concern for other or cooperativeness) as opposite ends of one scale, but rather as two dimensions that can vary independently.

Figure 2. Dual-Concern Model.

Parties with a low concern for self and for other will probably be avoiding negotiations, leaving the other party without an agreement. Parties with a high concern for self and a low concern for other are likely to use forcing behaviors, while aiming to achieve the own goals by imposing a solution onto the other. Forcing (also called contending), like using threats or other forms of pressure, is detrimental to the relationship with the other party, and can lead parties into a conflict spiral, especially when they are similarly powerful (Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Parties with a low concern for self and a high concern for other are likely to engage in yielding . Yielding (also called accommodating), like making large concessions or accepting the other party’s demands, is often the strategy of parties who feel weaker than their counterpart or have a strong need for harmony. This can lead into a dynamic of exploitation. It is less effective when negotiating important issues, since yielding on important issues will leave the yielding party dissatisfied with the outcome. Parties with an intermediate concern about both parties’ outcomes are likely to use compromising , a “meet-in-the-middle” approach often considered a democratic and fair way of solving conflicts between mutually exclusive goals. Parties who compromise, however, might settle for a simple solution and overlook more creative solutions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ).

The negotiation styles displayed in Figure 2 , on the diagonal from yielding via compromising to forcing, entail distributive behavior. Distributive behavior aims to distribute the value of a deal in a win–lose fashion—one’s losses are the other’s gains. These are the behavior that bargainers engage in during positional bargaining—each side takes a position, argues for it, and might make concessions in order to move toward a compromise (Fisher et al., 2012 ). The negotiation style problem-solving, which is located beyond this distributive diagonal, aims at reaching win–win agreements. Instead of focusing on their positions, parties with a high concern for self and for other may focus on their interests. Interests are the underlying causes or reasons why negotiators take a certain position (Fisher et al., 2012 ). Engaging in integrative problem-solving behavior, negotiators try to find solutions that integrate both parties’ interests and are thus better for both parties than a simple compromise would be (see the article “ Conflict Management ” for a more elaborate description of the dual concern model).

Differentiation before Integration

Negotiations often follow a differentiation-before-integration pattern in which negotiating parties start with distributive, forcing behavior, such as threatening the other party or fiercely arguing for their own interests. Only after realizing that this competitive behavior does not bring them any closer to an agreement, for example because the other party does the same, they tend to switch to more integrative negotiation and become willing to look for mutually satisfactory agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Olekalns & Smith, 2005 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). In lab studies, such switches from competitive to cooperative negotiation often occur after temporary impasses (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 )—moments in a negotiation in which parties take a time-out before having reached an agreement. In field studies, such switches have been described as “ripe moments” (Zartman, 1991 ) or “turning points” (Druckman, 2001 ; Druckman & Olekalns, 2011 ).

Outcomes of Negotiations

Outcomes of negotiations are either an impasse when no agreement is reached or an agreement that can be either distributive (win–lose) or integrative (win–win). Outcomes can be measured as objective or economic outcomes—such as money or points—and as subjective outcomes—such as satisfaction with the outcome or process and willingness to interact in the future (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009 ). Distributive agreements are those that divide some fixed resources between parties in a win–lose way—one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. An example would be a situation in which a buyer and seller are negotiating only about the price of a bike. Win–lose does not necessarily imply victory of one party over the other—a simple compromise (50–50) where parties meet in the middle of their initial demands is an example of a distributive agreement as well. Distributive negotiation styles are likely to lead to impasses when parties match their forcing behavior, or to distributive agreements when one party yields to the forcing of the other or when both decide to compromise and “meet in the middle.”

Integrative agreements are those that divide an expanded set of resources and thereby increase the benefit for both negotiators. Contrary to distributive bargaining, which is dominated by value-claiming strategies, integrative negotiation offers the possibility to create value, that is, to find solutions that improve the outcomes to both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). A key activity in integrative negotiation is to generate alternative solutions to the problem at hand. One way to generate alternative solutions is by adding resources and negotiating about more than initially planned, thereby making a deal more attractive to both parties. Figuratively, negotiators expand the pie before they divide it. For example, the seller of a bicycle might add a good bicycle lock that he does not need any more, thereby making a better deal selling his bike and lock, while the buyer gets a good lock for his new bike and in total pays less than he would have paid if he had to buy a new lock in a shop.

Another way to generate alternative solutions is by discussing multiple issues rather than single issues, and by determining which issues are more and less important. For example, the seller of the bicycle might be a returning exchange student who cannot take the bike to his home country, but he needs to use it until the final days of his stay. By negotiating the price and delivery date, buyer and seller may integrate the seller’s preference for a late delivery with the buyer’s preference for a lower price. Integrative negotiation styles can lead to integrative agreements; if negotiators trust each other, exchange information, and gain an accurate understanding of their preferences and priorities, they might detect common interests (Rubin et al., 1994 ) and mutually beneficial trade-offs across topics that vary in importance (Ritov & Moran, 2008 ), so-called logrolling (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). Parties can also reach integrative agreements through an implicit way of exchanging information, for example by proposing multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs; Leonardelli, Gu, McRuer, Medvec, & Galinsky, 2019 ) and letting the other side choose which offers they prefer. For example, knowing that a rental bike would cost €50 a week, the seller may propose two equally attractive offers—selling the bike immediately for €300, or selling it in one week for €250. The prospective buyer, provided he has little urgency, might choose the latter option, thereby creating value from the different priorities that the two parties have.

An important ability of negotiators is perspective-taking, the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011 ). Perspective-taking helps negotiators detect logrolling opportunities and thereby exploit the integrative potential of a negotiation situation (Trötschel et al., 2011 ).

Cognitions (how people think about a situation) influence negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Cognitions have been the focus of the behavioral decision perspective on negotiations that was dominant in the 1980s and 1990s (for an overview, see Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000 ). Two of the most prominent biases are fixed-pie perceptions and anchoring.

Fixed-Pie Perception

A fixed-pie perception is the common assumption that the interests of the parties are diametrically opposed such that “my gain is your loss” (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). This idea is related to the view that negotiation is a purely distributive contest in dividing a fixed amount of resources in which the winner claims a larger share than the loser. When both parties have a fixed-pie perception, they are unlikely to notice that their priorities may differ and might overlook profitable opportunities for a mutually beneficial exchange of concessions (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”).

Anchoring is the tendency to rely on a first number when making a judgment. For example, the interested buyer might offer a higher price if, immediately before negotiating the price of the second-hand bike, he saw an ad for a bike costing €1,500, than if he saw a bike offered for €100. The offer made for the second-hand bike is thus influenced (anchored) by prior information. This bias is related to the first-offer effect. In negotiations, the first offer functions as an anchor point at which the negotiation starts and a negotiation agreement is often in favor of the first party that proposes a concrete number (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Loschelder, Trötschel, Swaab, Friese, & Galinsky, 2016 ).

Emotions (how people feel about a situation) and the expression thereof have a profound influence on negotiation processes and outcomes. The effects of emotions on the negotiation process can be intrapersonal—a person’s mood or emotion influences his or her own behavior. These effects can also be interpersonal—one person who expresses his or her emotions affects another person’s behavior (Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008 ).

Intrapersonal Effects of Emotions

The intrapersonal effects of emotions are straightforward. Negotiators who are in a bad mood, or who feel angry or disappointed, are more likely to engage in forcing behavior and less likely to accommodate the other party. On the other hand, negotiators who are in a good mood or feel happy are more likely to be lenient negotiation partners who are willing to make a deal (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997 ; Friedman et al., 2004 ; Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006 ; Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2010 ; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004 ).

Interpersonal Effects of Emotions

The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations are summarized by the Emotions-As-Social-Information Model (Van Kleef, 2009 ), which proposes that a negotiator’s emotions affect the behavior of their counterparts via two distinct processes. Emotions trigger inferential processes and affective reactions in the targets of those emotions. The inferential process means that emotions give information about the aspirations of a party—an angry reaction of a counterpart on a proposal signals that the counterpart has set ambitious limits. As a result, an angry reaction by party A often triggers a yielding response by party B, in order to satisfy party A and reach an agreement (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). A happy reaction by party A, on the other hand, might indicate the proposal is near target point of party A, and party B may conclude that no further concessions are required in order to reach an agreement.

Emotions might also trigger an affective reaction in the receiver; an expression of anger of party A is likely to engender an angry reaction by party B in return, whereas a more happy reaction will trigger a happier response. In general, the interpersonal effect of anger is exemplified by the finding that negotiators who express anger will get a yielding response from their counterpart, but only when the other party is willing and able to take the emotions of the angry party into account (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). On the other hand, an expression of happiness is met with a more competitive or less yielding response. Expressing anger in negotiations can backfire, however (Van Kleef et al., 2008 ). Anger directed at the person, rather than at a proposal, is likely to lead to retaliation rather than concessions (Steinel, Van Kleef, & Harinck, 2008 ), and the same effect occurs for angry expressions in value-laden conflict (Harinck & Van Kleef, 2012 ); people may overtly concede to a counterpart who expresses anger, but they might subsequently retaliate covertly (Wang, Northcraft, & Van Kleef, 2012 ). Similarly, expressing anger helps powerful negotiators who may receive a conciliatory response, but harms powerless parties, who are more likely to receive an angry, non-conciliatory response (Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010 ; Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest, 2008 ). Also, fake expressions of anger aimed at trying to get the other party to concede are more likely to lead to intransigence rather than to conciliatory behavior in the receiving party, due to reduced trust (Campagna, Mislin, Kong, & Bottom, 2016 ; Côté, Hideg, & Van Kleef, 2013 ).

The cognitions and emotions of negotiation parties show that negotiators are humans; they think, make mistakes, and feel. In fact, for many people negotiations can be quite stressful due to either their thoughts or their feelings about the negotiation. The next section, “ Gender ,” will address situational characteristics that influence negotiation processes, behaviors, and outcomes, focusing on three major situational factors—the gender composition of the negotiating dyad, the power positions of the dyad members, and the cultural environment in which negotiations take place.

Gender differences can arise in negotiation, showing a general advantage for male negotiators over female negotiators. These differences tend to disappear, however, when negotiators are more experienced, when the range of potential agreements is known, or when they negotiate for someone else (Mazei et al., 2015 ). Gender differences in negotiation can largely be explained by stereotypical thinking. The stereotypical ideas of an effective negotiator—strong, dominant, assertive, and rational—tend to align with stereotypical male characteristics, whereas the stereotypical ideas about an ineffective negotiator—weak, submissive, accommodating, and emotional—tend to align with stereotypical female characteristics, suggesting that male negotiators are more effective than female negotiators (Bowles, 2012 ; Kray & Thompson, 2005 ).

These stereotypical ideas can play a role in negotiations when negotiators use them to figure out how to behave and when they want to predict how the other party is likely to behave (Bowles, 2012 ; Mazei et al., 2015 ). In general, male negotiators are expected to be competitive, whereas female negotiators are expected to be more cooperative. For example, people are likely to make lower offers to women than to men and expect women to be more easily satisfied with the offers they receive (Ayres & Siegelman, 1995 ; Kray, Locke, & Van Zant, 2012 ; Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999 ).

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is an important cause for the lower negotiation outcomes achieved by female than by male negotiators (Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002 ; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001 ). People experience a stereotype threat when they feel their performance is evaluated on a task in a domain for which they are aware of negative stereotypes about their group’s abilities (Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011 ). For example, female participants who are evaluated on a math test or in a negotiation might experience stereotype threat, due to the stereotypical belief that women are bad at math or in negotiation. Under conditions in which the stereotype threat is neutralized by presenting the negotiation as a learning tool rather than as an assessment tool, or when female characteristics are linked to negotiation success, gender differences diminish or disappear (Kray et al., 2001 , 2002 ). Gender differences also disappear when people negotiate on behalf of another person or party (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010 ). In that situation, the female stereotypes of caring for others and the negotiation aim align, and male and female negotiators perform equally well.

Stereotype Reactance

Several remedies mitigate this potential disadvantage for female negotiators. First, awareness of stereotype threat can reduce its effects by stereotype reactance . In a study using typical math tests, gender differences disappeared when the test was presented as a problem-solving task rather than a math test, and also when participants received additional information explaining how stereotype threat can interfere with women’s performance on a math test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005 ). As such, informing female negotiators that a negotiation might trigger a stereotype threat that might interfere with their performance can help neutralize the stereotype threat and its effects.

Backlash is the negative reaction that female negotiators face when they engage in gender-incongruent competitive negotiation behavior (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ). Women can prevent expectancy violations and thus minimize the likelihood of backlash by giving external attributions for competitive behaviors (anticipatory excuses or justifications, such as “my mentor advised me to . . .” or “my association has released a salary survey, and my salary seems to be below average . . .”) or by stressing gender-normative behavior, like using inclusive language (“I am sure we can find a mutually satisfactory agreement”), or influence tactics that indicate warmth and caring (“can you help me to . . .”; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ).

Finally, gender differences tend to diminish when clear instructions to negotiate signal that behaving competitively is not counter-normative. At the individual level, for instance, gender differences disappear when people need to negotiate on behalf of others, a case in point when negotiating is something that a person is supposed to do (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005 ). At a higher level, organizations could, for example, be more transparent about what can or cannot be negotiated, the so-called zones of negotiability (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ), specifying what terms of employment are open for discussion (Bowles, 2012 ). The bottom line seems to be that normalizing negotiations and negotiating behavior will diminish gender differences.

A general definition of power is the ability to control one’s own and others’ resources and outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ). In negotiation, power is negatively related to dependency: the more powerful party needs the negotiation to a lesser extent than the less powerful party in order to achieve certain outcomes or to satisfy certain needs. Based upon this idea, power in negotiation research is most often operationalized by giving parties a good or a bad BATNA (Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000 ; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 , as described in the section “ Negotiation Preparation and Goals ”). A good BATNA can be a good alternative offer by another party (Magee et al., 2007 ), the existence of an alternative negotiation party (Giebels et al., 2000 ), or the existence of several alternative negotiation parties (Mannix & Neale, 1993 ). A good BATNA leads to more power in the negotiation; negotiators with a good BATNA are less dependent on the negotiation because they can opt for the alternative to reach a beneficial outcome. Other manipulations of power are role instructions (e.g., boss vs. employee; De Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004 ), a power priming writing task (Magee et al., 2007 ), or knowledge about the BATNA (Wong & Howard, 2017 ).

Ample research shows that equal power between negotiation parties—with both parties having comparable BATNAs—generally leads to more integrative agreements than unequal power between negotiation parties (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 ). Other research, however, shows that parties who differ in power achieve better collective outcomes (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994 ; Wei & Luo, 2012 ). Depending on circumstances, both power equality and power differences can be harmful. Power equality decreases performance if it leads to power struggles (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010 ), while power differences decrease performance when power disparity is not aligned with task competence (Tarakci, Greer, & Groenen, 2016 ), or when individualistically motivated power holders exploit weaker counterparts (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Van Tol & Steinel, 2020 ). Furthermore, it seems that it is not the asymmetrical BATNA situation per se, but the knowledge about BATNA asymmetry that drives the lower joint outcomes in unequal power situations. By knowing the power advantage, the more the powerful negotiator tends to focus on value claiming, which leads to more judgment errors about the other party, impeding their information sharing and in the end resulting in lower joint outcomes (Wong & Howard, 2017 ). These findings are supported by earlier research showing that the party who feels or is most powerful in the negotiation, is also more likely to engage in or initiate negotiations, make the first offer (leading to more favorable outcomes for that party), and claim a larger share of the outcomes (Magee et al., 2007 ; Pinkley et al., 1994 ).

Interestingly, having no BATNA seems to be more beneficial than having a weak BATNA, because weak BATNAs may function as anchors, influencing negotiators to make less ambitious first offers than those negotiators who have no BATNA at all, who in turn are not influenced by this kind of low anchor and feel more free to make a relatively high first offer (Schaerer, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015 ).

Culture is the unique character of a social group (Brett, 2000 ), including cultural values about what is important and cultural norms about how to behave (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2000 , 2018 ; Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995 ). Negotiation research concerning culture can be distinguished as intra cultural negotiation research or inter cultural negotiation research (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Gunia, Brett, & Gelfand, 2016 ; Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zhang, 2012 ). Intracultural research focuses on negotiations between parties from the same culture, and compares negotiations within one culture to negotiations within another culture—a comparison of French–French negotiations versus U.S.–U.S. negotiations, for example. Intercultural negotiation research focuses on negotiations between parties from different cultures, such as French–U.S. negotiations. Although culture can be defined as the unique character of a social group, most negotiation research concerning culture focuses on different nationalities rather than on specific social groups within or between nations.

Studies on the effects of culture on negotiation allow general assumptions on how specific cultural backgrounds affect negotiators’ behavior. However, not everybody adheres to their cultural characteristics to the same extent, and variations within cultures are large, therefore predictions about individual negotiators require caution (Brett, 2000 ).

Cultural differences in how people exchange information and how they deal with power are relevant for negotiation processes and outcomes (Hofstede, 2011 ; Torelli & Shavitt, 2010 ). Most intra- and intercultural negotiation research focuses on differences concerning information exchange and/or influence and power tactics (Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ). Information can be shared directly by giving or asking information about preferences and priorities, as in the United States, or indirectly, by proposals and counterproposals, as in Asian countries. The reactions to proposals and the proposals themselves can also give information about a party’s preferences and priorities (Brett, 2000 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ). Both types of information sharing can lead to integrative outcomes.

Research has mainly compared Western (mostly Northern American negotiators) to East Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese or Japanese negotiators; Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ; Tinsley, 1998 ; Tinsley & Pillutla, 1998 ). These cultures differ on several dimensions, with the United States being more individualist, low context, and egalitarian, and East Asian cultures generally being more collectivistic, high context, and hierarchical (Adair et al., 2004 ). These cultural differences have several consequences. For example, negotiators from low-context cultures in which communication is explicit and direct are more likely to use direct rather than indirect information sharing. Also, parties from more egalitarian cultures might pay less attention to power or status differences between the negotiating parties than counterparts from more hierarchical societies. Higher-status negotiators from these societies may interpret this as a lack of respect and react by using their power or competitive strategies.

From the 2010s, the cultural logic approach (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ) has been introduced into the field of negotiations (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2018 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ; Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2015 ). This approach distinguishes three different cultures: dignity, honor, and face cultures. In dignity cultures every person has an equal amount of inherent worth that does not depend on the opinions of others. Most Western societies are dignity cultures. In honor cultures, on the other hand, a person’s worth depends on the extent to which the person adheres to the honor code in that person’s own eyes and in the eyes of others. Honor cultures exist in the Middle East and in the southern United States. And finally, in face cultures there are stable hierarchies and people have face as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations accompanying their position in the hierarchy. Face cultures are found in East Asia (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ). The first results using this categorization show that, in intracultural negotiations, parties in dignity cultures use more (direct) information sharing and less competitive influencing behaviors compared to honor and face cultures. Also, dignity cultures are more likely to reach win–win agreements, and to reach a more equal division of outcomes between the parties compared to honor and face cultures (Aslani et al., 2016 ).

Figure 3 displays a model of intercultural negotiation (Brett, 2000 ). It posits that cultural values influence parties’ interests, preferences, and priorities. As such, different cultural values can determine the integrative potential in the negotiation and whether and where profitable trade-offs are possible. On the other hand, cultural norms influence parties’ negotiation behaviors and strategies, so combinations of different cultures can lead to specific interactional patterns. Both the existence of different preferences and priorities and the interaction pattern influence the final outcomes of the intercultural negotiation. Cultural intelligence, defined as a person’s capability to successfully adapt to new cultural settings, has been shown to increase a negotiator’s effectiveness in intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010 ).

Figure 3. How Culture Affects Negotiation.

Negotiations within and between Groups

Much of the empirical laboratory research into negotiation processes and outcome has investigated a basic situation in which two parties, both representing their own interests, negotiate with each other. Some studies have investigated situations that are more socially complex, for example with the conflict being between groups rather than individuals (i.e., intergroup negotiation), sometimes with individuals representing their constituent group (i.e., representative negotiation) or with several negotiators representing each side (i.e., team negotiation), or with negotiations involving more than two parties (i.e., multiparty negotiation). Some 21st-century studies have shed light on the increased social and procedural complexities in these negotiation settings.

Intergroup Negotiations

Intergroup negotiations are typically conducted by representatives (Walton & McKersie, 1965 )—negotiators who represent the group, pursuing not just their own personal interests but also the interests of their constituents. Representatives often negotiate more competitively than people who negotiate on their own behalf, as they tend to think that their constituency favors a competitive approach (Benton & Druckman, 1974 ). The extent to which representatives stick to the group norm (or what they think the groups wants) depends on their need to secure group membership. Representatives who occupy marginal positions in attractive groups seek to demonstrate their belongingness to the group, and they therefore behave more competitively toward an opposing player than representatives who hold central positions in their group (Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Moffitt, 2007 ). Similarly, representatives with an insecure position in their group follow the group norm more strictly—the more so the higher their dispositional need to belong to the group (Steinel et al., 2010 ). Group norms, however, are not always clear. Constituencies may consist of different individuals—some are hawks, preferring a competitive stance toward the opposing group, while others are doves, favoring cooperation with the opponents. The attention-grabbing power of hawkish messages renders even a minority of hawks in a constituency more influential than doves (Aaldering & De Dreu, 2012 ; Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2008 ). Another way for constituencies to influence group negotiations is by selecting their representative, a choice that groups make depending on the purpose of the negotiation. When negotiations are identity-related (e.g., about moral issues), groups favor representatives who represent their group norms, or are more extreme than their own group, and as distant as possible from the opposing group. When negotiation are instrumental (i.e., when attaining a favorable outcome is central), however, groups prefer negotiators who deviate from the group norms in a way that brings them closer to the norms that the opposing group holds (Teixeira, Demoulin, & Yzerbyt, 2010 ).

Multiparty Negotiations

Multiparty negotiations differ from interactions between two negotiators in several respects. As every party brings goals, interests, and strategies to the negotiation table, group negotiations are more demanding on information-processing capacities (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ). Furthermore, team negotiations differ from dyadic negotiations, because they occur in a social environment similar to group decision-making, characterized by increased social complexity. Group dynamics depend largely on the goals that individual group members pursue—does everyone try to maximize their individual outcomes, or does the group strive to maximize collective outcomes? Groups which pursue a common goal reach more integrative agreements because they trust each other more and exchange more information than teams of people who pursue their individual goals (Weingart, Bennett, & Brett, 1993 ). Finally, the increased number of negotiators results in procedural and strategic complexity. A way to deal with these complexities is by installing decision rules that specify how to transform individual judgments into a group judgment. Under unanimity rule, every group member can use their veto power to make sure that their interests are recognized in an agreement. Under majority rule, however, team members whose interests are aligned can form a coalition and neglect the needs of minority members with opposed preferences, which is particularly likely and harmful to the collective outcome when group members pursue their individual goals rather than pursuing a collective goal (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ).

Team Negotiation

Team negotiation becomes increasingly complex when team members have different preferences and priorities on some of the conflict issues. Subgroup formation can occur and reduce the groups’ ability to implement beneficial trade-offs, if groups in team negotiations are not unitary teams where all members share the same preferences, but instead some team members have preferences that align better with the preferences of (some members of) the opposing group (Halevy, 2008 ). Subgroup conflict can also have positive effects, as it challenges fixed-pie perceptions and thus increases team members’ motivation to form an accurate understanding of the situation (Halevy, 2008 ).

Motivated Information Processing

Social motives.

Several of the studies mentioned in the section “ Multiparty Negotiations ” relate to one of the strongest determinants of negotiation processes and outcome— social motives (e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 , De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008 ; Weingart et al., 1993 ). Social motives are preferences for certain distributions of value between oneself and others, which can be rooted in a person’s character (social value orientations; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997 ) or engendered externally. A bonus system based on individual performance, for example, would give rise to individualistic motivation, while a bonus system that rewards the collective performance of a work team would spur more prosocial motivation. Pro-self negotiators aim to maximize their individual outcomes and tend to see negotiations as competitive interactions in which power and individual success are important. Prosocial negotiators, on the other hand, strive for equality and high collective gains, and tend to see negotiation as a cooperative endeavor in which fairness and morality are central (De Dreu et al., 2008 ).

Epistemic Motivation

The Motivated Information-Processing in Groups Model (De Dreu et al., 2008 ) states that win–win agreements are more likely when negotiators are prosocially motivated, because this leads to more trust, information exchange, and problem-solving behavior. Importantly, apart from a prosocial motivation, integrative agreements also require a high epistemic motivation , that is, the desire to form an accurate understanding of the situation. Negotiators with a high epistemic motivation make use of the information they exchange and find options to create value, for example by exchanging mutually beneficial concessions. Negotiators with a low epistemic motivation make suboptimal compromises instead. Epistemic motivation is fostered, for example, when negotiators are process accountable—the need to explain or justify their behavior motivates them to think carefully. Epistemic motivation is reduced, for example, when time pressure makes people prefer rules of thumb and other mental shortcuts over a careful appraisal of the available information.

Time Pressure

Time pressure can be beneficial and detrimental to negotiation performance. On the one hand, time pressure impairs negotiators’ decision-making, because it reduces epistemic motivation and leads to shallow information processing (De Dreu et al., 2008 ). Time pressure may also lead to impasses, when negotiators have insufficient time to craft mutually acceptable or even beneficial agreements. On the other hand, time pressure may also motivate negotiators to reach a deal quickly, increase their willingness to make concessions, help overcome positional bargaining, and increase negotiation efficiency (Moore, 2004 ).

Time pressure can be the result of time costs or of deadlines. Time costs are the costs of delaying an agreement, for example legal costs in a dispute or loss of income before a joint venture is agreed upon. Having higher time costs than one’s opponent (e.g., having a more expensive lawyer than the other party) is a weakness in negotiations, as the party with high time costs is more dependent on settling the conflict quickly, while the party with low time costs can afford to extend the negotiations and wait for the counterpart to concede.

Many negotiators misunderstand the implication of unilateral deadlines on the power balance between negotiators and see deadlines as a weakness, too: negotiators who have a deadline that their opponent is not aware of tend to keep this deadline secret, being afraid that they would otherwise reveal their weakness. Negotiators who learn about a counterpart’s deadline often try and stall the negotiation in an attempt to receive concessions. Unlike time costs, however, the deadline that one party has is a mutual constraint to both parties—if no deal is made before the deadline, both parties fall back on their BATNA. If both negotiators understand that a deadline is a mutual constraint, the time pressure resulting from the deadline can be beneficial, as negotiators need to work efficiently toward a deal (Moore, 2004 ).

Communication Media

As negotiating through e-mail or videoconferencing is becoming more and more common, the question of how communication media, and in particular the richness and synchrony of communication channels, affect negotiation processes and outcomes is key. The communication orientation model (Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012 ) posits that the benefit of richer channels (i.e., those that offer sight and sound, as compared to only text, and synchronicity of communication rather than a delayed back-and-forth messaging) depends on the negotiators’ orientation to cooperate or not, such that richer channels increase the achievement of high-quality outcomes for negotiators with a neutral orientation. The richness of channels matters less for negotiators with a cooperative orientation. For negotiators with a non-cooperative orientation richer communication channels can even be detrimental.

An important side note to our knowledge of the effects of communication media in negotiation, however, is that technology has been changing rapidly since 2010 —with the invention of forward-facing cameras on smartphones and applications like Skype, negotiators nowadays are much more familiar with videoconferencing than the participants of earlier studies, on which most of our knowledge is based. It is reasonable to assume that the utility of any communication medium depends on the familiarity and comfort of the user (Parlamis & Geiger, 2015 ).

Conflict Issues

An important moderator of negotiation processes and conflict management is the conflict issue—what the conflict is about. Research on conflict issues generally distinguishes between resource-based conflict and value-based conflict (Druckman, Broome, & Korper, 1988 ; Druckman, Rozelle, & Zechmeister, 1977 ; Harinck & Ellemers, 2014 ; Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000 ; Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). Resource-based conflict concerns conflict about scarce resources such as time, money, or territory. Value-based conflict concerns conflict about norms, values, and personal opinions, such as political preferences or rules of behavioral conduct—what is morally good or bad, and what is (un)acceptable behavior? Although other types of conflict can be distinguished, such as power struggles, status conflict, or informational conflict (who is right concerning a factual issue?), most conflict issue research has focused on the two large categories of resource-based and value-based conflict.

Conflict issue matters for negotiators’ behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and perceptions, and for the outcomes negotiators achieve. For negotiation behaviors and outcomes, it is shown that value-based conflicts are harder to solve via negotiation and often lead to less than optimal agreements than resource-based conflicts (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). While scarce resources can be divided by the give and take of traditional negotiation, people hesitate to give in on one topic in order to gain on another topic when the conflict concerns values. For example, pro-environmentalists are not going to agree on oil drilling in Alaska in exchange for a boycott on oil drilling in a Navajo reserve. Those “taboo trade-offs”—trading off values either against other values, or for money, such as selling a child—raise moral outrage, and are considered unacceptable (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000 ).

In several studies, negotiations between participants assuming the role of attorneys were framed as value-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves justice) or resource-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves the personal position of the attorney). In resource-based conflicts, as compared to value-based conflicts, more trade-offs between topics (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”) occurred and led to better negotiation agreements, including win–win agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ). Different types of conflict have been found to affect the degree of negotiators’ satisfaction with integrative agreements. In resource-based conflict, negotiators were more satisfied with win–win agreements obtained by trade-offs than with objectively worse 50–50 compromises. In value conflicts, however, negotiators were more satisfied with the 50–50 compromises than with the win–win agreements that entailed trade-offs. In value-based negotiation, people seem to prefer compromise agreements in which both parties have to give in rather than an objectively better agreement that would include a value trade-off (Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ).

The conflict patterns differ between resource- and value-based negotiations as well. In resource-based negotiations, parties often start with a strong fixed-pie perception (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ) and a concomitant competitive stance. After a while, when they realize that they might need to negotiate with the other party in order to reach any agreement at all, they become more flexible and less competitive and start making concessions. In value-based negotiations on the other hand, people initially expect other people to share their ideas. Once they realize the other party does not, they expect opposition and perceive less common ground than people in resource-based negotiations (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ), which results in a less cooperative approach. It matters whether negotiation situations are framed as resource- or value-based conflicts, because negotiators perceive less common ground between themselves and the other party, and consider agreements less likely in the value-based conflicts compared to the (same-topic) resource conflicts. Moreover, personal involvement and feelings of being threatened are stronger in value-based than resource-based conflicts (Kouzakova, Ellemers, Harinck, & Scheepers, 2012 ; Kouzakova, Harinck, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2014 ).

Current Developments

Research in negotiation and bargaining is thriving not only in (social) psychology, but also in management and communication science and (experimental) economics, and is becoming interdisciplinary. Globalization and digitalization have connected people all over the world more than ever before. In order to handle conflict, solve urgent global problems (like climate change or migration), and create collaboration and business opportunities, our connected world requires an understanding of conflict within and across different cultures.

Interaction among Gender, Power, and Culture

More research into dignity, honor, and face cultures and into the interaction among power, gender, and culture is needed. Commendably, in the 2000s, more and more research investigating the interaction between gender, power, and culture has been conducted. Evidence has accumulated that gender differences can be power differences in disguise (Galinsky, 2018 ), power differences may play out very differently depending on the culture in which the negotiation takes place, and gender roles (including acceptable and unacceptable behaviors) may differ across cultures. There are some studies investigating combinations of power and gender (Hong & Van der Wijst, 2013 ; Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham, & Ben-Ari, 2015 ), power and culture (Kopelman, Hardin, Myers, & Tost, 2016 ), or gender and culture (Elgoibar, Munduate, Medina, & Euwema, 2014 ), but a more elaborate and systematic investigation of these combinations in intra- and intercultural negotiation research is needed in our currently increasingly diversifying societies, in which men and women from all over the world need to work, and thus negotiate, with each other.

Communication Processes

Other emerging topics of research relate to communication processes during conflict and negotiation, including silences (Jared Curhan, Yeri Cho, Teng Zhang, & Yu Yang, in Hart et al., 2019 ), or asking questions in negotiations, in particular the willingness to ask sensitive questions (Einav Hart & Eric VanEpps, in Hart et al., 2019 ) or the effect of deflecting direct questions. Deflecting a direct question that a person does not want to answer (“What did you earn in your latest job?”) with a counter-question (“Would you like to offer me a job then?”) has been found to be better for interpersonal and economic outcomes than refusing to answer the question or giving an evasive answer (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2020 ). The use of humor in negotiations is also under investigation. Humor can decrease the credibility of a person’s statements or disclosures, which has implications as to when a person should or should not use humor in negotiations (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Ethics and Deception

Ethical questions that arise in negotiation are mostly related to truth-telling and deception (Lewicki et al., 2021 ; Robinson, Lewicki & Donahue, 2000 ). Deception is the topic of a growing body of research. Earlier studies focused on the antecedents of deception and found that negotiators are more likely to deceive when stakes are high (Tenbrunsel, 1998 ), when they know that the other negotiator lacks information (Croson, Boles, & Murnighan, 2003 ), when they aim to maximize their individual rather than the collective gains (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997 ), when they expect their counterpart to be competitive rather than cooperative (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004 ), or when the counterpart is a stranger rather than a friend (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999 ) or angry rather than happy (Van Dijk et al., 2008 ). Research focus is shifting toward processes and consequences of various types of deception, such as informational or emotional deception, and, depending on whether the deception is detected, its consequences for the deceiver, the target, and third parties (Gaspar, Methasani, & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Neurobiological Processes

Neurobiological processes are also increasingly becoming a focus of research. Negotiation behavior and outcomes are influenced by hormones such as oxytocin (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2010 ) or cortisol (e.g., Akinola, Fridman, Mor, Morris, & Crum, 2016 ; De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ; Harinck, Kouzakova, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2018 ). Increased cortisol levels can be beneficial for outcomes in salary negotiation, but only when people experience their higher levels of arousal (due to higher levels of cortisol) as beneficial; otherwise, they are detrimental (Akinola et al., 2016 ). Other research has focused on brain activity (e.g., Weiland, Hewig, Hecht, Mussel, & Miltner, 2012 ) and other physiological activity such as pupil dilatation (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ). Until now, most of this research has been done in relatively content-free experimental game settings (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ), but gradually similar measurements are getting introduced in more naturalistic negotiation experiments (Akinola et al., 2016 ; Harinck et al., 2018 ).

Personality effects are making a comeback on the research agenda. As experiments have revealed little or no effects of various aspects of personality on negotiation behavior, “many authors have reached the conclusion that simple individual differences offer limited potential for predicting negotiation outcomes” (Bazerman et al., 2000 , p. 281). In 2013 , this widely held irrelevance consensus was challenged by a meta-analysis that revealed that personality traits did predict various negotiation outcome measures (Sharma et al., 2013 ). For example, cognitive ability predicts negotiation outcomes, and extraversion and agreeableness predict subjective outcomes. The effects of personality factors on negotiation behavior and outcomes are stronger in field settings than in laboratory experiments, as in the latter case behavioral options are restricted due to the strong demand characteristics of the situation and a focus on short-term economic outcomes in interactions between unacquainted experimental participants. Personality is more likely to affect behavior in negotiation situations that are not affected by the clearly defined norms common to laboratory studies, suggesting that the irrelevance consensus was a result of limited data (Sharma et al., 2013 ). More research into negotiation in naturalistic settings will help us understand how personality and situational factors interact to predict negotiation and bargaining behavior. Brett’s ( 2000 ) model, presented in Figure 3 , with the terms “culture” replaced by “personality,” could serve as guiding framework for this re-emerging line of research.

Negotiation and bargaining are thriving research areas. The increasing globalization and concomitant societal developments steer research into new directions of culture and gender, while at the same time technological developments enable researchers to investigate negotiation behavior and communication in more advanced and sophisticated ways. The findings and advice that result from this research will help people across the world to deal effectively with their differences and enable them to create solutions and agreements that are profitable for all parties involved.

Further Reading

• Galinsky, A. D. , & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend and foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both . New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
• Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world . New York, NY: Scribner.
• Malhotra, D. (2016). Negotiating the impossible: How to break deadlocks and resolve ugly conflicts (without money or muscle) . Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Aaldering, H. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 15 , 713–724.
• Adair, W. , Brett, J. , Lempereur, A. , Okumura, T. , Shikhirev, P. , Tinsley, C. , & Lytle, A. (2004). Culture and negotiation strategy . Negotiation Journal , 20 , 87–111.
• Akinola, M. , Fridman, I. , Mor, S. , Morris, M. W. , & Crum, A. J. (2016). Adaptive appraisals of anxiety moderate the association between cortisol reactivity and performance in salary negotiations . PLoS ONE , 11 (12), e0167977.
• Allred, K. G. , Mallozzi, J. S. , Matsui, F. , & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 70 , 175–187.
• Amanatullah, E. , & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 256–267.
• Aslani, S. , Ramirez-Marin, J. , Brett, J. , Yao, J. , Semnani-Azad, Z. , Zhang, Z. , & Adair, W. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 , 1178–1201.
• Ayres, I. , & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review , 85 , 304–321.
• Bazerman, M. H. , Curhan, J. R. , Moore, D. A. , & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation . Annual Review of Psychology , 51 , 279–314.
• Beersma, B. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 227–252.
• Benton, A. A. , & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 4 , 141–150.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 151 , 73–89.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2020). The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 118 (5), 945–990.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston, TX: Gulf.
• Bowles, H. R. (2012). Psychological perspectives on gender in negotiation . HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP12-046, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, MA.
• Bowles, H. R. , Babcock, L. , & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 951–965.
• Brett, J. (2000). Culture and negotiation . International Journal of Psychology , 35 , 97–104.
• Brett, J. (2018). Intercultural challenges in managing workplace conflict: A call for research . Cross Cultural & Strategic Management , 25 , 32–52.
• Brett, J. M. , & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 495–510.
• Campagna, R. L. , Mislin, A. A. , Kong, D. T. , & Bottom, W. P. (2016). Strategic consequences of emotional representation in negotiation: The blowback effect . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 605–624.
• Côté, S. , Hideg, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking anger in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 453–469.
• Croson, R. T. A. , Boles, T. L. , & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 51 , 143–159.
• Curhan, J. , Elfenbein, H. , & Kilduff, G. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 524–534.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Greer, L. L. , Handgraaf, M. J. J. , Shalvi, S. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Baas, M. , . . . Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans . Science , 328 , 1408–1411.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 42 , E116.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Nijstad, B. A. , & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 , 22–49.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (3), 303–319.
• Derks, B. , Scheepers, D. , Van Laar, C. , & Ellemers, N. (2011). The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 178–183.
• Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 45 , 519–544.
• Druckman, D. , Broome, B. J. , & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking? Journal of Conflict Resolution , 32 , 489–510.
• Druckman, D. , & Olekalns, M. (2011). Turning points in negotiation . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 4 , 1–7.
• Druckman, D. , Rozelle, R. , & Zechmeister, K. (1977). Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Two perspectives. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives (pp. 105–131). Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Elgoibar, P. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. J. , & Euwema, M. C. (2014). Do women accommodate more than men? Gender differences in perceived social support and negotiation behavior by Spanish and Dutch worker representatives . Sex Roles , 70 , 538–553.
• Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
• Friedman, R. A. , Brett, J. M. , Anderson, C. , Olekalns, M. , Goates, N. , & Lisco, C. C. (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 369–376.
• Galinsky, A. (2018). Are gender differences just power differences in disguise? . Ideas and Insights, Columbia Business School, March 13.
• Galinsky, A. D. , & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 657–669.
• Gaspar, J. P. , Mathasani, R. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations . Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81.
• Gelfand, M. , & Brett, J. (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
• Giebels, E. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 255–272.
• Greer, L. L. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 1032–1044.
• Gunia, B. C. , Brett, J. M. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2016). The science of culture and negotiation . Current Opinion in Psychology , 8 , 78–83.
• Güth, W. , & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 108 , 396–409.
• Güth, W. , Schmittberger, R. , & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 3 , 367–388.
• Halevy, N. (2008). Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 1687–1702.
• Harinck, F. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses . European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 595–611.
• Harinck, F. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 81 , 329–358.
• Harinck, F. , & Ellemers, N. (2014). How conflict issues change the nature of the conflict game. In C. K. W. De Dreu (Ed.), Social conflict within and between groups (pp. 19–36). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
• Harinck, F. , Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2018). Coping with conflict: Testosterone and cortisol changes in men dealing with disagreement about values vs. resources . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 11 , 265–277.
• Harinck, F. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations . British Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 741–752.
• Hart, E. , Chaudhry, S. J. , Curhan, J. R. , Greer, L. L. , Roberts, A. , Cho, Y. , . . . Zhang, T. (2019). Words will never hurt me? Managing conflict through communication . Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2019 (1).
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (1).
• Hong, A. P. C. I. , & Van der Wijst, P. J. (2013). Women in negotiation: Effects of gender and power on negotiation behavior . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 6 , 273–284.
• Imai, L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 83–98.
• Johns, M. , Schmader, T. , & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance . Psychological Science , 16 , 175–179.
• Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition . Psychological Review , 110 , 265–284.
• Kopelman, S. , Hardin, A. E. , Myers, C. G. , & Tost, L. P. (2016). Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 721–730.
• Kopelman, S. , Rosette, A. S. , & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative and neutral emotions in negotiations . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 99 , 81–101.
• Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , Harinck, F. , & Scheepers, D. (2012). The implications of value conflict: How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 798–807.
• Kouzakova, M. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2014). At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and motivational responses to moral conflicts and resource conflicts . Social Psychological and Personality Science , 5 , 35–42.
• Kray, L. J. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Thompson, L. L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 386–410.
• Kray, L. J. , Locke, C. C. , & Van Zant, A. B. (2012). Feminine charm an experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1343–1357.
• Kray, L. J. , & Thompson, L. L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research . Research in Organizational Behavior , 26 , 103–182.
• Kray, L. J. , Thompson, L. L. , & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 , 942–958.
• Kulik, C. , & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide . Journal of Management , 38 , 1387–1415.
• Lelieveld, G.-J. , Van Dijk, E. , Van Beest, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why anger and disappointment affect other’s bargaining behavior differently: The moderating role of power and the mediating role of reciprocal and complementary emotions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1209–1221.
• Leonardelli, G. J. , Gu, J. , McRuer, G. , Medvec, V. H. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 152 , 64–82.
• Leung, A. K. Y. , & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 , 507–526.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2021). Essentials of negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Liu, L. A. , Friedman, R. , Barry, B. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Zhang, Z. X. (2012). The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations . Administrative Science Quarterly , 57 , 269–304.
• Loschelder, D. D. , Trötschel, R. , Swaab, R. I. , Friese, M. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When moving first helps versus hurts negotiators . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 995–1012.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , Barsness, Z. I. , Tinsley, C. H. , & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior , Vol. 17 (pp. 167–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Magee, J. C. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate and moving first in competitive interactions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 , 200–212.
• Mannix, E. A. , & Neale, M. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 2 , 119–133.
• Mazei, J. , Hüffmeier, J. , Freund, P. , Stuhlmacher, A. , Bilke, L. , & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators . Psychological Bulletin , 141 , 85–104.
• Moore, D. A. (2004). The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (1), 121–127.
• Nelson, N. , Bronstein, I. , Shacham, R. , & Ben-Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 8 , 1–24.
• O’Connor, K. M. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A nasty but effective negotiation strategy: Misrepresentation of a common-value issue . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , 504–515.
• Olekalns, M. , & Smith, P. L. (2005). Moments in time: Metacognition, trust and outcomes in dyadic negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 , 1696–1707.
• Overbeck, J. R. , Neale, M. A. , & Govan, C. L. (2010). I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 126–139.
• Parlamis, J. D. , & Geiger, I. (2015). Mind the medium: A qualitative analysis of email negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 24 , 359–381.
• Pinkley, R. L. , Neale, M. A. , & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 57 (1), 97–116.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
• Ritov, I. , & Moran, S. (2008). Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: Reluctance to making integrative gambit offers . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 21 , 337–351.
• Robinson, R. J. , Lewicki, R. J. , & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 , 649–664.
• Rubin, J. , Pruitt, D. G. , & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Schaerer, M. , Swaab, R. I. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Anchors weigh more than power: Why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes . Psychological Science , 26 , 170–181.
• Schweitzer, M. E. , & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions . International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 225–248.
• Shafa, S. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Beersma, B. (2015). Regulating honor in the face of insults . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 47 , 158–174.
• Sharma, S. , Bottom, W. P. , & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis . Organizational Psychology Review , 3 , 293–336.
• Sinaceur, M. , & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 42 , 314–322.
• Solnick, S. J. , & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 79 , 199–215.
• Steinel, W. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision-making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 , 419–434.
• Steinel, W. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , Ouwehand, E. , & Ramirez-Marin, J. Y. (2008). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 109 , 67–78.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me ?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 362–369.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Knippenberg, D. , Hogg, M. A. , Homan, A. C. , & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 13 (6), 779–794.
• Stoeckli, P. L. , & Tanner, C. (2014). Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest- versus value-based issues on negotiator satisfaction . European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 202–208.
• Swaab, R. I. , Galinsky, A. D. , Medvec, V. , & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The Communication Orientation Model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 16 , 25–53.
• Tarakci, M. , Greer, L. L. , & Groenen, P. J. F. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 415–429.
• Teixeira, C. P. , Demoulin, S. , Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 228–234.
• Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 330–339.
• Tetlock, P. E. , Kristel, O. V. , Elson, B. , Green, M. , & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 853–870.
• Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues . Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 515–532.
• Thompson, L. , & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 47 , 98–123.
• Tinsley, C. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German and American cultures . Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 316–323.
• Tinsley, C. , & Pillutla, M. (1998). Negotiating in the United States and Hong Kong . Journal of Business Studies , 29 , 711–728.
• Torelli, C. J. , & Shavitt, S. (2010). The impact of power on information processing depends on cultural orientation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 959–967.
• Trötschel, R. , Hüffmeier, J. , Loschelder, D. D. , Schwartz, K. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 771–790.
• Van Dijk, E. , De Cremer, D. , & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 697–707.
• Van Dijk, E. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 600–614.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18 , 184–188.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation: Retaliation or spillover? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 753–760.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 510–528.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , Van Knippenberg, D. A. , Hogg, M. , & Moffitt, A. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour . British Journal of Social Psychology , 46 , 129–152.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Dijk, E. , Steinel, W. , Harinck, F. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future . Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 13–30.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Joireman, J. A. , Parks, C. D. , & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120 , 125–141.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Otten, W. , De Bruin, E. M. N. , & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 733–746.
• Van Tol, J. S. , & Steinel, W. (2020). Dictators in the Aloha Beach Club: The effect of asymmetric power dispersion and social motives on group negotiation . Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Wade-Benzoni, K. A. , Hoffman, A. J. , Thompson, L. L. , Moore, D. A. , Gillespie, J. J. , & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions . Academy of Management Review , 27 , 41–57.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Wang, L. , Northcraft, G. B. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 119 , 54–63.
• Wei, Q. , & Luo, X. (2012). The impact of power differential and social motivation on negotiation behavior and outcome . Public Personnel Management , 41 , 47–58.
• Weiland, S. , Hewig, J. , Hecht, H. , Mussel, P. , & Miltner, W. H. R. (2012). Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining . Social Neuroscience , 7 , 537–551.
• Weingart, L. R. , Bennett, R. I. , & Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 504–517.
• Wong, R. S. , & Howard, S. (2017). Blinded by power: Untangling mixed results regarding power and efficiency in negotiation . Group Decision Making , 26 , 215–245.
• Zartman, I. W. (1991). Regional conflict resolution. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation (pp. 302–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Related Articles

• Organizational Behavior
• Social Psychology and Language
• Group Decision-Making

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 March 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

24 Conflict and Negotiation

Learning Objectives

• Define conflict
• Differentiate between functional and dysfunctional conflict
• Recognize various types of conflict in groups
• Describe the conflict process
• Identify and apply strategies for preventing or reducing conflict in groups

Definitions of Conflict

Hocker and Wilmot (2001) defined conflict as an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient. Let’s examine the ingredients in their definition.

First of all, conflict must be expressed. If two members of a group dislike each other or disagree with each other’s viewpoints but never show those sentiments, there’s no conflict.

Second, conflict takes place between or among parties who are interdependent—that is, who need each other to accomplish something. If they can get what they want without each other, they may differ in how they do so, but they won’t come into conflict.

Finally, conflict involves clashes over what people want or over the means for them to achieve it. Party A wants X, whereas party B wants Y. If they either can’t both have what they want at all, or they can’t each have what they want to the degree that they would prefer to, conflict will arise.

The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict

There are some circumstances in which a moderate amount of conflict can be helpful. For example, conflict can stimulate innovation and change. Conflict can help individuals and group members grow and develop self-identities. As noted by Coser (1956):

Conflict, which aims at a resolution of tension between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social systems are able to readjust their structures by eliminating their sources of dissatisfaction. The multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation and to re-establish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism.

Conflict can have negative consequences when people divert energies away from performance and goal attainment and direct them toward resolving the conflict. Continued conflict can take a heavy toll in terms of psychological well-being. Conflict has a major influence on stress and the psychophysical consequences of stress. Finally, continued conflict can also affect the social climate of the group and inhibit group cohesiveness.

Thus, conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional depending upon the nature of the conflict, its intensity, and its duration. Indeed, both too much and too little conflict can lead to a variety of negative outcomes, as discussed above. This is shown in Figure 1 . In such circumstances, a moderate amount of conflict may be the best course of action. The issue for groups, therefore, is not how to eliminate conflict but rather how to manage and resolve it when it occurs.

Types of Conflict

Group conflicts may deal with many topics, needs, and elements. Kelly (2006) identified the following five types of conflict:

First, there are conflicts of substance . These conflicts, which relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts. If Terry thinks the biology assignment requires an annotated bibliography but Robin believes a simple list of readings will suffice, they’re in a conflict of substance. Another term for this kind of conflict is “intrinsic conflict.”

Conflicts of value are those in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. The famous sociologist Milton Rokeach (1979), for instance, found that freedom and equality constitute values in the four major political systems of the past 100 years—communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism. What differentiated the systems, however, was the degree to which proponents of each system ranked those two key values. According to Rokeach’s analysis, socialism holds both values highly; fascism holds them in low regard; communism values equality over freedom, and capitalism values freedom over equality. As we all know, conflict among proponents of these four political systems preoccupied people and governments for the better part of the twentieth century.

Conflicts of process arise when people differ over how to reach goals or pursue values which they share. How closely should they stick to rules and timelines, for instance, and when should they let their hair down and simply brainstorm new ideas? What about when multiple topics and challenges are intertwined; how and when should the group deal with each one? Another term for these disputes is “task conflicts.”

Conflicts of misperceived differences come up when people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously. You can probably think of several times in your life when you first thought you disagreed with other people but later found out that you’d just misunderstood something they said and that you actually shared a perspective with them. Or perhaps you attributed a different motive to them than what really underlay their actions. One misconception about conflict, however, is that it always arises from misunderstandings. This isn’t the case, however. Robert Doolittle (1976) noted that “some of the most serious conflicts occur among individuals and groups who understand each other very well but who strongly disagree.”

The first four kinds of conflict may interact with each other over time, either reinforcing or weakening each other’s impact. They may also ebb and flow according to the topics and conditions a group confronts. Even if they’re dealt with well, however, further emotional and personal kinds of conflict can occur in a group. Relationship conflicts , also known as personality clashes, often involve people’s egos and sense of self-worth. Relationship conflicts tend to be particularly difficult to cope with since they frequently aren’t admitted for what they are. Many times, they arise in a struggle for superiority or status.

A Model of the Conflict Process

The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas (1976). This model consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.

Stage 1: Frustration

As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration  in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.

Stage 2: Conceptualization

In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.

Stage 3: Behavior

The third stage in Thomas’s model is actual  behavior . As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating (see Table 1 ).

The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party  (see Figure 2 ). According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness —and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent’s concerns—called  cooperativeness . Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.

Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see the upper left-hand corner of Figure 2 ). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management’s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the figure).

What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents’. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively (Thomas & Pondy, 1967). In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents’ concerns as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.

Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding figure. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.

RECOGNIZING YOUR EMOTIONS

Have you ever seen red, or perceived a situation through rage, anger, or frustration? Then you know that you cannot see or think clearly when you are experiencing strong emotions. There will be times in groups and teams when emotions run high, and your awareness of them can help you clear your mind and choose to wait until the moment has passed to tackle the challenge. This is an example of a time when avoiding can be a useful strategy, at least temporarily.

Emotions can be contagious, and fear of the unknown can influence people to act in irrational ways. The wise communicator can recognize when emotions are on edge in themselves or others, and choose to wait to communicate, problem-solve, or negotiate until after the moment has passed.

Bach and Wyden (1968) discuss gunnysacking (or backpacking) as the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. Holding onto the way things used to be can be like a stone in your gunnysack, and influence how you interpret your current context.

People may be aware of similar issues but might not know your history, and cannot see your backpack or its contents. For example, if you are used to things one way, and a group member handles them differently, this may cause you some degree of stress and frustration. Bottling up your frustrations only hurts you and can cause your relationships within the group to suffer. By addressing, or unpacking, the stones you carry, you can better assess the current situation with the current patterns and variables.

Preventing and Reducing Conflict

There are many things group members can do to reduce or actually solve dysfunctional conflict when it occurs. These generally fall into two categories: actions directed at conflict prevention  and actions directed at conflict  reduction.

Strategies for Conflict Prevention

We shall start by examining conflict prevention techniques because preventing conflict is often easier than reducing it once it begins. These include:

• Emphasizing group goals and effectiveness. Focusing on group goals and objectives should prevent goal conflict. If larger goals are emphasized, group members are more likely to see the big picture and work together to achieve corporate goals.
• Providing stable, well-structured tasks. When work activities are clearly defined, understood, and accepted, conflict should be less likely to occur. Conflict is most likely to occur when task uncertainty is high; specifying or structuring roles and tasks minimizes ambiguity.
• Facilitating dialogue. Misperception of the abilities, goals, and motivations of others often leads to conflict, so efforts to increase the dialogue among group members and to share information should help eliminate conflict. As group members come to know more about one another, suspicions often diminish, and greater intergroup teamwork becomes possible.
• Avoiding win-lose situations. If win-lose situations are avoided, less potential for conflict exists.

Strategies for Conflict Reduction

Where dysfunctional conflict already exists, something must be done, and you may pursue one of at least two general approaches: you can try to change attitudes, or you can try to behaviors . If you change behavior, open conflict is often reduced, but group members may still dislike one another; the conflict simply becomes less visible. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, often leads to fundamental changes in the ways that groups get along. However, it also takes considerably longer to accomplish than behavior change because it requires a fundamental change in social perceptions.

Nine conflict reduction strategies are discussed below. The techniques should be viewed as a continuum, ranging from strategies that focus on changing behaviors near the top of the scale to strategies that focus on changing attitudes near the bottom of the scale.

• Physical separation. The quickest and easiest solution to conflict is physical separation. Separation is useful when conflicting individuals or groups are not working on a joint task or do not need a high degree of interaction. Though this approach does not encourage members to change their attitudes, it does provide time to seek a better accommodation.
• Use of rules and regulations. Conflict can also be reduced through the increasing specification of rules, regulations, and procedures. Again, however, basic attitudes are not modified.
• Limiting intergroup interaction. Another approach to reducing conflict is to limit intergroup interaction to issues involving common goals. Where groups agree on a goal, cooperation becomes easier.
• Use of integrators. Integrators are individuals who are assigned a boundary-spanning role between two people or groups. To be trusted, integrators must be perceived by both groups as legitimate and knowledgeable. The integrator often takes the “shuttle diplomacy” approach, moving from one person or group to another, identifying areas of agreement, and attempting to find areas of future cooperation.
• Confrontation and negotiation.  In this approach, competing parties are brought together face-to-face to discuss their basic areas of disagreement. The hope is that through open discussion and  negotiation , means can be found to work out problems. Contract negotiations between unions and management represent one such example. If a “win-win” solution can be identified through these negotiations, the chances of an acceptable resolution of the conflict increase.
• Third-party consultation.  In some cases, it is helpful to bring in outside consultants for  third-party consultation who understand human behavior and can facilitate a resolution. A third-party consultant not only serves as a go-between but can speak more directly to the issues because she is not a member of the group.
• Rotation of members.  By rotating from one group to another, individuals come to understand the frames of reference, values, and attitudes of other members; communication is thus increased. When those rotated are accepted by the receiving groups, change in attitudes as well as behavior becomes possible. This is clearly a long-term technique, as it takes time to develop good interpersonal relations and understanding among group members.
• Identification of interdependent tasks and superordinate goals. A further strategy is to establish goals that require groups to work together to achieve overall success.
• Use of training. The final technique on the continuum is training. Outside training experts are retained on a long-term basis to help groups develop relatively permanent mechanisms for working together. Structured workshops and training programs can help forge more favorable intergroup attitudes and, as a result, more constructive group behavior.

Review & Reflection Questions

• Is conflict in groups good or bad? Why?
• Identify the types of conflict and provide examples of each.
• What modes of conflict resolution do you find yourself using when faced with a conflict in a group? What modes have you observed at work in your current group?
• What strategies could you use to prevent or reduce conflict in your group?
• Bach, G., & Wyden, P. (1968). The intimacy enemy. Avon.
• Brown, D. L. (1986). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
• Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
• Doolittle, R.J. (1976). Orientations to communication and conflict. Science Research Associates.
• Hocker, J.L., & Wilmot, W.W. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6 th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Kelly, M.S. (2006). Communication @ work: Ethical, effective, and expressive communication in the workplace . Pearson.
• Neilsen, E.H. (1972). Understanding and managing conflict. In J. Lorsch & P. Lawrence (Eds.), Managing group and intergroup relations. Irwin.
• Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. The Free Press.
• Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior. Wiley.
• Thomas, K., & Pondy, L. (1967). Toward an intent model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Relations, 30, 1089–1102.

Authors & Attribution

The sections “The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict,” “A Model of the Conflict Process,” and “Managing Conflict in Groups” are adapted from Black, J.S., & Bright, D.S. (2019). Organizational behavior. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/ . Access the full chapter for free here . The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 license .

The sections “Definitions of Conflict,” “Types of Conflict” and “Recognizing Emotion” are adapted from is adapted from “ Managing Conflict ” from An Introduction To Group Communication . This content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) License without attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensor.

This remix comes from Dr. Jasmine Linabary at Emporia State University. This chapter is also available in her book:  Small Group Communication: Forming and Sustaining Teams.

an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient.

conflicts related to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts

Conflicts in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order

Conflicts about how to reach goals or pursue values which they share

hen people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously.

Personality-driven conflicts which involve personal attributes or characteristics and which challenge people's egos or self-worth

the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time leading to frustration and influencing how we interpret actions

Problem Solving in Teams and Groups Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Let’s Make a Deal: The Psychological Science Underlying Compromise and Negotiation

• Cognitive Processes
• Cognitive Psychology
• Decision Making
• Intergroup Relations
• Personality/Social
• Problem Solving
• Psychological Science

Tense negotiations in Congress over the “fiscal cliff” have focused public attention on the art of compromise — or lack thereof. From deciding who washes the dishes to figuring out how to avoid the fiscal cliff, life experience shows us that achieving compromise is rarely easy. But why is give and take so difficult even when the consequences of failure are dire?

We may like to believe that we are fair and levelheaded negotiators, but science tells us that successful give and take is often more difficult than we anticipate. Research exploring the psychological, behavioral, and neural underpinnings of negotiation and compromise reveals many different factors — including emotions, cognitive biases, cultural differences, even physical posture — that can influence whether or not we are able to reach a deal.

Research from the Association for Psychological Science examines some of the reasons why negotiations break down and highlights some factors that may help to pave the way for compromise.

Give and Take: Empirical Strategies for Compromise Published in the October 2012 issue of the APS Observer

Understanding the Psychological Science Behind Negotiations Published November 2011

Negotiation Topic as a Moderator of Gender Differences in Negotiation Julia B. Bear and Linda Babcock Published in the July 2012 issue of Psychological Science

Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance Dana R. Carney, Amy J.C. Cuddy, and Andy J. Yap Published in the October 2010 issue of Psychological Science

Cultural Variance in the Interpersonal Effects of Anger in Negotiations Hajo Adam, Aiwa Shirako, and William W. Maddux Published in the June 2010 issue of Psychological Science

To Start Low or To Start High? The Case of Auctions Versus Negotiations Adam D. Galinsky, Gillian Ku, and Thomas Mussweiler Published in the December 2009 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science

On Feelings as a Heuristic for Making Offers in Ultimatum Negotiations Andrew T. Stephen and Michel Tuan Pham Published in the October 2008 issue of Psychological Science

Why It Pays to Get Inside the Head of Your Opponent: The Differential Effects of Perspective Taking and Empathy in Negotiations Adam D. Galinsky, William W. Maddux, Debra Gilin, and Judith B. White Published in the April 2008 issue of Psychological Science

The Sunny Side of Fairness: Preference for Fairness Activates Reward Circuitry (and Disregarding Unfairness Activates Self-Control Circuitry) Golnaz Tabibnia, Ajay B. Satpute, and Matthew D. Lieberman Published in the April 2008 issue of Psychological Science

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Does Psychology Need More Effective Suspicion Probes?

Suspicion probes are meant to inform researchers about how participants’ beliefs may have influenced the outcome of a study, but it remains unclear what these unverified probes are really measuring or how they are currently being used.

Science in Service: Shaping Federal Support of Scientific Research  

Social psychologist Elizabeth Necka shares her experiences as a program officer at the National Institute on Aging.

A Very Human Answer to One of AI’s Deepest Dilemmas

Imagine that we designed a fully intelligent, autonomous robot that acted on the world to accomplish its goals. How could we make sure that it would want the same things we do? Alison Gopnik explores. Read or listen!

Privacy Overview

5 Examples to Master Negotiation and Conflict Resolution as a Manager

What is negotiation, what is conflict resolution, examples of using negotiation and conflict resolution, how can negotiation be used to resolve conflict, what are the essential interpersonal negotiation skills to resolve conflicts, how to develop negotiation skills for conflict resolution.

Other Related Blogs

• Leader Competence: The Cornerstone of Effective Leadership Development
• 5 Top Examples of Knowledge Management Systems for 2023
• The 10 Leadership Development Trends Set To Rule 2023
• Pros and Cons of Managerial Training Programs Every Manager Needs to Know
• Building Inclusive Workplaces: DEI Goals and How to Achieve Them
• The Role Of Overcommunication At Work With 3 Examples: Is It Good Or Bad?
• 9 Call Center Behavioral Interview Questions: With 5 Qualities To Look Out For
• Exploring Coaching vs Mentoring: Which Approach Fits You Best?
• Hiring a Sales Team: 7 Best Practices for Hiring Managers
• What are the best employee motivation techniques for managers?

• Active Listening:  Actively listening to the perspectives and concerns of others demonstrates respect and fosters understanding. Paying attention to verbal and non-verbal cues helps gain insight into the underlying issues and find common ground.
• Effective Communication:  Clear and concise communication is crucial for expressing thoughts, needs, and expectations. It involves articulating ideas, using appropriate language, and ensuring that messages are understood by all parties involved.
• Empathy and Understanding:  Putting oneself in the shoes of others and seeking to understand their viewpoints helps build empathy. Recognizing and acknowledging the emotions and experiences of others can facilitate a more compassionate and collaborative approach to conflict resolution.
• Problem-Solving and Collaboration:   Adopting a problem-solving mindset and working collaboratively towards finding solutions encourages creativity and cooperation. Brainstorming ideas, exploring alternatives, and considering different perspectives can lead to innovative and mutually beneficial outcomes.
• Emotional Intelligence:   Managing emotions , both one’s own and others, is essential in navigating conflicts effectively. Emotional intelligence involves understanding emotions, controlling emotional reactions, and responding calmly and constructively.

• Education and Training:  Attend workshops, seminars, or courses on negotiation techniques and conflict resolution. Gain knowledge about different approaches, strategies, and best practices to improve your negotiation abilities.
• Self-Assessment:  Reflect on your strengths and weaknesses as a negotiator. Identify areas where you can improve, such as active listening, assertiveness, or emotional intelligence. Understanding your tendencies and areas for growth is crucial for development.
• Observe and Learn:  Observe skilled negotiators in action. Pay attention to their communication style, use of body language, and strategies for reaching agreements. Learn from their techniques and adapt them to your style.
• Seek Feedback:  Ask colleagues, supervisors, or mentors about your negotiation skills. Understand how others perceive your approach and seek suggestions for improvement. Constructive feedback can provide valuable insights and areas for development.
• Practice in Real-Life Scenarios:  Look for opportunities to negotiate in various situations at work. Whether it’s resolving conflicts with colleagues, discussing project timelines, or negotiating resources, actively engage in negotiation exercises to hone your skills.

Review your conflict management skills for free in just a few minutes. 

Take the free conflict management assessment to spot errors and gaps in your style. 

What are conflicts and negotiations?

What are the types of negotiation, what is the concept of negotiation.

5 Types of Conflict Resolution Styles: Which one is yours?

6 benefits of conflict resolution for effective managers, 5 types of conflicts in the workplace and how to beat them, 5 top learning and development manager skills and how to foster them.

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 11 min read

Win-Win Negotiation

Finding solutions that work for everyone.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Do you dread entering a negotiation? Do you worry that what you want will not match what the other person wants to give? Do you worry about having to "play hardball" and souring a good working relationship? After all, for someone to win, someone else has to lose, right? Well, not necessarily.

Chances are, you can find a solution that leaves all parties feeling like winners by adopting the aptly-named "win-win" approach to negotiation.

In this article, we examine the meaning of win-win negotiation, and we explore how you can apply the concept of "principled negotiation" within win-win, to build mutual respect and understanding while getting results that you both want.

What Is Win-Win Negotiation?

A win-win negotiation is a careful exploration of both your own position, and that of your opposite number, in order to find a mutually acceptable outcome that gives you both as much of what you want as possible. If you both walk away happy with what you've gained from the deal, then that's a win-win!

In an ideal win-win situation, you will find that the other person wants what you are prepared to trade, and that you are prepared to give what he or she wants. If this is not the case, and one of you must give way, then it is fair to negotiate some form of compensation for doing so. But both sides should still feel comfortable with the outcome.

People's positions are rarely as opposed as they may initially appear, and the other person may have very different goals from the ones you expect! So, try to keep an open mind and be flexible in your thinking.

Principled Negotiation Within the Win-Win Scenario

Establishing a strong position is a good starting point for a negotiation. But if you become too entrenched, conflict can quickly arise and the discussion may break down.

You can avoid this by using a form of win-win negotiation called "principled negotiation."

Former Harvard Law School professor Roger Fisher, and academic, anthropologist, and negotiation expert William Ury developed this approach in their 1981 book, "Getting to Yes." They identified five steps of principled negotiations*, and argued that negotiations are successful when they encourage cooperation toward a common goal.

Let's look at the five stages of principled negotiation:

1. Separate People From the Problem

First, avoid identifying your opposite number as your "opponent." Be sure to focus on the issue at hand, and try to ignore personality differences. To do this, be aware of three factors: perception, emotion and communication.

According to Fisher and Ury, perception means "putting yourself in their shoes," so you are better placed to see common ground or a compromise solution. Our article, Empathy at Work , can help you to do this. You may be convinced that your position is fair, reasonable and "right," but it's likely so will the other person.

Examine and acknowledge your emotions, and to ask yourself why you feel the way you do. For example, could a previous bad experience in a negotiation be affecting your behavior in this one?

Remain calm during the negotiations, as this will aid your decision-making processes . Observe the emotions of the other party, and try not to respond in kind if the discussion becomes "heated."

Instead, use your emotional intelligence skills to understand why the debate has taken this turn, and make an effort to understand each party's underlying interests, needs and concerns.

Finally, make sure that your communication is clear and precise , to avoid misunderstandings. Use active listening techniques, such as looking directly at the speaker, listening carefully, and allowing each person to finish before you respond.

2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

People are seldom "difficult" just for the sake of it, and almost always there are real and valid differences sitting behind conflicting positions. The way that each person sees the issue may be influenced by many factors, such as their values, beliefs, status, responsibilities, and cultural background .

Try to keep the conversation courteous and avoid attributing blame. Once everyone knows that their interests have been considered, they are more likely to be receptive to different points of view.

For example, if you're negotiating with your boss to get more resources for your team, consider that he may be under pressure to reduce costs. If you look beyond your two positions, you may find that you have a common interest, such as increasing your team's productivity.

3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain

By now, each side will likely have a better understanding of the other's interests, and a solution might be obvious. You may even be on the verge of agreement. If not, stay open to the idea that a completely new position may exist and use the negotiation process to explore your options.

To return to our example, let's say that you've identified increased productivity as a mutual interest, but your company can't afford new staff or equipment. You could see this as an opportunity to assess working practices, training opportunities, and inexpensive ways to increase efficiency.

Brainstorm as many ideas as you can to find a solution to the problem. Be receptive to all suggestions, then develop the most promising ones into new proposals that you can bring to the negotiating table.

4. Use Objective Criteria

This isn't just "setting out the facts," as different underlying needs, interests, opinions, and goals can cause people to interpret facts differently, or cause you to select only those facts that support your position .

For example, during an interdepartmental negotiation in your company about the launch date of a new product, you become convinced that rushing it to market as early as possible is the best option. There’s a danger your position could become entrenched, and your willingness to listen lessened.

Yes, there’s some evidence to support this view within the marketing data, but also indications that delaying the launch until later in the year, to coincide with a national holiday, would also be good for sales in the longer term. It would also give your marketing team more time to prepare a campaign.

Try to agree on a set of objective criteria that provide a framework for your discussion. These could include measurements such as legal standards, market value, a mission statement, or contractual terms. Agreeing on standards demonstrates shared values, and a commitment to reaching an agreement.

Returning to our first example, both you and your boss could agree on a budget as a basis for discussion regarding more resources for your team, and proceed on the basis that any changes must be made within these financial limitations.

5. Know Your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)

Your BATNA is your favored fallback option if you can't get everything that you want. This is not the same as a "bottom line," which is a fixed position that can limit your options and may prevent you from discovering a new course of action.

Instead, think through what might happen if the negotiation doesn't achieve your desired result, and select the most attractive alternatives. Evaluate these alternatives and at the end of that process, the most promising alternative solution is your BATNA.

Returning to our example, if you start the negotiation with a "bottom line" demand for two extra departmental staff members, and your company refuses, the negotiation falls at the first hurdle. However, if you started with this request, but your BATNA was to achieve a commitment to training and updated software, you'd be in a better position to get a good result.

You can read more about preparing for a negotiation in our article, Essential Negotiation Skills . You can also learn how to avoid some of the pitfalls of sealing a deal by reading our article 10 Common Negotiation Mistakes .

Win-Win Versus Win-Lose Negotiation

In a negotiation where you don't expect to deal with the person concerned again, and you don't need their continued goodwill, it may be appropriate to seek a "bigger piece of the pie" for yourself. This "win-lose" approach, often called " distributive bargaining ," is usually used for negotiating the price of goods or services (for example, a house or a car).

Similarly, when the stakes are high, it may be appropriate to use legitimate " gamesmanship " (pushing the rules to their limits) to gain advantage, but without crossing the line into brinkmanship . But, when you want to have an ongoing, productive relationship with the person you're negotiating with, these techniques can have serious drawbacks:

• One person "playing hardball" puts the other person at a disadvantage. This may lead to reprisals later.
• If the losing party needs to fulfilll some part of a deal, they may decide to become uncooperative and awkward.
• Using tricks and manipulation during a negotiation can undermine trust and damage teamwork.

Win-win negotiation can enable both parties in a discussion to feel that they have made a satisfactory deal, and that neither is the "loser."

It's particularly useful when you have an ongoing relationship with the other party, and you wish to remain on good terms.

"Principled negotiation" is a common win-win strategy, devised by Roger Fisher and William Ury, that can help you to negotiate an agreement in a civil way. The technique consists of five stages, or principles:

1. Separate the people from the problem.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

3. Invent options for mutual gain.

4. Use objective criteria.

5. Know your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement).

* From Getting to Yes 2/e, by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Copyright © 1981, 1991 by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

How to set up an open innovation program.

Forming Partnerships for Growth

How to Manage a Commission-Based Team

Getting the Best From People on Variable Pay

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Team Management Skills

5 Phrases That Kill Collaboration

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

How do i manage a hybrid team.

Adjusting your management style to a hybrid world

The Life Career Rainbow

Finding a Work-Life Balance That Suits You

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

How to use mind mapping.

Break Large Projects or Topics Into Manageable Chunks

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Pain Points

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Conflict Resolution and Problem Solving

Chapter 13 Check-in:

• Identify Conflict Causes and Effects
• Explore Conflict Approaches Solutions
• Basic Problem Solving Strategy PDCA

Like all communication, good conflict management and resolution requires your time: listen, reflect, and consider all elements of a situation and the people involved.  It is not a simple process and there are some steps to help you navigate the process.  In the end, it is about the relationship.

Frequently considered a negative, conflict can actually be an opportunity for growth in relationship or work.  Your attitude towards the situation and person plays a role in any outcome.  Adam Grant, Professor of Psychology at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management, notes that “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.  If you are in a group where people never disagree, the only way that could ever really happen is if the people don’t care enough to speak their minds.” (Grant, February 2021).

However, it is easy to feel at a loss in an immediate conflict situation.  Here are some brief points to consider when faced with more than just a disagreement.

Conflict is emotional: it is much greater than a difference of opinions.  It is usually an expression of not being heard, seen, valued or respected.   It is based on a deeply person need and emotional response, based on perceptions which have identified a threat in any form.  If conflict is ignored, it can fester and result in such entrenched opinions and sides that resolution appears impossible (Segal et al, 2020).

The first step is to determine what the actual problem is as perceived by all parties.  The Conflict Tree analogy is especially useful if you respond well to visuals (O’Connor, 2020).  It is an excellent activity for a group or individual to clarify the effects (branches), core problems (trunk), and even causes of the issue (roots).

Once the actual problem is identified, you can move on to tackling a resolution together.

Approaches to Conflict

There are generally five styles for approaching conflict (Benoliel, 2017) and understanding what they are and what style you lean towards, identifies how you will move through the process.  These categories are determined by whether the focus is on the relationship or the end goal of a task/project.  While these may be more specific to workplace conflicts, they certainly identify personal conflict responses as well.

Collaboration is marked by a balanced focus on the relationship with others and meeting long-term objectives.  A Competition style is marked by individuals who are assertive and probably uncooperative who demonstrate that their priority is the outcome of the project more than the relationships.  Although few people enjoy conflict, the Avoidance style focuses on the the immediate unpleasantness and therefore avoids the issues.  This traditionally marks individuals who are unassertive and uncooperative largely because they assume it is safer to ignore than face an issue.  Sometimes there are individuals who will do anything to please others: this Accommodation approach results in self-sacrifice and is usually the route taken by those who care more about the relationship than the outcome.  Unfortunately, they are frequently taken advantage of in their efforts to please others.  Lastly, there are those who prefer the Compromise strategy. This may seem expedient in the attempt to resolve the problem by aiming for mutually acceptable terms and concessions, it does frequently leaves no one side satisfied even though it allows most to maintain an assertive and cooperative stance.

Strategies for Solutions

Sometimes those involved in conflict turn to an third person for assistance to resolve a conflict.  A mediator can listen to the perspectives of those in the dispute and focuses on helping each side hear the concerns and priorities of the other.  Working with the individuals in conflict, a mediator aims to help them create a solution acceptable to both sides.  Sometimes the third party is an Arbitrator whose role is to hear each side and provide a decision to resolve the dispute.  In some cases the conflict results in the even more formal process of a trial.

There are four key skills you need to approach conflict resolution with or without a third party involved (Segal et al, 2020; Fighting Fair, n.d.).

Conflict can be a very stressful experience and your Stress Management is an essential first step.  When we are stressed, we can’t think clearly, we can’t understand someone else’s thoughts or feelings, and it makes communication very difficult.  Use whatever method works best for you to manage your stress.

Once your stress is managed, it is easier to exert Control over your Emotions.  Recognize the emotions you are experiencing to assist in your processing the experience without having a purely emotional response.

With your stress and emotions recognized and managed, it makes it easier to recognize and pay attention to the feelings you and the other people express  and you can Identify Non-Verbal Communication.   Much is said without words and body language is a good indication of how the other person feels towards the situation.

Respect each other is standard for every communication situation and essential to remember if you are in a position of conflict.  Personal attacks, or drawing on personal knowledge, has no productive part in conflict resolution.

Many resources may explain the benefits of humour, but caution should be used.  Sometimes an emotional situation is not the best time for humour as you can unintentionally be seen to diminish the importance another person places on the experience.

Work together to identify the problem by taking the time to see it from multiple perspectives.  Be clear about the desired results and end goal.  Think about the relationships and long term impacts that any course of action may have on all parties.  It takes commitment to resolve a conflict.

Problem Solving

We covered Reflection and Feedback in Chapter 12 and these are essential steps for effective conflict resolution and problem solving. Even the Trial and Error process of problem solving relies on evaluating the success of an action before moving on to another attempt.

Many different approaches to problem solving exist though the basic core approach can be seen across geographic and language borders.  The PDCA approach – Plan, Do, Check, Act – provides the basic four steps process that can be expanded to suit any profession or experience (Plan, Do, Check, Act, 2021).

Problem solving starts with a clear identification of problem.  Then you need to clarify the desired end result.  The development of a plan can be as short or as long as necessary.  Once you have a plan, you have to implement it: Do.  Check is your opportunity to evaluate the success of your plan and make any amendments necessary.  Finally, Act: put your strategy into practice.  An important point to remember is that the reflection and evaluation should be an ongoing part of the solution you implement.

Chapter 13 Check-out:

• Explore Conflict Approaches and Solutions

Remember your last conflict with another person.  How was it resolved?  How would you like it to have been resolved?  What could you have done to implement that change in result?

How do you usually approach problem solving?  How successful has it been for you? 

What, if anything, would you like to change about how you’ve problem solved in the past?

Resources and References

Benoliel, B. (2017). Five styles of conflict resolution.  Walden University.  [Online]  https://www.waldenu.edu/news-and-events/walden-news/2017/0530-whats-your-conflict-management-style

Fighting Fair to Resolve Conflict. (n.d.).  Counselling and Mental Health Centre. University of Texas at Austin. [Online] https://cmhc.utexas.edu/fightingfair.html

Goleman, D. (April 2012). Daniel Goleman Introduces Emotional Intelligence .  Big Think. [Online] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU

Grant, A., (February 2021). The Easiest Person to Fool .  The Hidden Brain. NPR Podcast. [Online] https://hidden-brain.simplecast.com/episodes/the-easiest-person-to-fool-f1hbMrGr

Grant, A., (April 2021). The Science of Productive Conflict . TED Podcast. [Online] https://www.ted.com/podcasts/worklife/the-science-of-productive-conflict-transcript

O’Connor, T., (October 2020). 3 Simple Conflict Analysis Tools That Anyone Can Use. [Online] https://medium.com/p/c30689757a0d

Plan Do Check Act: A Simple Problem Solving Methodology. (2021).  Educational-Business-Articles.com [Online] https://www.educational-business-articles.com/plan-do-check-act/

Segal, J., Robinson, L., and Smith, M. (2020). Conflict Resolution Skills. Helpguide.org. [Online] https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/conflict-resolution-skills.htm

Media Attributions

• Brain Ponder © Luc Grenier

Copyright © by Wendy Ward is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

BUS403: Negotiations and Conflict Management (2016.A.01)

Conflict and interpersonal communication.

Read this section to define interpersonal conflict, compare and contrast the five styles of interpersonal conflict management, explain how perception and culture influence interpersonal conflict, and list strategies for effectively managing conflict. For the time being, skip the "Culture and Conflict" section, which we will cover in Unit 6.

Compromising

The compromising style shows a moderate concern for self and other and may indicate that there is a low investment in the conflict and/or the relationship. Even though we often hear that the best way to handle a conflict is to compromise, the compromising style isn't a win/win solution; it is a partial win/lose. In essence, when we compromise, we give up some or most of what we want. It's true that the conflict gets resolved temporarily, but lingering thoughts of what you gave up could lead to a future conflict. Compromising may be a good strategy when there are time limitations or when prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may also be good when both parties have equal power or when other resolution strategies have not worked.

Compromising may help conflicting parties come to a resolution, but neither may be completely satisfied if they each had to give something up.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Emerald Publishing Open Access

Collaboration in a competitive healthcare system: negotiation 101 for clinicians

Robyn clay-williams.

1 Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Andrew Johnson

2 Townsville Executive Team, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Douglas, Australia

3 Health and Wellbeing Service Group, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Douglas, Australia

Zhicheng Li

Lauren camilleri.

4 Townsville Skills Centre, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Douglas, Australia

Teresa Winata

Michael klug.

5 Clayton Utz, Brisbane, Australia

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of negotiation training delivered to senior clinicians, managers and executives, by exploring whether staff members implemented negotiation skills in their workplace following the training, and if so, how and when.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a qualitative study involving face-to-face interviews with 18 senior clinicians, managers and executives who completed a two-day intensive negotiation skills training course. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and inductive interpretive analysis techniques were used to identify common themes. Research setting was a large tertiary care hospital and health service in regional Australia.

Participants generally reported positive affective and utility reactions to the training, and attempted to implement at least some of the skills in the workplace. The main enabler was provision of a Negotiation Toolkit to assist in preparing and conducting negotiations. The main barrier was lack of time to reflect on the principles and prepare for upcoming negotiations. Participants reported that ongoing skill development and retention were not adequately addressed; suggestions for improving sustainability included provision of refresher training and mentoring.

Research limitations/implications

Limitations include self-reported data, and interview questions positively elicited examples of training translation.

Practical implications

The training was well matched to participant needs, with negotiation a common and daily activity for most healthcare professionals. Implementation of the skills showed potential for improving collaboration and problem solving in the workplace. Practical examples of how the skills were used in the workplace are provided.

Originality/value

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first international study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of an integrative bargaining negotiation training program targeting executives, senior clinicians and management staff in a large healthcare organization.

Introduction

Lack of resources is a perpetual problem in healthcare, an issue unlikely to change with the growing demands of an aging population and the rise in chronic health conditions. Clinicians, especially those with management responsibilities, can often find themselves in situations where in order to maximize resources, they need to negotiate with their colleagues and patients, and sometimes a range of stakeholders including hospital boards, medical committees, politicians, lobbyists, community leaders and business executives ( Anastakis, 2003 ). Corporate firms have long recognized the value of skillful negotiators and invested in training programs to increase the negotiation skills of their managers ( ElShenawy, 2010 ). Intensive negotiation skill training endeavors to improve engagement and collaboration between healthcare professionals, and is an important asset among health care providers ( Mellman and Dauer, 2007 ), yet clinicians receive little or no training in negotiation as part of their medical training.

Much of the healthcare literature on negotiation focuses on conflict resolution, particularly interpersonal conflict between clinicians ( Brinkert, 2010 ; Tabak and Orit, 2007 ; Almost et al. , 2016 ). In response, standards have been created to support hospital leaders in managing conflict within hospitals so that it does not negatively impact on patient care ( The Joint Commission, 2009 ). While conflict resolution is important, it is only one of the many problems to which negotiation skills can be successfully applied ( Lewicki and Hiam, 2007 ). In normal everyday work, clinicians must negotiate with each other and with managers, to clarify roles and responsibilities and to distribute resources among patient care teams. If this is accomplished effectively, conflict resolution is unlikely to be required.

In the recent Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) white paper, a Framework for Safe, Reliable and Effective Care ( Frankel et al. , 2017 ), negotiation was identified as one of the five components of healthcare culture (alongside leadership, accountability, psychological safety and teamwork and communication). While previous research has found benefits in the use of relational narrative methods for negotiation in healthcare ( Gerardi, 2015 ; Scott and Gerardi, 2011 ), the white paper proposal to implement integrative bargaining approaches is new. Integrative bargaining negotiation offers a framework for increasing value in the organization without extra cost, by promoting integrative “win-win” outcomes.

Research suggests that the effectiveness of negotiation training depends on the design and intensiveness of the program, and that post-training evaluation is crucial ( ElShenawy, 2010 ; Coleman and Lim, 2001 ). We believe that this is the first international evaluation of integrative bargaining negotiation training in healthcare.

Description of the intervention

We report the results of an evaluation of intensive negotiation skills training for executive, senior clinician and management staff members at a large tertiary care hospital and health service in regional Australia. Training commenced in February 2015, with 80 staff members completing the program as of May 2016. The two-day course focused on integrative bargaining, training participants to identify “win-win” solutions that can improve efficiency without incurring additional cost. A co-author (MK), who is an internationally recognized consultant and skilled negotiation specialist, facilitated the training. Experiential methods were used, including case studies, groupwork and role-play. Learners were introduced to a Negotiation Toolkit, which contained the seven Elements of Negotiation Scoresheet (where relationship, communication, interests, options, legitimacy, commitments and alternatives are listed and scored), and the Negotiation Worksheet (where theirs/ours interests, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, and No Deal Option are determined and noted). They were also provided with a set of heuristics – the golden rules – to guide their negotiation practice; examples include: “if you get the process right then the result will look after itself,” “the engine room of negotiation are the interests of the parties,” “high emotion gets in the way of rational negotiation” and “the goal is to establish slow forward controlled momentum.”

The negotiation training aimed to introduce participants to a flexible style of bargaining, where the specific strategy is chosen depending on the relative importance of two aspects: maintaining a positive relationship with the other party, and the outcome of the negotiation itself. Participants were provided with instruction and tools to assist them in assessing their own position, assessing the position of the other party, and selecting a strategy. Practice sessions were conducted in small groups, where participants role-played a series of negotiations based on scenarios provided by the facilitator. Feedback and coaching were provided between scenarios, and each group shared their learning experiences with the class.

Underpinning the ability to choose the best negotiation style for the situation is the need to be aware of the preferred styles of self and others. During the training, participants completed a modified Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) self-assessment questionnaire ( Kilmann and Thomas, 1977 ; Shell, 2001 ), which identified their behavioral preferences for interacting with others. Outcome of the TKI normally places the respondent on a grid with relationship/outcomes axes, and identifies their natural preference for one of five negotiating styles: competitive, collaborative, accommodating, avoiding or compromise ( Figure 1 ). The training used a modified version of the TKI ( Lewicki and Hiam, 2006 ) which identified three additional styles lying “outside” the grid: borrower, con and rob. Further explanation of the styles is shown in Table I .

Negotiating style preference grid

Negotiating styles

Research objectives

The research aimed to evaluate training effectiveness by investigating whether participants implemented the integrative bargaining skills in the time period since completing the training, and if so, how and when. The study used a qualitative approach, involving face-to-face interviews with participants.

Selection of participants

All current health service executive, senior clinicians and management personnel who completed the negotiation skills training course (with the exception of the study investigators) were eligible to participate, resulting in a source population of 70 staff members. The sample was stratified prior to random selection of interview participants to ensure that a representative spread was sought from the executive, clinical and management groups.

Each participant was interviewed face-to-face in a private room. Interviews were audio recorded, and professionally transcribed verbatim to prepare them for analysis. Participants were asked about current workplace attitudes, behaviors and processes that may have been impacted by the negotiation training, and their experiences of applying negotiation skills in their workplace. Interviews were conducted at least eight weeks after completion of the training to allow time for the skills to be translated into practice.

Interview data were analyzed in an integrated fashion. Inductive interpretive analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken to identify key themes relating to the negotiation skills training. Coding the data allowed it to be organized and used to explore connections between data elements and to develop sets of concepts. Once coded, segments of data were linked in a formal fashion to allow themes to emerge and to determine relationships that may exist between different data sets. This is a way of studying real world complex systems such as healthcare.

Ethical considerations

Ethics board approval for the study was obtained from the XXX Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/XXXX/219) and endorsed by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (MQ 5201600280). The study was funded by a small grant from the XXX Hospital and Health Service Research Trust Fund; the funding body had no role in the conduct or reporting of the study.

Participants

In total 21 healthcare executives, 20 senior clinicians and 29 managers completed the training. An additional eight learners were no longer employed by the hospital during the study (no information was available on their position), plus two of the learners were part of the research team so not eligible to participate. In all, 18 staff members (6 from each category) who had completed the training, comprising 25 percent of eligible participants, were randomly selected and all agreed to be interviewed. Despite prior stratification, it became evident during the interviews that there was no distinct definition separating managers and executives, and most managers/executives also identified themselves as clinicians; therefore, the results are reported as arising from a single sample ( Table II ).

Demographic characteristics of study participants

While 8 of the 18 participants completed the course within the previous three months, the remaining 10 participants completed the training between 9 and 15 months previously. In total, 6 participants had either previously completed negotiation training, or had been exposed to negotiating principles; for the remaining 11 participants, the training material was new. Participants were identified by the self-assessment questionnaire to have a natural preference for the following negotiating styles: competitive ( n =1), collaborative ( n =6), avoiding ( n =6), compromise ( n =3) and borrow ( n =2). When asked which style they moved to when under pressure, participants were each able to identify a style on the grid, resulting in the following range: competitive ( n =2), collaborative ( n =3), avoiding ( n =4), compromise ( n =3), accommodating ( n =5) and borrower ( n =1). While eight participants stated that they maintained the same style under pressure, the remainder moved on the grid ( Figure 2 ).

Participant negotiating style movement under pressure

In all, 6 primary themes and 28 sub-themes emerged from the analysis (see Table III ). Primary themes were affective reactions, utility reactions, barriers to implementation, enablers for translation, work practices and sustainability. Sub-themes were: word of mouth, participant view of the facilitator (positive and negative), personal negotiating style preferences, spending time with colleagues, balancing course time and content, participant view of the organization (positive), practical negotiating skills, tools and templates, matching training to user needs (positive and negative), time, negotiating with other parties (within and external to health service), job mobility (negative), provision of the Negotiation Toolkit, standardization of negotiations, integral part of daily work, noticing others, gaining confidence, improved understanding of behavior – self and others, preparation, reduced stress, examples of work practices, few support mechanisms for translating learning, refresher training, coaching and mentors, formal discussion groups, advanced/tailored training, and implementing training more widely.

Main themes

Affective and utility reactions

Almost all participants had positive affective and utility reactions to one or more aspects of the training. Participants liked learning about their own negotiating style (and were interested in the styles of others): “I enjoyed that it was group training […] and learning more about my own style, but also recognizing other people’s styles” (Interview No. 2). Most participants expected to gain some practical skills as a result of training: “[…] expect[ed] that I’d come away with some skill or improved skill that would help me in the workplace” (Interview No. 2). For most, the useful components were the practical examples, the structured approach to negotiation and the tools and templates: “[…] just having that framework in your mind around how to do it and how to prepare for it certainly keeps a negotiation on track […]” (Interview No. 5). The key points (or “golden rules”) that work across a broad range of situations, the opportunity for short practice in the groupwork and the insight into personal negotiating style preferences were also considered useful for work. Many participants actively planned to translate the training to the workplace, including arriving at the course with specific examples in mind of where they would use the training when they returned to work: “I actually have quite a few meetings that are quite difficult in lots of ways, where there is a lot of negotiation […] I wanted to be there to learn how to manage those situations better” (Interview No. 9).

Barriers and enablers

Time was the biggest barrier to employing the skills in the workplace, particularly for executives and clinicians. Most of the participants identified the need to prepare for each negotiation, and felt that finding sufficient time to do so was a challenge: “one of the biggest barriers for me as a clinician is having time to enact what I know” (Interview No. 6). Manager participants who were involved in negotiations with the state health department felt that the unwillingness of the department to negotiate, or the practice of sending negotiators who do not have authority to decide, was also a barrier to both successful negotiation and implementation of the skills: “there are some things that you are able to negotiate but there’s really some things in the structures that we have within [the health department] that you just can’t” (Interview No. 1). These senior managers were both disappointed, and frustrated, that their skills were not able to be fully utilized in these high-level discussions, which were critical for obtaining much-needed hospital and health service resources: “on our really big ticket items there was just no real negotiation to it” (Interview No. 1). They reported that true negotiation seemed to be new to the state department, and that they have yet to develop processes for dealing with health services wishing to negotiate resourcing: “last year we were one of very few [health] service[s] […] to argue or continually argue for stuff […]” (Interview No. 1).

In contrast, within the health service it was sometimes difficult to negotiate with colleagues, as others valued the relationship too much: “[…] when you have a large number of people who are all trying to make sure other people feel OK about a negotiation, actually it becomes real, really difficult [to come to an agreement] […] think within the hospital […] when you’re dealing with people and you invest in a longer term relationship, you tend to be a lot more wanting to please them” (Interview No. 6). Even so, hierarchical relationships and formal reporting structures within the hospital could make it difficult for clinicians to implement the negotiation strategies taught in the training: “[…] for someone in my position, I don’t have the ability to knock on the door or make an appointment with someone two or three levels above me in structure […] the channels of communication within this organization are not open […] what was being talked about in the course is assuming that you’ve got a [more flat gradient]” (Interview No. 13).

The biggest enabler for all participants was provision of the Negotiation Toolkit – a series of worksheets to assist in preparing for negotiations. Some clinicians, managers and executives had the seven Elements of Negotiation Scoresheet, the Negotiation Worksheet and/or the “golden rules” laminated on their desks or pinned on the wall. A further enabler for all participants, associated with the tools, was the potential of standardizing the way negotiations were approached, thereby bringing a common language or understanding to discussions: “I felt that I had a framework that I could use at work when it came to a negotiation and that people that were there from my workplace also could use that framework in a negotiation when we were all in a negotiation with each other, so they know where I’m coming from” (Interview No. 12).

Work practice

Participants indicated that negotiation formed an integral part of their daily work: “[…] you always use negotiation every day […]” (Interview No. 4). Most participants had employed at least one aspect of the training in their work, and gave one or more specific examples to illustrate where they were approaching their interactions with others differently than in the past, or were more engaged in looking for “win-win” outcomes. Participants in all categories could also point to examples where negotiation was starting to make a positive difference to relationships, personal performance or organizational outcomes. Some participants felt more confident following the training, both personally, and also in their ability to succeed in resolving longstanding or complex problems.

Participants began to notice when others were employing the techniques: “[…] from very, very early on I could see […] the way he was playing the game” (Interview No. 3). For some, it was enjoyable and energizing to negotiate, and to notice how others negotiated: “so in that instance [when negotiating against a difficult opponent] I find negotiation becomes more sporting to me” (Interview No. 3). The examples provided by participants predominantly involved moving from a “win-lose” to a “win-win” situation: “People are trying to work through [their problems] a bit more clearly rather than putting a line in the sand and putting another line in the sand and then digging a trench” (Interview No. 5).

While participants reported seeing the skills utilized at work, this has not yet translated to substantially increased skill or increased intensity of negotiations overall: “Overall shift? Probably not, but certainly in individuals” (Interview No. 5). Nevertheless, while each participant gave examples of where they had personally utilized the skills, a number of participants reported examples where others did not reflect on, or respond to, the training.

Some participants felt more confident following the training, both personally, and also in their ability to succeed in resolving longstanding or complex problems: “I think that I’m probably more tolerant with both conflict and negotiation now. Rather than just looking for the quick result, no matter whether I win it or lose all, I’m happy to take the time and to find a satisfactory result for both parties” (Interview No. 7). One participant explained how negotiations within the health service could be very context driven. For example, to negotiate implementation of the same process across different service groups may require a different approach, depending on the needs of both parties and the degree of cohesion or rapport between them. The skills taught in the training showed how to select the best approach to ensure that during negotiation, the individual needs/wishes of the service group is respected, resulting in preservation of relationships and a win-win outcome. Participants gave examples where they were working differently as a result of the training, including increasing persistence in trying multiple approaches when negotiating around funding: “I learnt to think of it not just one way, put yourself in many shoes […] and if they’ve said no here, how do you come around again […]” (Interview No. 1). For some participants, employing some of the negotiation techniques taught resulted in less stress at work. Having a walk-away position, for example, can lessen the frustration associated with negotiations that do not approach the zone of potential agreement: “a release valve in terms of how I feel about a negotiation” (Interview No. 6). Most participants found it more satisfying in the workplace to have win-win outcomes: “[…] building bridges […] that’s the kind of stuff you do on a daily basis” (Interview No. 17).

In some cases, despite participants not feeling that the course was well matched to their needs, their comments in the interview showed that they have, in fact, gained an improved understanding about the behavior of others in the workplace, and how to better engage with colleagues: “I’m definitely more aware of how other people navigate through the hospital and how the people interact. I’ve definitely become more aware of different relationships and how certain things might play out and reading a room as well” (Interview No. 2). The training has also provided participants with the skills to work as a team: “So the three of us […] two of us are more withdraw types, but we have a strong collaborator […] I’m a little bit more assertive […] [in the meeting] we were, as a group, using all of our skills. We were able to negotiate [our objective] with all the resources that we needed” (Interview No. 2).

Participants believed that preparation was the most important element of skilled negotiation, and many gave specific examples to support this assertion. However, the healthcare workplace infrequently allowed sufficient time for preparation, particularly for clinicians, and this hampered the ability to use the skills for many participants: “The actual time to think and work on the business instead of in the business is very difficult to ring fence and protect” (Interview No. 9).

Examples of two successful negotiations following the training – Box

Two sisters, one orange: Mary Parker Follett (1940) founded interest based bargaining in the 1920s, with the story of the two sisters arguing over the last orange in the pantry. The sisters reach a traditional distributive compromise whereby they each take half of the orange. Both achieved only half of their desired outcome for their intended purpose: one to extract the juice and the other to use the peel to flavor a cake. The sisters came the realization that both could have had 100 percent of their desired outcome if they had understood each others’ interests, and negotiated on that basis.

In the first example, the hospital identified a critical need for expansion of two facilities: the simulation and clinical skills center, and the formal teaching space. The funding available was capped, and the space available for both projects was constrained by existing physical hospital infrastructure. The combined floor space required by the two projects exceeded available floor space by 50 percent, and available budget by 30 percent. In exploring the interests of each party, the project sponsor was able to identify a shared requirement for small teaching rooms. However, neither party required fulltime access to the facility. Through a flexible planning approach, multipurpose room designs were developed that accommodated the needs of simulation and formal teaching. In addition, a flexible booking arrangement allowed for more effective use of the physical space and gave each party access to more than they had originally required, thereby creating value for all parties.

The second example involves a complex negotiation regarding implementation of the new hospital Integrated Electronic Medical Record (IEMR). The vendor sought to implement a standard IEMR, but the hospital was concerned that this would not meet the hospital needs. The negotiation proceeded over a number of weeks, and involved clinicians, executives, members of the IEMR team, the central health department program director and the vendor. The hospital’s aim for the negotiation was to implement a safe and effective EIMR in the Emergency Department. The vendor’s interest was to implement the IEMR without increasing costs or effort, but there was a significant unstated interest of reputational risk. A single text negotiation document was created by the hospital team, which then drove negotiation with the vendor. A Best Alternative To No Agreement was established by the hospital as the intent to walk away from the deal. The vendor opened the negotiation with the position that they would not be able to vary the installation due to costs, etc., but the hospital team was able to leverage off reputational interest to achieve their aims. The hospital team established five key issues to be addressed, recognizing that they would need to compromise on these to achieve a negotiated outcome, and they were prepared to offer suitable alternative options to the vendor. Two weeks from the “go live” for the IEMR, the vendor agreed to four of the five demands, and the fifth was negotiated to follow in the coming months. Due to cohesion developed through the negotiation process, the hospital team was able to implement the solution within a shortened timeframe.

Sustainability

There was some overlap between ideas for improving sustainability and enablers for translating the training into the workplace, in that having processes for sustainability in place was considered to aid training transfer. Despite high levels of engagement, participant recall of specific learning points was variable, and was more dependent on whether the participant was using the skills in practice than how long since they had trained. However, all participants could recall their preference for negotiating style, and the style they reverted to under pressure, when shown a picture of the grid in Figure 1 .

Most participants were disappointed to find that, following the training, there were few support mechanisms to assist in implementing the skills in the workplace: “you come back to the organization […] excited […] [but] there was nothing else, no follow up” (Interview No. 1). Reciprocity from colleagues, particularly if they had also completed the training, was important for assisting participants in applying the skills: “So I think […] [for example] that potentially setting an agreement with the group and then going okay so in our monthly meetings let’s bring in case studies and work with it as a group to do that transition of learning” (Interview No. 15). Many participants raised the need for assistance in translating negotiation skills to the workplace, and in sustaining learning. Because most came from senior or managerial positions, participants were also cognizant of the difficulty of sustaining learning: “Because we’re very busy. There is nobody that works in health that isn’t very busy, whether they’re clinicians or managers or whatever. The problem is you go into a course, which was exceptional. It was a very good course. But it’s how do you keep that fresh in people’s minds without that being onerous for them, because we have competing priorities all the time” (Interview No. 16).

Most participants felt that refresher training would be useful, and had strong, but quite varied (and sometimes conflicting) views on how this should be delivered: options included repeating the course every couple of years, completing an abbreviated version of the training (half to one day), and completing monthly sessions with other interested colleagues to work through specific practical problems: “I think you’d probably get a summative effect from going back and refreshing” (Interview No. 6). Participants also felt that coaching, whether in the form of a mentor, or a person to call to discuss difficult or complex situations, would be helpful and enhance learning and training transfer: “perhaps having a mentor, I think, would be beneficial, a senior mentor that you can go to a month after training, and then maybe six months, and then maybe 12 months, so that you can discuss – keep it fresh in your mind and discuss your progress and potential issues” (Interview No. 7).

Some participants felt that having a mentor, and then becoming as mentor as experience was gained, might mean that refresher training was not required: “You might not need [refresher training] if you had that mentor to build it in and then if you became a mentor for somebody else” (Interview No. 4). Others felt that just having someone to call if needed was a better option than a formal mentor: “I’ve never been good with the mentor concept, to be honest” (Interview No. 5). Certainly, some colleagues looked to others for support as they learned the new techniques: “Having people around that knew the resource well [would make it easy to apply the skills in the workplace] […] after I did [the training] I spent some time […] had more contact time with [an executive who had completed the training earlier, who provided a role model]” (Interview No. 9). Other refresher training options included a subset of refresher training at 18-24 months, where participants could choose to refresh on technical or process issues, practical implementation problems, or both.

The need for formal discussion groups was also raised by a number of participants: “maybe a small work group of peers […] getting together and just having a half hour or so session […]” (Interview No. 5). Practice was considered to be critical for sustainability: “the more times you practise using the template, and the more times you practise a different negotiation style, the more likely that is to start to impact on your day-to-day [work]” (Interview No. 6). Participants felt that if there was a more regular discussion, the principles were more likely to be assimilated: “I think if we […] talk about it regularly, it would stick better in my mind […] if we did use it all the time, it’d be a lot easier to put into the workplace” (Interview No. 4). In general, however, participants who regularly used the tools reported that by 12 months in: “it’s becoming a more unconscious skill” (Interview No. 9).

Some participants also suggested the need for advanced training, for those already versed in the basic skills but needing to work through more complex, sometimes healthcare-specific, scenarios. Some participants also felt that the training needed to be applied more widely across the health service: “I think the knowledge and education does need to be shared broadly” (Interview No. 9).

In healthcare, authority gradients are flat (and sometimes reversed), and clinicians and managers frequently need to convince others over which they have no authority of the need to pursue a particular course of action. Successful outcomes often depend on establishing a series of small or large ongoing agreements between individuals or craft groups, and negotiation skills are crucial. IHI suggest that “Health care teams should commit to using collaborative negotiation whenever possible. This is the only negotiation approach that yields workable solutions that manage resources, provide the best options for patients, and preserve the relationships between parties” ( Frankel et al. , 2017 ). While we agree that this is desirable, it is important to note in that, in our study, participants reported success using a variety of negotiation strategies. Despite the large variety of negotiating styles that were found among the executives, managers and clinicians in our study, the importance of negotiation in the workplace, and the need for tools and techniques to assist in negotiating successfully in everyday work, were universally accepted, and we found considerable evidence that the skills are being applied to solve both problems ranging from small to large and complex (see Box for two examples). These findings confirm what we know from the literature, i.e. that content relevance and opportunity to perform have a strong to moderate relationship with transfer of training to the workplace ( Burke and Hutchins, 2007 ), and that utility reactions correlate with learning and on the job performance ( Alliger et al. , 1977 ; Ruona et al. , 2002 ).

An unanticipated benefit of the training was an opportunity for participants to spend two full days interacting with colleagues. Some participants found this valuable for networking; others found it useful to gain a better understanding of how other parts of the hospital function. Research has found that creating cohesive collaborative networks is associated with better patient care ( Cunningham et al. , 2012 ), yet it is only during training that many professionals have a chance to get to know on another.

A number of participants drew heavily on the behavior grid, both to provide self-insight and also to enable insight into the behavior of others. These insights were useful not just in planning formal negotiations, but also in the informal negotiations that form everyday communication in healthcare, suggesting that there might be a role for this type of learning in current teamwork communication training. In their normal work, most participants clustered around the collaborative/compromise/avoid behaviors. Shell (2001) found that clinical professionals in the health care field systematically report both less competitive and more accommodating TKI scores than do executives in more traditional businesses. In contrast, our study found that behavior most perceived as typical of healthcare professionals – accommodating – was only favored when participants were under stress (and, even then, by less than one-third of participants). Tabak and Orit (2007) also found that healthcare professionals’ behaviors moved from collaborating and competitive toward accommodating and avoiding when under stress, however, our study showed the reality to be more complex with no consistent pattern of behavior change reported by participants to be associated with stress.

Those enrolled in the training who were new to their job did not seem to gain as much benefit as other participants, possibly because utility of the material was not yet established for these participants. Self-selection into training may be a viable option with this group of professionals, as participants were generally very aware of their personal limitations and the areas where they needed to learn or practice. Given the time pressures of clinicians, there might be value in modular training, where, for example, theory delivered via didactic modules or pre-reading is followed by face-to-face training sessions interspersed with practice implementing the ideas in the workplace. Clinicians might also benefit more than executives from tailored training, especially the inclusion of more clinically relevant scenarios and group practice – perhaps in a similar format to current simulation team training ( Baker et al. , 2005 ). Practicing clinicians also seemed generally to be more interested in the behavioral aspects of the training when compared with executives (who seemed more interested in the negotiation processes), perhaps because they interact with greater variety of individuals in their day-to-day care of patients. Clinicians also generally had a greater focus on learning through teaching others, again perhaps because this aligns more closely with how they teach and learn technical skills and non-technical workplace behaviors.

Instituting formal refresher sessions or other ongoing training strategy is important for sustaining positive changes to the way people work. Participants kept their course notes, and many said that they intended to reflect on the material, but admitted they had not got around to it. Lack of time to reflect on the training, to prepare for negotiations, and to apply the negotiation techniques, was a large and frequently reported barrier to implementing the skills in the workplace. There is no protected “thinking time” in the participants’ day, and, even where scheduled, it can be overridden by the more overt and seemingly urgent needs of others. Even at the highest level, time use of executives seems frequently to be controlled by others.

Noticing others using the skills in the workplace provided both a revision of the principles, and also, when those observed were successful, positive reinforcement of the value of using the skills. Laminating the material for mounting on wall or desk also enabled reflection or revision on the principles, and a visual “aide memoire” to use them. The Negotiation Toolkit, in particular, proved to be very useful, with more than half of the participants saying that they used (or referred to) at least one element of the kit when preparing for negotiations. Previous research has found that on average only from 10 percent ( Fitzpatrick, 2001 ) to 47 percent ( Saks and Belcourt, 2006 ) of what is learned in training is applied at work. Unlike many training courses, the majority of participants in the negotiation skills training appeared to have assimilated at least some of the principles into their everyday work. Even those who trained most recently talked about their attitudes to solving disagreements, involving people or resources, in ways that showed the training was taking effect. Even those who did not like the training, or think it particularly useful, reported adopting some of the principles.

Annual negotiations between the health service and the state health department, particularly where they involve funding, can be protracted. While the health department pays lip service to the concept of negotiation, the participants were able to easily recognize that the stated intent to collaborate and negotiate was little more than an aspirational goal. Transfer climate has been found to have a major influence on whether training is transferred ( Goldstein and Ford, 2002 ; Rouiller and Goldstein, 1993 ; Tracey et al. , 1995 ; Warr et al. , 1999 ), and participants become frustrated when provided with a skill then prevented from using it. Implementing the training in the health department, therefore, would improve utility of the training at the health service level.

Implications for the organization

Our findings suggest that negotiations should be face-to-face, even where this involves travel costs. There seems to be a trade-off between short and long-term gains – long-term gains preserve relationships, but the organization should be willing to accept that there may be no obvious immediate outcome. Standardizing the negotiation processes across the health service (and, ideally, the state health department) and implementing training more widely is likely to assist participants in trying to adopt the skills in the workplace, including those who move between jobs or departments.

Time was identified as a major barrier to successful development of negotiation skills. Consideration should be given on whether it is possible to simplify the training process or break it into shorter modules, and time should be allocated for staff to implement the processes at work (particularly in the first few months following training).

Our findings identified a need for an organization wide strategy underpinning the training, including formal support for translating the skills to the workplace and for ongoing sustainability of learning. The training and skills development should be formally aligned to other workplace key performance indicators.

Implications the broader knowledge base

We know, for the first time, that integrative negotiation methods can be taught to healthcare professionals, and that integrative bargaining skills are reported by the majority of healthcare workers to be a valuable skill for the workplace. Our findings suggest that almost all healthcare executives, senior clinicians and managers are able to apply practical bargaining skills to solve workplace problems after only two days of basic negotiation training.

Limitations

Limitations of this study are that the data are self-reported, with all the attendant biases. In addition, participant views of the facilitator were polarized, with the majority displaying an intensely positive affective reaction, and this “halo” effect ( Nisbett and Wilson, 1977 ) may have colored their assessment of the training and its efficacy. In addition, from analysis of participant responses, the TKI-based questionnaire that was delivered in the training appears to be quite context sensitive. Despite this, questions asked about reactions in non-healthcare context are used to derive a behavior assessment that the participant is then encouraged to apply in their healthcare workplace. While the TKI is a validated instrument ( Thomas, 1974 ), and the work of Lewicki et al. ( Lewicki and Hiam, 2006, 2007 ) provides a link from the TKI to the behavior grid used on course, the questionnaire used in the training appeared to be based on different questions to the TKI. It was not possible from the literature, therefore, to determine validity of the course questionnaire for use in determining negotiating style preference. For these reasons, outcomes of the questionnaire should be treated with caution. While the instrument was likely offered by the facilitator merely as a tool to encourage self-insight, the assessments were accepted by many participants as fact, and used to drive judgments about self and others at work. Perhaps because many participants treated the results of the questionnaire as fact, the outcome for each participant in some cases appeared to bias their reactions to the training.

The nature of the interview encouraged participants to report where they had used the training, and is therefore likely to have had a positive bias on the number of reported examples. A number of interviewees described negotiations involving human resources situations; while these negotiations broadly involved the same processes and similar stories of win-win successes as the negotiations around other topics, they have not been included in this paper to protect identity of participants.

Our study found that participants generally valued negotiation training and were applying the principles in the workplace. Negotiation is common in clinical everyday work, and is not limited to situations requiring conflict resolution. Uptake and translation of integrative negotiation skills to the workplace appears to be high in comparison with other health service training. Interviewing more than a quarter of participants, including participants who had completed training both recently and between 9 and 15 months previously, and randomly selecting those for interview from a stratified sample, all contributed to high confidence that our findings are valid.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the Townsville Hospital and Health Service Research Trust Fund.

• Alliger G.M., Tannenbaum S.I., Bennett W., Traver H. and Shotland A. (1977), “ A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 50 No. 2 , pp. 341-358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Almost J., Wolff A.C., Stewart‐Pyne A., Mccormick L.G., Strachan D. and D’souza C. (2016), “ Managing and mitigating conflict in healthcare teams: an integrative review ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 72 No. 7 , pp. 1490-1505. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anastakis D.J. (2003), “ Negotiation skills for physicians ”, The American Journal of Surgery , Vol. 185 No. 1 , pp. 74-78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker D.P., Gustafson S., Beaubien J.M., Salas E. and Barach P. (2005), “ Medical team training programs in health care. Advances in patient safety: from research to implementation ”, AHRQ Publication Nos 050021 (1-4), Vols 1-4, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. [ PubMed ]
• Brinkert R. (2010), “ A literature review of conflict communication causes, costs, benefits and interventions in nursing ”, Journal of Nursing Management , Vol. 18 No. 2 , pp. 145-156. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke L.A. and Hutchins H.M. (2007), “ Training transfer: an integrative literature review ”, Human Resource Development Review , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 263-296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman P.T. and Lim Y.Y.J. (2001), “ A systematic approach to evaluating the effects of collaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups ”, Negotiation Journal , Vol. 17 No. 4 , pp. 363-392. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham F.C., Ranmuthugala G., Plumb J., Georgiou A., Westbrook J.I. and Braithwaite J. (2012), “ Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: a systematic review ”, BMJ Quality & Safety , Vol. 21 No. 3 , pp. 239-249. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elshenawy E. (2010), “ Does negotiation training improve negotiators’ performance? ”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 34 No. 3 , pp. 192-210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzpatrick R. (2001), “ The strange case of the transfer of training estimate ”, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist , Vol. 39 No. 2 , pp. 18-19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Follett M. (1940), “Constructive conflict”, in Metcalf H. and Urwick L. (Eds), Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett , Harper, New York, NY, pp. 30-49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankel A., Haraden C., Federico F. and Lenoci-Edwards J.A. (2017), “ Framework for safe, reliable, and effective care: a white paper ”, Institute for Healthcare Improvement and Safe & Reliable Healthcare, Cambridge, MA.
• Gerardi D. (2015), “ Conflict engagement: a new model for nurses ”, The American Journal of Nursing , Vol. 115 No. 3 , pp. 56-61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein I.L. and Ford J.K. (2002), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation , Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilmann R.H. and Thomas K.W. (1977), “ Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the ‘MODE’ instrument ”, Educational and Psychological Measurement , Vol. 37 No. 2 , pp. 309-325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewicki R.J. and Hiam A. (2006), Mastering Business Negotiation: A Working Guide to Making Deals and Resolving Conflict , Jossey-Bass Publishing, San Francisco, CA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewicki R.J. and Hiam A. (2007), “ The flexibility of the master negotiator ”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 25-36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mellman D. and Dauer E.A. (2007), “ Negotiation: the CMO’s indispensable skill ”, Physician Executive , Vol. 33 No. 4 , p. 48. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbett R.E. and Wilson T.D. (1977), “ The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments ”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 35 No. 4 , p. 250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rouiller J.Z. and Goldstein I.L. (1993), “ The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training ”, Human Resource Development Quarterly , Vol. 4 No. 4 , pp. 377-390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruona W.E.A., Leimbach M., Holton E.F.I. and Bates R. (2002), “ The relationship between learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees ”, International Journal of Training & Development , Vol. 6 No. 4 , pp. 218-228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks A.M. and Belcourt M. (2006), “ An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations ”, Human Resource Management , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 629-648. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott C. and Gerardi D. (2011), “ A strategic approach for managing conflict in hospitals: responding to the Joint Commission leadership standard, Part 2 ”, The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety , Vol. 37 No. 2 , pp. 70-80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shell G.R. (2001), “ Teaching ideas: Bargaining styles and negotiation: the Thomas‐Kilmann conflict mode instrument in negotiation training ”, Negotiation Journal , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 155-174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabak N. and Orit K. (2007), “ Relationship between how nurses resolve their conflicts with doctors, their stress and job satisfaction ”, Journal of Nursing Management , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 321-331. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Joint Commission (2009), “ Standard LD.02.04.01: the hospital manages conflict between leadership groups to protect the quality and safety of care ”, The Governance Institute, Oakbrook Terrace, IL.
• Thomas K.W. (1974), “ Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument ”, Xicom Tuxedo, Mountain View, CA. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Tracey J.B., Tannenbaum S.I. and Kavanagh M.J. (1995), “ Applying trained skills on the job: the importance of the work environment ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 80 No. 2 , pp. 239-252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warr P., Allan C. and Birdi K. (1999), “ Predicting three levels of training outcome ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 72 No. 3 , pp. 351-375. [ Google Scholar ]

To Report Child Abuse or Neglect: 1-888-SOS-CHILD

• Make a Gift
• Monthly Giving Program
• Foster Parenting
• Other Ways to Help
• Planned Giving
• Sign-up for Emails
• Executive Leadership Team
• Board of Directors
• Our Partners
• Employment Application
• Locations & Hours
• Publications & Financials

Problem Solving, Decision Making, Negotiation & Compromise

• Problem Solving, Decision Making, Negotiation & Compromise

Date/Time Date(s) - 04/19/2022 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm

• Nurtured Parenting Series
• Parent Enrichment Classes

Facilitator

This topic is from the Nurturing Parenting Program- Facilitated in English There will be subtitles at the top of the screen translating the presentation in Spanish

The goal of this class is to increase parents’ ability in problem solving, decision making and compromise.

Registration:

Registrations are closed for this class.

5 Principles of Effective Negotiation

The Importance of Negotiation as a Leadership Skill

• Navigating complex deals and partnerships
• Resolving conflicts within teams or between departments
• Aligning stakeholders on project objectives
• Managing budgets and resources

"The greatest power you have in negotiation is the power to change the game."

5 Key Principles of Effective Negotiation

1. preparation is key, 2. build rapport and trust, 3. focus on interests, not positions, 4. be willing to make concessions, 5. remain adaptable and open-minded, strategies for success in negotiation, understand your batna (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), practice active listening, employ the anchoring technique, utilize the principle of reciprocity, manage emotions effectively, related courses.

Communication Engineering

Mindset, Frameworks, and Tools to create agreements and influence through effective and collaborative conversations.

Management Mastery - Communicate with Influence

Learn the 8 critical skills to make you a confident and compelling leader in 2 weeks. 

Strategic Leader Masterclass

Beat the 'not strategic enough' label. Our masterclass shows you how!

Organizational Savvy for Technical Experts

Creating impact & being effective in large companies is incredibly hard. But you don’t need a $100k MBA. You need Organizational Savvy.

Facilitation Finesse

Advance your leadership skills and guide your group with ease and confidence – no matter what happens.

Negotiation Playbook for Entrepreneurs and Tech Careers

Tactics, frameworks and lessons from a decade of coaching founders, PMs, engineers, and execs to get paid what they are worth. 

You might also like

Goal Setting: A Guide for Leaders

9 Leadership Styles (and How to Develop Your Own)

Lead by Example and Inspire Your Team

Lifelong Learner: How Continuous Learning Benefits Leaders

Be the first to know what's new on maven.

Enagage Differences. Build Resilience. Transform Conflict.

Collaborative Negotiation and Consensus Building

Created by Ken Cloke and Wendy Wood, 2019

Understand what it means to ‘find common ground’ and how to go about doing this

The differences between various forms of negotiation and decision making, what collaborative negotiation means for political and democratic advocacy, how to address a wide range of issues through multi-stakeholder engagement, reflection questions, reflect on the appropriate times to ‘find common ground’, tools and tips, a consensus-driven process for negotiation and decision-making, types of negotiation and consensus building, accommodative negotiation (where participants are often friends).

• The goal is agreement, making concessions, being gentle on both the participants and the problem, making offers, and accepting that one side may lose

Aggressive Negotiation (where participants are adversaries)

• The goal is victory, demanding concessions, being hard on both the participants and the problem, applying pressure, and demanding that one side wins

Collaborative Negotiation (where participants are the problem solvers)

• The goal is a wise and just outcome, being gentle on the participants yet hard on the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, and work towards shared losses/mutual gains

The Collaborative Negotiation Process

• Conduct a preliminary assessment of the needs and interests of the participants and the organization itself and identify goals for the relationship
• Establish top priorities; tackle the easy issues first and move to the harder issues
• Identify interests and develop alternatives to make a proposal acceptable to either side
• Evaluate the process and provide honest feedback
• Celebrate successes
• Make a concerted effort to continue to build positive relationships

Some Do’s and Don’ts

Collaborative negotiating asks that the process involve all who have a stake in the outcome and those who can make decisions and sign off on agreements. They must all be able to negotiate and obtain mutual satisfaction of self-interests for all participants. Consider how unnecessary delays and disruptions can be avoided as well as the consequences of a prolonged dispute or impasse.

• Listen actively, providing feedback and acknowledging substantive content and any underlying emotional issues
• Acknowledge the efforts of others when they believe they are being fair and cooperative.
• Deal with proposals realistically and with appreciation for both sides’ time and efforts.

Here are some traps to avoid

• Rushing decisions and ‘vote’ before you have to
• Withholding information or acting unilaterally can be very damaging to the process
• Expecting people to compromise over principles

Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

Typically, organizations/groups/communities make a decision to come together, with the help of a skilled conflict professional, to design and facilitate a process that promotes dialogue, informal or formal civil discourse, respectful and productive communication, problem solving, consensus building, and collaborative negotiation.

Example of Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Process

Multi-stakeholder engagement enables those involved in the conflict to surface the specific issues at play and understand the unique institutional frameworks, cultures, and intellectual contexts in which issues have arisen, or are likely to arise, and identify the criteria for successful outcomes.

Depending on the complexity of the dispute, conflict professionals and conveners may work in teams of two or more. A typical process looks like this:

• Present a multi-stakeholder engagement proposal specific to the issues at hand in expanded form to participants.
• Conduct brief interviews; gather data on types of issues, identify potential future participants and gather information and perspectives; provide a non-attributed summary of the interviews to all participants.
• Begin gathering committed participants, developing ground rules and points of consensus, and build working relationships.
• Facilitate the dialogue between all stakeholder participants; help resolve disagreements and conflicts, expand points of consensus and reach agreement on a comprehensive plan going forward.
• Identify and build points of consensus and gradually build trust and communication.
• Identify the range of possible agreements that may include pledges, standards of conduct, prevention and intervention strategies, and other procedural options.
• Mediate and help manage future conflicts between stakeholder participants.

Consensus Building

When social/political organizations utilize a consensus-driven process for decision-making, they should first have a clear understanding of what consensus is, its value, and how it is best used. Consensus is a willingness to live by the wisdom of a group/team/organization if the decision meets the needs and interests of the group/team/organization. Read More Consensus building is a collaborative group process for making decisions that everyone can support. It is an opportunity for a group to learn about its processes and be able to address past, present and future problems in ways that are agreed upon by the group. 

While the use of consensus and consensus building processes vary and are often interdependent on the needs and interests of others who may or may not be involved in the process, here is a way to think of the goals of consensus building:

• Gives participants an opportunity to choose among several options and allows differences of opinion to surface; each participant agrees that they have had sufficient opportunity to influence the decision.
• Ensures an inclusive process and one where everyone has an equal voice.
• Promotes understanding and ownership while building unity and common direction.
• Encourages an environment where the thinking lends itself to’ We all Win’ rather than ‘Someone wins/Others must sacrifice’ or ‘We win/You lose’.
• All group members agree to support the decision even though it may not be everyone’s first choice.
• Everyone is committed to the decision as though it were the first choice of all group members.

While the goals of consensus are laudable, in reality, most of us have experienced roadblocks in consensus building efforts. Information or participation may be limited. Power dynamics interfere with the process. Blame, apathy, defensiveness, and excuses dominate the conversations. And the end result may be public compliance yet private defiance. Yet when groups can have a clearer understanding of what consensus building really means, agree to and embrace the value of consensus building, and respectfully hold each other responsible for the process and the outcome, consensus, the group will become more unified and ready to act together.

Collaborative negotiation, multi-stakeholder engagement, and consensus building processes are valuable tools and supports for building conflict capacity. A key element that must not be overlooked as social/political organizations search for common ground and actions is the importance of building trust within and between staff, volunteers, communities, and partners.

Examine these questions within the context of your own work or a contemporary global issue that relates to your work in social change.

• Is it possible to express differences in ways that are authentic yet do not harm others?
• What does the phrase, ‘search for common ground,’ mean to me?
• How do I develop the practice of listening actively, deeply, and in ways that I can then change my mind?
• Do I have enough knowledge, support, and training to understand what it means to be inclusive and equitable?
• How willing am I to take responsibility for process and content in situations that are driven by a need to resolve or transform conflicts?
• Do I value building trust within the group and/or with groups that organize and function outside the group?

Need help with negotiating multi-stakeholder conflicts?

For more information and support, or if you are interested in being part of the dpace community, please contact us..

Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

The Nurturing Parent

• Introduction
• Getting Started & Assessment Description and Orientation
• Change, Growth and Letting Go
• My Life Script
• Nurturing Parenting Nurturing as a Lifestyle
• Nurturing Skills Rating Scale
• Cultural Parenting Traditions My Cultural Portrait
• Developing Spirituality in Parenting Ways to Increase Spirituality
• Making Good Choices Smoking and My Child's Health
• Families & Alcohol Use
• Families and Alcohol Use Questionnaire
• 12 Steps to Keeping Children Drug Free
• Self-Awareness Quiz
• Love, Sex, STDs and AIDS
• Dating, Love and Rejection
• Touch, Personal Space, and Date Rape
• Possessive and Violent Relationships
• Growth and Development of Children Children's Brain Development
• The Male and Female Brain
• Ages & Stages: Appropriate Expectations
• Ages & Stages: Infant Development
• Ages & Stages: Toddler Development
• Ages & Stages: Preschooler Development
• Ages & Stages: Skills Strips
• Feeding Young Children Nutritious Foods
• Toilet Training
• Keeping My Children Safe
• The Importance of Touch The Importance of Parent/Child Touch
• Infant & Child Massage (Refer to the Nurturing Book for Babies and Children)
• Developing Empathy Developing Empathy
• Getting My Needs Met
• Myths and Facts About Spoiling Your Children
• Recognizing and Understanding Feelings Helping Children Learn How to Handle Their Feelings
• "Feelings" Exercise
• Criticism, Confrontation and Rules for "Fair Fighting"

Problem Solving, Decision Making, Negotiation and Compromise

• Managing and Communicating Feelings Understanding and Handling Stress
• Understanding and Expressing Anger
• Understanding Discipline Improving Self-Worth
• Measuring My Self-Worth
• Children's Self-Worth
• Ten Ways to Improve Children's Self-Worth
• Developing Personal Power in Children and Adults
• Helping Children Manage Their Behavior
• Understanding Discipline
• Developing Family Morals and Values
• Developing Family Rules
• Child Proofing Your Home
• Home Safety Checklist
• Safety Reminders by Age
• Rewards and Punishments Using Rewards to Guide and Teach Children
• Using Punishments to Guide and Teach Children
• Praising Children and Their Behavior
• Punishing Children's Inappropriate Behavior Why Parents Spank Their Children
• Verbal and Physical Redirection
• Ignoring Inappropriate Behavior
• Developing Nurturing Parenting Routines Establishing Nurturing Parenting Routines
• Nurturing Diapering and Dressing Routine
• Nurturing Feeding Time Routine
• Nurturing Bath Time Routine
• Nurturing Bed Time Routine
• Prenatal Parenting Changes in Me and You
• Keeping Our Bodies and Babies Healthy
• Health and Nutrition
• Fetal Development
• Foster and Adoptive Parents Foster & Adoptive Children: Attachment, Separation, and Loss
• Expectations on foster and Adopted Children
• Worksheet for Adoptive Parents
• Worksheet for Foster Parents
• ADDENDUM Parenting Resources

Hope4Families October 25, 2022

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups
• Message this member
• Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.