Confrontation / Deadlocks and Mediators / Reaching Agreement

Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. In any disagreement, individuals understandably aim to achieve the best possible outcome for their position (or perhaps an organisation they represent).

Sometimes one side is in a stronger position than the other: they have more bargaining power. For example, during a recent strike at Lamda Inc., the company was in financial difficulty and the public was on the workers’ side, so Lamda was negotiating from weakness. The strikers’ union knew this: they were negotiating from strength.

The union made demands: objectives that were so important that they were unwilling to change them. They wanted a 15 per cent pay increase. Later they moderated these demands, and said they would accept ten per cent. However, their demand for a week’s extra holiday was non negotiable: they would not accept less.

Lamda said they were being forced to accept something that they did not want. They accused the union of making them negotiate under duress.

Eventually Lamda conceded to most of the union’s demands and gave them what they wanted. The media said that Lamda had backed down, climbed down and given in.

The feelings had been very strong on each side: the dispute was bitter, and the negotiations were confrontational and adversarial.

In that sort of situations negotiation is seen in terms of ‘ getting your own way ’, ‘ driving a hard bargain ’ or ‘ beating off the opposition ’. While in the short term bargaining may well achieve the aims for one side, it is also a distributive or win-lose approach.

This means that while one side wins the other loses and this outcome may well damage future relationships between the parties. It also increases the likelihood of relationships breaking down, of people walking out or refusing to deal with the ‘winners’ again and the process ending in a bitter dispute. Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. The term distributive implies that there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie."

Confrontational negotiating tactics

Negotiations are rarely easy, mainly because they tend to consist of two sides trying to “beat” the other. In that sense, deception, bluff and lies and finally threats are tools that come naturally and logically to negotiators in order to manipulate favourably the balance of power.

A) Lying, deceiving or bluffing?

To Lewicki (1983), the primary purpose of lying in negotiation is to increase the liar's power over its opponent by using false or misleading information. These lies can take many forms from which bluffing and deceiving play an important part.

B) Threatening

Threats can be considered in three different approaches: decision making, communication and commitment.

If Threats have a tendency to increase the conflict on an individual basis and when they don't produce the immediate expected effect, they initiate counter measures and damage significantly the level of trust in the relationship.

 

In a distributive / adversarial negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile (lie), bluffing, and brinkmanship (threats, confrontation, ultimatums)in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a decision.

Although using tricks isn’t recommended, there are negotiators who:

 

■ issue threats, final offers or ultimatums: they say that the other side must accept something, with very bad consequences for them if they refuse. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge at which the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.

■ lie and bluff: they threaten to do something that they do not intend to do, or are not able to do.Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluff, to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.

 

Of course, you can always call someone’s bluff: pretend to believe them, when you know they are bluffing.

Although negotiators generally consider themselves to be very logical, many of their decisions are made without thinking them through. Sometimes tactics are used to make negotiators uncomfortable and force quick, gut reactions. Here are some common tactics:

- Demand immediate responses.

- Don’t allow breaks or time to rest.

- Make personal negative comments.

- Always refer back to concessions already made.

- Explain that the bosses just won’t agree.

- Add a demand to every concession made.

- Don’t let yourself be pressurized by these tactics. Remain calm and take your time to consider the implications before you respond.

Dealing with problems

When negotiations get stuck, and don’t progress, there are a number of things you can do to avoid stalemate.

 

· Listen to the other party’s explanations actively an respectfully.

· Avoid unnecessary confrontation. Don’t get into arguments.

· Hold back on your reactions and stay focused. Ignore attacks.

· Deal with the impasse together. Try to see the reasons behind the standstill and look for solutions.

· Avoid escalation. Show the other party that they can only win if you win, too.

· Underline common ground: the areas where agreement has been reached.

· Reassure the other side on key points that have been decided: confirm that you have not changed your mind.

· Be willing to compromise on your original objectives: be ready to accept less than you wanted in exchange for compromises from the other side.

· Identify the exact obstacles or sticking points: the problems that are causing negotiations to become difficult.

· Postpone discussions until later so that each side can reconsider its position.

Steps in managing conflict / confrontation effectively

 

Here are 4 steps to handle any conflict.

 

Facilitate Discussion

Ø Identify differences in perception and interpretations of the facts

Ø Have the parties discuss each of their needs

Ø Have the parties imagine themselves in the other parties' shoes

Ø Lay the ground rules that no one will be blamed for the problem

Ø Lay the ground rule that all will be discussed

Ø Encourage each side to make proposals that appeal to the other party or satisfy their interests

Ø Before beginning, make sure the key players with authority are a part of the negotiations and discussions.

Ø Acknowledge the other party's emotions, such as fear or anger. Do not ignore or dismiss the other's feelings.

Ø Maintain open communications in negations, mediations and discussions by listening carefully.

Ø Summarize points made by the other party and use body language that shows you are hearing what is being said (lean forward, nod your head, arms in open position)

 

Listen to what the other person is saying

Ø Demonstrate a true willingness to bring about a solution to the problem

Ø Try to identify underlying needs

Ø Instead of focusing on past events or problems, concentrate on future solutions.

 

Ø Everyone's suggestions should be considered for a win/win solution.

Deadlocks and Mediators

 

Deadlock is a situation in which an agreement cannot be made: a situation in which ending a disagreement is impossible because neither side will give up something that it wants. It is a situation, typically one involving opposing parties, in which no progress can be made. Let me illustrate it with the following example. Every year (in Baseland) there are negotiations between the baseball players’ union and the baseball team owners about pay and conditions for the coming season. Last year, after months of negotiations, there was deadlock: the negotiations broke down. Some commentators said there was stalemate; an impasse: a situation where no progress can be made. There were irreconcilable differences between the two sides and it was impossible to reach an agreement. The baseball players went on strike.

 

The two sides agreed to bring in a mediator, someone from outside to help restart the negotiations and bring the two sides close together in a process of mediation. The person they chose was a respected retired politician. He recommended a cooling-off period where each side would take no action. The payers ended their strike for the time being.

 

Another month passed, and still there was no progress. The two sides agreed to accept an agreement imposed by an arbitrator. A judge was chosen. She looked at the claims of each side and imposed a settlement or resolution to the dispute, fixing the salaries and the working conditions of the players. In this case, arbitration had settled the dispute.