Conflict is a daily reality for everyone. Whether at home or at work, an individual's needs and values inevitably come into conflict with the needs and values of others. Some conflicts are relatively minor, easily handled, and simply overlooked. However, other conflicts are of greater magnitude and require a strategy for successful resolution.

The ability to resolve conflict successfully probably is one of the most important social skills an individual can possess. Yet, there are few formal opportunities in our society to learn conflict-resolution skills. Conflict resolution skills can be teamed; and like other skills, they consist of a number of subskills, each separate and yet interdependent. Conflict-resolution skills need to be integrated at both cognitive and behavioral levels (i.e., Do I understand how conflict can be resolved? Can I resolve specific conflicts?).

Responses to Conflict Situations

Conflict-resolution strategies can be classified into three categories: avoidance, defusion, and confrontation. The accompanying figure illustrates that avoidance is at one extreme and confrontation is at the other extreme of a continuum.

Avoidance

Some people attempt to avoid certain types of conflict situations or avoid conflict situations altogether. These people tend to repress emotional reactions, look the other way, or withdraw from a situation entirely. For example, one may resign from a job, leave school, or become divorced. The person either cannot face the situation effectively or does not have the skills to resolve the conflict situation effectively. Although avoidance strategies have survival value in those instances in which escape is possible, they usually do not provide the individual with a high level of satisfaction. Avoided conflict situations often result in doubts and fear about meeting similar situations in the future and about such valued traits as courage or persistence.

Defusion

Defusion essentially is a delaying tactic. Defusion strategies attempt to tone down and cool off the situation, at least temporarily, or to keep the issues so unclear that attempts at confrontation are unlikely. Resolving minor points while avoiding or delaying discussion of major issues, postponing confrontation until a more favorable time, and avoiding clarification of the prominent issues underlying the conflict all are examples of defusion tactics. As with avoidance strategies, defusion tactics often work when delay is possible. However, such tactics typically result in feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety about the future, concerns about oneself, and decreased self-esteem.

Confrontation

The third major conflict-resolution strategy involves confronting conflicting issues or persons. Confrontation can be subdivided into power and negotiation strategies. Power strategies include the use of physical force (i.e., a punch in the nose); bribery (i.e., money and favors); and punishment (i.e., withholding love, money). Power tactics often are very effective from the point of view of the “winner” or “successful” party in the conflict. Unfortunately, the real conflict may have only just begun. For the “loser”, getting even, hostility, anxiety, and actual physical damage frequently are the residual effects of win-lose power tactics.

Negotiation strategies, unlike power confrontations, present opportunities for both sides to win. The objective of negotiation is to resolve the conflict with a compromise solution that is mutually satisfying to all parties involved in the conflict. Of the three conflict resolution strategies, negotiation seems to provide the most positive and the least negative residuals.

The Nature and Importance of Negotiation

Negotiation is a discussion between two or more parties with the apparent aim of resolving a divergence of interest and thus escaping social conflict. The parties; (also called "disputants") may be individuals, groups, organizations, or political units such as nations. Divergence of interest means that the parties have incompatible preferences among a set of available options. Negotiators are usually seriously interested in reaching agreement; but they occasionally use negotiation as a delaying tactic, to buy, time while building the capacity to beat the opponent in some other way (Ikle 1964).

Divergence of interest is found in, all social arenas, from relations between children on the playground to international relations. Hence, a theory of negotiation is essential for understanding topics as diverse as marital decision making, industrial relations, interoffice coordination, corporate mergers, intra-group decision making, and international relations.

The arenas just named differ, to some extent, with respect to the way negotiation works. But, in our view, there are more similarities than differences among them making it possible to develop a general theory of negotiation. This outlook allows us to learn things in arena than apply to others – for example, to generalize from negotiation between neighbors to negotiation between nations. The theory that this emerging from this enterprise does draw some distinctions between types of settings, for example, it is clear that negotiations between representatives differ in some respects from negotiations between individuals who are acting on their own behalf. Furthermore negotiators who are concerned about both parties’ interests behave rather differently from those who are only concerned about their own interests. Such differences are more fundamental, in our view, than the differences between the arenas in which negotiation takes place.

NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES

According to Gerard I. Nierenberg

These strategies are offered not as suggestions of what to do or not to do. The Complete Negotiator must know what, how and when to select strategies based on the overall results desired. Negative strategies will create negative climates with only temporary results. They are mentioned only to warn what might happen to you if your opposer uses them or what you might create if you use them.

The following are examples of a double strategy called "low-balling." This overall strategy combines apparent withdrawal and reversal, two of the basic strategies which will be fully discussed later in the chapter. It is applied on three levels: interpersonal, interorganizational (corporate) and international.

Selling automobiles is a highly competitive business. Many inexperienced buyers try to take advantage of this by going from dealer to dealer with the request, "Just give me the price." Sooner or later the buyer will be hit with a "low-ball" price, one that is too low to be realistic and may even be below the dealer's cost. The buyer, after completing his or her appointed rounds, will "return to the low-ball dealer, assuming that the negotiation has been completed and there is nothing more to talk about. But the negotiations have just begun. The buyer will be assailed with "extras" and high-priced financing. The salesperson may take the order and never deliver or switch to another car. The low-ball price will be blown to bits.

On the corporate level, the roles can be reversed. This time the seller is the victim, but the strategy is essentially the same. It is used when a business is in dire straits and must be sold immediately. The potential buyer offers a price or a deal that he or she knows is unrealistically good, then stalls but continues to offer the lure until all other potential buyers have lost interest. Then the "real" offer is made on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that the seller must then accept.

On the international level, "dumping" of surplus goods is an '"honest" form of low-balling. The selling price is low, so low that it drives the competing industries in another nation out of business. Then the rival nation enjoys a monopoly position and charges monopoly prices.

"When" Strategy

"When" strategy can be separated into several of the following: forbearance, surprise, fait accompli, bland withdrawal, apparent withdrawal, reversal, limits, and feinting. Here are a few examples of these types of strategy.

Forbearance ("Patience pays”). When you hold off, suspend, put off an answer instead of giving in at that moment, do not answer a question, caucus, or take time out to decide, you are using the strategy of forbearance. Waiting so that your people can think and letting the other side have time to think about it also come under this heading. It has been called "keeping your cool." In labor relations it might be referred to as a cooling-off period

The Quakers furnish an example. When members of a Quaker meeting find themselves divided on a question, it is customary to declare a period of silence. If the division still persists, the clerk postpones the question for another time or a later meeting. This can go on indefinitely until the question is resolved. Forbearance thus avoids a direct conflict and eventually achieves a settlement.

Franklin D. Roosevelt used to tell a story about the Chinese use of forbearance, based on four thousand years of civilization. Two coolies were arguing heatedly in the midst of a crowd. A stranger expressed surprise that no blows were being struck. His Chinese friend explained, "The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out.

Knowing when to stop is another element of forbearance. The person must know when to stop talking. The attorney must know when the witness has been sufficiently cross-examined. Earlier we related the story of the last tenant in the old office building. This negotiation was probably carried past the point where it would have been wise to stop. Benjamin Disraeli recognized this factor when he said, "Next to knowing when to seize an advantage, the most important thing in life is to know when to forego an advantage."

Surprise. This strategy involves a sudden shift in method, argument, or approach. The change is usually drastic and dramatic, although it need not always be so. Sometimes, in fact, the change can be ushered in by as insignificant a sign as the alteration of the tone of voice during a negotiation. Where you have carried on the entire negotiation in calm, even voice, one blowup can effectively make the point. Surprise can be used as a tactic in negotiation when new information is introduced or a new approach is taken. For example, in the middle of a negotiation it is sometimes effective to substitute a new team leader. Of course, this has its disadvantages, but it can serve the same purpose a substituting a new pitcher when the old one has lost control of the ball. When, during a negotiation, one party flies off the handle and acts completely irrationally, it is very probably a surprise tactic. The seemingly irrational person feels that this behavior will make it more difficult for the other side to cope with the situation. However, the truly mentally unbalanced people are the most difficult of all to deal with; their behavior never ceases to amaze. They are more difficult than the inexperienced negotiator. At least we can educate the inexperienced.

An Anglo-American company opened a new mine in Zambia's copper belt and brought in workers from a nearby province. The workers and their families were housed in temporary dwellings built near the Kafue River. The company had great, paternalistic plans to build a substantial village with modern housing, electricity, and running water. They assured the workers and their union that building would start "soon." The temporary housing was not satisfactory; not only were the quarters flimsy but the only source of water was the river. The workers and their families had to go down to the river to bathe and to draw water for personal use. To the great distress of management, several children and an occasional wife would turn up missing while bathing in the crocodile-infested river. The obvious solution appeared to be to put in water pipes immediately so that no one would have to go near the river. At the same time management decided to chlorinate the water as a health measure.

After they had announced their "obvious" solution, management was surprised when the union official came and said, "Look, we don't want those water pipes." "Be reasonable," management argued. "You're losing a lot of people. Just accept these pipes temporarily. They're in your better interest. We're even chlorinating the water and getting rid of the fluke, which is causing a severe problem among the workers and their families. We're doing all of this for the workers, and you, Mr. Union, don't want it. Why?"

The union official refused to discuss the matter, so management investigated. They found that the union believed that if the water pipes were installed temporarily, management would never get around to building permanent housing. They feared that unless pressure was brought on it, the company would not make the capital investment that a permanent village would require. They were quite prepared, even at the cost of human lives, to accept the present conditions if that would put pressure on management and expedite the building of permanent housing.

Management decided to ignore the union's protest and installed the pipes. Two weeks later all the piping was smashed and, of course, the workers and their families returned to the river for water. Management found that the union had spread a rumor in the village that the chlorine in the water was used specifically as a birth control measure so that the women's work in the mine would not be interrupted.

Although management tried again to reason with the union, it was to no avail. The union by its intransigent position forced the management to build permanent housing at a considerably faster rate than they would have if the workers and the crocodiles could have been separated. To the surprise of the management, the union worked against its own people's short-term interests to force management's hand.

Fait accompli ("Now it's up to you"). This is a risky strategy but there is often a temptation to use it. It demands that you act, achieve your goal against the opposition, and then see what the other side will do about it. Those who employ this strategy must make an appraisal of the consequences in case it should prove to be a failure.

An illustration of how not to use this strategy is the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. Egypt nationalized the canal and France and Great Britain sent troops to reclaim their property. They acted on the false assumption that the United States would back its longtime allies. However, President Eisenhower did not react favorably to their fait accompli (thereby tacitly supporting Egypt's fait accompli). With his support, the United Nations moved in with an emergency force, took control of the canal and began negotiations. Their strategy was changing levels. Great Britain and France were forced to accept reality: in the postwar world they were no longer great powers. Now they were disgruntled stockholders dealing with a hostile takeover. The negotiation was over how much they would get for their stock. Egypt finally gave the Suez Canal Company's stockholders (the British and French governments) about $81million as a consolation prize.

In direct examination of an unsavory witness a lawyer will some times bring out all the bad things that can be said about him or her before the opposition can cross-examine and make the past seem even worse. The other side is presented with a fait accompli.

In the mergers of conglomerates today, we can often see the use of this tactic. If, before the merger actually takes place, the Justice Department indicates that it might object, quite often the conglomerate will go ahead with the merger and present the government with a fait accompli. In effect the conglomerate says. "It's done. Now what are you going to do about it?" The government may feel that breaking up the merger is more trouble than the "illegality" is worth. Of course, to be concluded successfully, a fait accompli requires recognition by the other party. If no action is taken, the user is likely to find himself or herself in the position of Chief Justice John Marshall when he presented President Andrew Jackson with a ruling Jackson refused to accept. "John Marshall has made his decision," the President said. "Now let him enforce it." It was never enforced.

The fait accompli is useful in other situations. If a contract is sent to you which contains a provision you do not agree with, cross out that portion that you do not want, sign the contract, and send it back. Your opposer, confronted with a fait accompli, can either return the contract and reopen the negotiation, or accept the deletion. Quite often the changed contract will be accepted.

Bland withdrawal (“Who, me?”). A company located in the East decided to build a factory in Texas. Plans called for structural steel to be used in the building. After meeting with their board and discussing their problem, the management realized that they would have to use structural steelworkers, most of whom were members of a strong Texas union which commanded high wages and was not easy to deal with.

Rather than pay union scale, the company used its own workers to begin construction. The factory was well advanced before the steelworkers' union caught up with the situation. "You can't do that," they protested. "That's nonunion." The management said, "What? We didn't know. We thought that we could bring our own construction workers to Texas. We'll hire only authorized union workers from now on."

The union was satisfied that the problem was so easily solved, the company was more than happy to have put the most costly part of the construction work behind them at a considerable saving over the Texas union labor costs.

In the franchising field, bland withdrawal has been used with varying success. The franchisor has an obligation to the franchisee to anticipate in the operation manual any situation that may arise in the course of running the business. The franchising firm often takes years to work out operational situations to prepare in every way to meet the unexpected and to try to give the franchisee the benefit of experience. One such careful planner was a motel-chain franchisor. He told me the following story: A guest at a franchisee's motel had found a bedbug in his room and, incensed, wrote an indignant letter to the , operator of the motel. The operator replied promptly, using the form letter suggested by the franchisor. It dwelt at length on the pleasure it gave management to hear from the motel's guests; it stated that it was their obligation to keep the lines of communication with the customers open, that the customers paid his salary, that management was delighted to hear even of such unusual situations as the one described in the letter; that however rare the situation might be it would be looked into personally and taken care of forthwith. The guest was suitably mollified as he finished the operator's letter, but then he discovered that his own letter was inadvertently attached to the response. On it in red pencil was boldly printed: "Send bedbug form letter."

Apparent withdrawal ("The man who wasn't there"). This strategy is made up of a mixture of forbearance, self-discipline, and a little deception. The aim is to convince your opposer that you have withdrawn, but without his or her knowing it, you are still in control of the situation. A man used this strategy with a certain degree of success in litigation involving the Rent Commission of the City of New York. The Rent Commission had determined that a hearing be scheduled at a time that was arbitrary and would prove detrimental to his client. The New York Supreme Court agreed that the scheduling of the proposed hearing would be detrimental. However, instead of granting an injunction, which had been requested, the court merely suggested to the Rent Commission that it should postpone the hearing. In spite of the request of the court, the Rent Commission went ahead with the hearing. He attended this hearing, but before it began, he had the official stenographer take down a statement for the record: "I warn everyone in attendance that this hearing is being held against the wishes of the Supreme Court; I will see to it that the court is so informed and I will follow this matter through to its normal consequences. Moreover, I will not be a party to this hearing at this time." Having made this statement, he stalked out of the room. His withdrawal apparently was complete. However, unknown to the hearing officer of the Rent Commission, an associate of him remained in the hearing room. Seated with a group of witnesses that had been called, he was prepared to take over in the event that the Rent Commission chose to go ahead with the hearing. This strategy, fortunately, was effective. The person in charge of the hearing was unsure of how to proceed. He called the rent commissioner for advice and was told to adjourn the hearing. Thereafter the commissioner was persuaded that landlords are members of the community, and important ones, and that no one can be victimized without harm to everybody.

In the field of acquisition, an illustration of apparent withdrawal would be where a public company receives word that another corporation is trying to acquire them. The effort has already begun in the marketplace and stock is being bought up. Then after the public company has taken one retaliatory action or another, whether effective or not, the acquiring corporation withdraws. It seems to have been stopped or frightened off. The withdrawal is only apparent, however; the acquiring corporation is now working behind the scenes, going to mutual funds or optioning the stock of those who have heard of their attempt to buy control and who have come to them sub rosa. This continues for a time, then suddenly the public company wakes up to find that the acquiring corporation has been working underground and has gained control. The reason for the apparent withdrawal, after making known that they were interested in the acquisition, was that this allowed the public company's alleged friends to approach them with less fear of discovery and help them in their task.

Reversal ("You can go forward, backward"). In this strategy, you act in opposition to what may be considered to be the popular trend or goal. Bernard Baruch once said that people who make money in the stock market are those who are the first in and the first out. By this he meant that you should buy when everyone was pessimistic and sell when the prevailing atmosphere was optimistic. This strategy may sound easy to execute, but in reality it is exceedingly difficult. Were it not so, we could all immediately become rich and powerful.

Gertrude Stein reversed a popular concept about Wall Street when she said that the money remains the same, it is merely the pockets that change.

In the days following World War II the left-wing American Labor Party was prominent in New York politics. The ALP had formed an extreme aversion to a certain Brooklyn state senator, and had decided to "go after" him. They entered a candidate in the Democratic primary in the district, and there was a possibility that they might not only beat him, but gain control of the Democratic Party in that district.

The senator refused to knuckle under and work for the endorsement of the American Labor Party. His problem was to prevent the ALP from "making an example" of him.

The senator and his staff decided on a strategy of reversal. They would make a bid to take over the American Labor Party in that district by entering a candidate in their primary. Squads of workers went out, and in two days enough signatures were accumulated to make an ALP primary fight feasible. Then the truce flag went up. The American Labor Party agreed not to fight the state senator if he would withdraw from the primary. The strategy worked perfectly.

Reversal strategy permits you to think of new alternatives. There is nothing that states a priori or even logically that if the company makes more money it must pay higher wages to its union workers. The union would most certainly not accept as absolutely necessary the concept that if the company's profits are lower, its workers will receive less money.

In Brazil, a man went to an art dealer in Rio, looking for a painting to take home. He was particularly drawn to a painting-the biblical battle of Jericho done in primitive style. The pictures in the gallery were selling for $100 to $150, but when he asked the dealer the price of this particular painting he was told, "Five hundred dollars." Although it was a fine painting, he was amazed at the difference in prices and asked the reason. His friend insisted on knowing why and at last was told the story.

It seems an Indian from the northern Amazon jungle came to the shop one day, bringing with him three paintings. The dealer recognized their merit and was immediately willing to pay as much as he paid established artists in Rio-about fifty dollars a painting. He asked the Indian how much he wanted, and the Indian replied, "Two hundred and fifty dollars for the three paintings." "That's impossible," the dealer said. "I couldn't possibly afford that much."

They discussed the matter for a time, but the Indian would not budge from his original demand. The dealer began to get angry and, seeing this, the Indian went outside, deposited one of the paintings in a trash can and set it on fire. This was too much for the art dealer to bear. He rushed outside and shook the Indian. "What are you doing?" he said. "You've destroyed a beautiful work of art! Why don't we come to terms? How much for the remaining two paintings?"

The Indian said, "Two hundred and fifty dollars."

The dealer refused to believe the price and tried to reason with him, but the Indian obstinately refused to consider any other offer. When it became clear that the matter would not be solved, the Indian marched out again, burned a second painting, and waited impassively for the dealer to come to him. "Please," said the dealer, "don't destroy the last painting. How much do you want?"

"Two hundred and fifty dollars."

And that is the reason, his friend told him, that he paid a retail price of five hundred dollars for the biblical battle of Jericho he brought back from Brazil.

Some people take to reversal strategy quite naturally. One such man read that smoking was injurious to health, so he decided to give up reading. In another case a business was in a unique field and, being without competition, it had become highly successful. At a meeting of the board of directors it was determined that the company would set up an independent competitive company before someone else did so.

The Trollope ploy is a form of reversal strategy. In it two messages are received from your opposer. You accept that message which you think is advantageous and ignore the other one. What we might call the double Trollope is more complex. In using this strategy, you intentionally send two messages forcing the opposer to accept the less onerous one. For example, if mild demands are first made and then are followed by stronger demands, the other side will react to and be more likely to accept the milder demands.

Double reversal has its advantages. For example, a few years ago a major airline was building a large complex in New York City and wanted lower electric rates than Con Edison charged. Con Edison turned them down, saying that the Public Service Commission would not permit it, that the rate schedule would not sanction it. The negotiations came to a standstill. The airline then engaged a group of engineers to determine costs for an independent electricity-producing facility. The airline saw that the cost was not too high and that the investment could probably be amortized, so they were ready to go ahead and build. When Con Edison heard of this, they reversed their position at once. They applied to the Public Service Commission for a much lower rate for this type of user. The Commission immediately approved the new rates. To Con Edison's consternation, the airline would not now buy at the new rate but insisted they were going ahead with their plans for a generating plant. Con Edison reversed itself a second time, went back to the Commission, and obtained a still lower rate. Only then were they able to close a deal with the airline. The airline, however, was not the only beneficiary of these negotiations. Thereafter, all commercial users of large quantities of electricity in New York City were left with a legacy. They were entitled to the same reduced rates that Con Edison had offered the airline.

Limits (''This is the absolute end") Limits can be of many types. There are communication limits, those placed on negotiating-team members as to what they may talk about and to whom they may talk; time limits; and geographical limits-as a proposal applying to only one section of the country or only to one company. When a party sets a limit, there is no reason why you must be restricted by it unless it suits your purpose to conform. In legislatures, when a limit is reached-let us say, December 1, at midnight-discussion will stop. If some legislature members still want the opportunity to speak, the clock is stopped before midnight while discussion continues. In negotiation, if you choose to ignore a limit, try to save face for the person who has set the limit. Humor can often be helpful in this regard. Once when a limit was set at 5 o'clock, the other side drew a cartoon of a clock face without the numeral 5. Everybody laughed. This released the tension and the negotiations continued.

One experienced negotiator calls meetings, if possible, three days before Christmas or Thanksgiving. This sets a natural time limit. The other side does not want the negotiations to go over so that they will miss the opportunity of being with their families. A man has seen this strategy solve a problem for the management of a public company that was interested in a merger. The majority of the stockholders favored a merger, but the minority stockholders did not have the rosy optimism of the majority and threatened to bring suit. In order to solve the problem, majority stockholders gave the minority a "put"-that is, in the event that the stock went below a certain price the minority stockholders were guaranteed the higher price. A limit was set as to any possible loss that they might experience. In consideration for this the minority agreed to the merger.

Sometimes negotiators limit communications coming from the negotiation when the issues involved should concern only the parties to the negotiation and not be used for publicity value.

Finally, limits of many sorts may be employed merely to test the strength of your position. If your opposer pushes you to the limit you know that he or she does not consider your position to be a strong one or may be testing you. It is always important to have other counterstrategies available.

Feinting (“Look to the right, go to the left”). This involves an apparent move in one direction to divert attention from the real goal or object. It can also involve a situation in which you give your opponent a false impression that you have more information or knowledge than you really possess. This strategy has been successfully used in criminal trials. The district attorney is duty-bound to tell the court all of the information and facts that are in his or her possession and may not withhold from the court any evidence that may be pertinent to the case even though it may not help the prosecution. This does not always happen. Feinting strategy by defense counsel may lead the district attorney to believe that counsel is in possession of "all" the information and, therefore, the district attorney may feel the obligation now to tell the court all rather than continue to withhold pertinent facts.

Today, because of the speed of communication, a prepared governmental decision can be tested by feinting. The decision is released by "a reliable source" as a trial balloon before it is actually made. This gives the government an opportunity to test the different responses that might occur when and if such a decision is actually made. Then, if opposition develops, it can either develop a strategy to counteract adverse responses or decide upon a new solution to the problem.

In Buffalo, New York, one of the largest hotels in the city for many years was the Hotel Buffalo. It was the first big Statler hotel and without peer. Statler himself intended to keep it that way. When he built the first hotel, he had complete plans drawn up for a second hotel which were always ready for use. Whenever word would reach him of a group of hotelmen coming to Buffalo to look at potential sites, Statler would file his plans with the Building Department and make sure that word of it got to his potential rivals. On learning of the filing of the plans, the hotelmen would abandon their project because of Statler's feint, and Statler would withdraw his plans to use them another day.

In the course of a negotiation, feinting can be useful if you are giving in on a point that is not especially important to you. Make the concession sound very important, however, and if you are dealing with someone who does not have awareness of the entire situation, be sure that he works for the concession before you grant it. Feinting can be used when you want to cover up important elements. Ignore the important and stress the things that are not important to you.

"How and Where" Strategy

Some of the principal forms of "how and where" strategy are participation, association, dissociation, crossroads, blanketing, randomizing, random sample, salami, bracketing, agency, and shifting levels.

Participation (“We are friends”). In this form of strategy you strive to enlist the aid of other parties in your behalf, to act either directly or indirectly. International alliances like NATO or the Warsaw Pact are good examples of this form. Each participant will probably assist the other with his individually different strategy. This includes "me too," strategy, such as has been used in the maritime labor relations field. As reported in The New York Times, August 28, 1965: "Almost every [Maritime] Union has a clause in its contract that if something better than what the contract terms delineate is later granted to another union, it will be automatically added to the first contract." The Times stated that "this is one of the chief reasons why the Merchant Marine strike went through its 73rd day without a settlement. " It would appear that this strategy of the union backfired.

If you reach a deadlock at the negotiating table, it is often helpful to suggest that both sides assign two team members to participate separately, away from the negotiating table, try to resolve the difference, and then come back to the negotiation later.

Coalition bargaining is an expansion and refinement of participatory negotiation. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that an employer cannot be forced to bargain with all the unions involved at the same time. However, members of other unions can sit in while one particular union negotiates a contract with the employer. In this way the other unions get a good idea of the employer's strategy and may even be able to hold the employer to certain proposals he or she has made or cite reasons and excuses for not giving in on a particular issue when their own negotiations come up subsequently. Other names given to this procedure are coordinated bargaining or conspiratorial bargaining, depending on which side of the table you are on.

Participation need not be one-sided. Both employer and union officials can sometimes benefit by acting together. A construction industry executive once used this strategy to solve a difficult problem. He was offered a subcontracting job involving many buildings. Other subcontractors were reluctant to become involved because, they said, the union would force them into a form of contract that would be a straitjacket. They claimed that anyone would lose money on that job. The executive decided to take a chance anyway.

When the union presented its rather harsh contract demands, the contracting executive, instead of opposing them, tried to get the union officials to participate with him. He examined the offered contract clause by clause and asked the officials how they would handle the situation, how, by participating with him, they could show him ways to comply with the regulations and still be able to make a reasonable profit. The union officials got into the spirit and showed him that it was not so difficult. From their "real" experience they would show him, first, how to comply and, second, how to benefit from compliance.

One clause that seemed unbearable to him stated that no one but a teamster could drive a truck on the job. He, for example, had only to bring a small cake of ice onto the job site, yet to comply with the clause the subcontractor would have to have a teamster on duty all the time. This, the executive said, was clearly unreasonable. The union officials saw it differently. "Why don't you merely subcontract this one-hour job to one of the other major subcontractors? They have teamsters on their payroll. That would be compliance as far as we're concerned. "So it went throughout the discussion. Instead of opposing the union officials, the executive made them participators and was able to handle the job successfully.

Participation can be especially important when you are contemplating a merger or acquisition. One of the ways of using this strategy is to let the seller know that you will continue to operate in the same tradition and manner in which the business has been run. After the merger, buyer and seller can participate together and run the business on a mutually satisfactory basis. This is a useful negotiating technique when you are trying to buy a family business with a long tradition of service.

Association ("You and me, kid"). Attorneys and other consultants are asked many times to accept less than their standard fee because the people or project they will be involved with are considered "prestige." After the consultant has been around for a while she knows that in many instances she is being taken advantage of. But still she gets clients who say, "This is a very unusual case [or project]. If you take this case it will be a feather in your cap. "The client uses the strategy of association, attempting to get the consultant associated with the project for prestige, not mere dollars. A man once heard an experienced attorney answer such a plea with "Look, if I took all the feathers off my cap and put them on my tail, I could fly around this room."

The celebrated Domino Theory that dominated the thinking of many U.S. policy-makers for many years after World War II is also an example of association. Also called the Chain-Reaction Theory, it rationalized that if one country fell to communism, other countries would fall in a similar fashion.

This strategy is used extensively in the advertising field. Testimonials assert that a famous person uses and endorses a certain cigarette, soap, hairdressing, or some other product. These testimonials associate the product with the rich, important, powerful personages who endorse it. Many people identify themselves with these personalities and begin to use the product.

Many businesspeople who feel that they would be too sophisticated to be influenced by this advertising tactic fail to realize it is related to the business device of electing famous military, scientific, or political figures to the board of directors of corporations. The corporation is now supposed to benefit from the "halo" effect of these famous people.

Dissociation ("Who is your friend?"). Obviously this strategy is the reverse product, or more frequently a cause, is discredited by showing that unsavory characters are connected with it. This is a form of strategy that is often used in politics by both the extreme left and the extreme right. It calls the attention of the general public to the kind of people who are associated with a particular movement, cause, or proposal. It is hoped that the assumed reputation of the people connected with the movement will steer the public in the opposite direction, away from the association.

The American Tobacco Company contended that it wanted to expand its operations and had in truth become a conglomerate and therefore would change its name to reflect its new interests. The new name, American Brands, did suggest a wider interest, but it must be said that the timing of the move indicated the company was also concerned with the bad connotations that "tobacco" had acquired and wanted to dissociate itself from them.

Sometimes strategies in negotiation come up inadvertently. For example, the Japanese embassy in Washington, in order to comply with a request for American-made machinery, invited representatives of two companies to meet with the purchasing agent of the Japanese concern. One of the sales representatives was a garrulous man, the other was rather quiet. The talkative man dominated the conversation, leaving the quiet one on the sidelines, unable to do more than nod his head in agreement with the pleasantries that were offered. He could not help feeling, however, that he had lost the sale, when the other American said, "I love your country. I can't wait to come back on a more extensive visit." The Japanese purchasing agent politely asked him when he was last there. "In 1945," the talkative man said, inadvertently revealing that he was part of the American occupation forces in Japan. When he also disclosed he had been a U.S. Air Force bombardier in the Pacific during the war, the silent salesman knew he could relax. He had the order. Dissociation worked for him.

Crossroads ("Intersect, entwine, and entangle"). In this form of strategy you may introduce several matters into the discussion so that you can make concessions on one and gain on the other. Minor issues, however, should be handled carefully. If you take too much time with them, the other side will start fighting back as if they were large issues. Then the opponent gives in, expecting a concession on a major issue. It also covers the situation where you bring forces, arguments, or pressures of some kind to bear on a particular object of the negotiation. This corresponds to a military tactic in which machine guns are placed so as to create a devastating crossfire and cover an area more thoroughly. In chess, this approach is used where pressure from many pieces is applied to one of the opponent's pieces or spaces.

The crossroads strategy can also be used to raise a counter demand as a temporary issue when your opposer has made what you feel is an uncalled-for demand. For example, if the union negotiators should say, "We now want a shorter workweek," the employer might reply, "In view of the fact that you are now asking for a shorter workweek, on that basis we want you to give up several of the extra holidays that we had previously agreed on."

Raising a secondary issue (straw man) to conceal your main concern might be considered under this heading.

Blanketing ("Shotgun coverage"). In blanketing, one technique is to try to cover as large an area as possible to achieve a breakthrough in one or more places. In reverse order, to avoid a breakthrough by your opposer, you can cover a large segment with more force and more pressure than might be necessary. The Rockefellers with their tremendous investment in New York real estate were anxious to keep land values high by bringing as many prestigious institutions to New York as they could. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., felt that one such prize would be the establishing of United Nations headquarters in the city. The story is told that a real estate broker, William Zeckendorf, discussed the project with Rockefeller and was authorized to put together a parcel of land that would be suitable for the U.N.

With Rockefeller money behind him, Zeckendorf used the blanketing strategy. He looked over a parcel of land on New York City's East Side. It contained mainly run-down slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants. He had careful, estimates made of the value of all the pieces of property and made sure he had a good idea of what each owner would sell for. Then he offered to buy for double that price. This assured the assembling of the land rapidly before prices ballooned as the owners learned that they had a claim on Rockefeller money.

Another aspect of blanketing is where you want to prevent your opposer from knowing where your weakness lies. You can inundate him with evidence or information in an attempt to hide that area which you consider your weak spot.

Frequently when the union and an employer are ready to negotiate and the union has many demands, the employer will try any number of devices to prevent the union from setting forth its demands first. One employer systematically came into the negotiation room early each day, set up a blackboard, and filled the entire board with his demands. He did not leave a single open space on which the union could write. This visible reminder of the employer's demands took the initiative away from the union and prevented it from immediately setting forth its demands.

There is a certain group of businesspeople who are called "dealers." They are in a sense business brokers, trying to bring together the buyer and seller or other elements required. Different techniques are used by the more sagacious. However, the ordinary dealer uses the "shotgun" method. Without regard to the consequences, he brings together as many people as possible, hoping that two of them may match up and permit him to make a commission.

Randomizing ("Outbluffing by chance”). In this strategy, you make use of the law of chance to defeat the "bluffing advantage" in a game. For example, a man had become quite proficient in the game of "guess which hand the coin is in." By sleight of hand he fooled his son over and over again. His son continually made a very high percentage of wrong guesses. Then his son decided to base his guesses on the law of chance. He tossed his own coin to decide his choice. When he did this he guessed right at least 50 percent of the times, over a long period of guesses and tosses. Randomizing, using the law of chance, improved his score by making his father’s bluffing useless.

There will always be those fortunate people-the clappers in the bell-shaped curve-who can deal with statistics and the laws of probability to ring the bell. One such person was Baron Long, a famous gambler in the 1920s. Baron Long made his big killing at the Agua Caliente racetrack in Mexico. He used the maneuver of "building."

"Building" calls for a system of betting in which offtrack bookmakers pay at track odds. The track odds are, of course, based on the total amount wagered at the track on each horse. When the offtrack bookies pay at track odds they are able to keep for themselves the percentage taken off by the track for expenses and taxes.

To make his killing Baron Long had to rig the track odds so that the payoff on the fastest horses, - the favorites - was far greater than the risk involved. To do this he had a large group of associates line up at the track betting windows. They kept the public from betting the favorites. At the same time they were upsetting the odds by wagering on the poorer horses in the race.

Meanwhile, other associates were making huge bets on the favorites with the offtrack bookies. The favorite won, at track odds approaching 1000 to 1. The bookies who did not go out of business were forced to pay off at that price.

After this the bookies changed their strategy to prevent a recurrence of this maneuver. Nevertheless, the same trick was worked in Great Britain in 1964 at a greyhound track. The mastermind, a gambler named John Turner, lined up his men in front of the windows, a la Baron Long. They manipulated the odds on the race so that the payoff on the winning combination was 9875 to 1. The bookmakers, who operate legally in Great Britain, went to court-but in 1965 a High Court judge found nothing illegal in the stratagem. The judge described it as a battle of wits in which Mr. Turner had come out on top. Obviously even bookies who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

There was once a particular type of con man known as the "Murphy man." The Murphy man used the strategy of randomizing. In the 1920s, the name and game originated in the area west of Times Square known as Hell's Kitchen. This section was heavily populated by Irish immigrants. The technique of the con man was to approach a stranger in the area, offering, for a price, to obtain a girl for him. If the victim gave him some money, the con man would then take him to a tenement house and instruct him to "ring Mrs. Murphy's doorbell," the odds being that there was a Murphy somewhere in the building. You will note today that this con game is still in existence. The names have changed but the game is the same.

Random sample ("Fibbers can figure"). This involves picking a sample and assuming that the sample that has been chosen will represent the whole. Political parties use this quite frequently to show the general public that a survey they have taken indicates that their candidate will be the winner. The deception consists in planting the people who take the survey in carefully selected areas. Statistics presented in negotiations are often based on random samples and must be closely scrutinized. How to detect biased samples, deceptive averages, and other irregularities is set forth in How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis.

There is the story of the traveler who was reluctant to fly in an airplane because he heard about people carrying bombs on planes. Discussing his fear with a friend, a statistician, he asked him, "What is the probability of a bomb being on the same plane that I might take?" The statistician figured it out and came up with something like 1 in 10 million. The traveler thought awhile, and then said, "What is the probability of two bombs being on the same plane?" The statistician worked it out and replied, "I wouldn't be concerned. The probability is so remote, it could never happen in your lifetime." A year later the traveler met the statistician and the statistician asked him how things were going. "Oh, I've been flying all over. Now I'm no longer concerned about someone bringing a bomb aboard the plane that I'm on. I always carry a bomb with me." Hijacking and searching have outdated this story.

Difficult as it may be to believe, a story has it that the Beatles owe part of their early success to the strategy of random sample. The late Brian Epstein, their manager, recognized the group's potential long before the general public knew of their existence. The Beatles' initial popularity was limited to the Liverpool area. Their records did not show up on the overall hit charts.

Brian Epstein decided to change all of this. He sent his agents into the various towns in England where the record charts were compiled. Within a concentrated period of time they bought up Beatle records (which Epstein then resold in his own record shops). The Beatles' popularity rating zoomed-and they were off to the races. One result of this strategy is that Britain was helped to balance its books for some time.

In the fall of 1967, when President Johnson's popularity was at a low ebb, certain backers arranged for polls to be taken. The polls were restricted to areas where Johnson was likely to be very strong. Furthermore, they pitted him against not too strong opponents. The results were then publicized as an upturn in the President's popularity. The research firms involved were chagrined, but the backers of the polls had accomplished what they had set out to do.

A large firm wanted to spin off one of its subsidiary wholesale companies. Before they made the move, however, management decided it would be advantageous for them if they could prove some market dominance of the subsidiary. They called in a respected research agency and suggested that a survey be done in the wholesale area. The holding company narrowed down the survey guidelines so that no competitive products were in the particular area chosen. Needless to say, the conclusion reached by the independent research agency was that the subsidiary had 70 percent market dominance in the area. This made the spinoff wholesale company seem most desirable.

Most of the time when you get a random sampling, you have no idea where the sampling or the control sample came from. Even if you know, the bias inherent in the sample still might not be obvious. A humorous advertisement on television once claimed that nine out of ten doctors ate a particular brand of chop suey. Then they presented a picture of the ten doctors. One was white and nine were Chinese.

Salami ("A slice at a time"). This strategy involves taking something bit by bit, so that you eventually get possession of the entire piece. Mâtyds Râkosi, General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party, is credited with having given this technique its name. Râkosi explained the "salami" operation to his collaborators as follows: "When you want to get hold of a salami which your opponents are strenuously defending, you must not grab at it. You must start carving for yourself a very thin slice. The owner of the salami will hardly notice it, or at least he will not mind very much. The next day you will carve another slice, then still another. And so, little by little, thee whole salami will pass into your possession." This nibbling process has been very much in evidence in the actions of the Communists since World War II.

In line with this approach, never make it appear that you are trying to take anything away from your adversary, no matter how slight. Good salespeople who sell by weight do not overload the tray and then remove a portion in order to get the proper weight. They gradually build the order up to the proper weight, adding, never subtracting.

The salami tactic enables you to get your toe in the door. Large firms understand that an initial selling stage is to create an opening, do something for a potential customer, get a small slice of the action. A good example of the salami tactic was in the mortgage redemption insurance business. In past years insurance companies sold insurance to people when they took out mortgages on their new homes. The insurance would be used to pay off the mortgage in the event that the wage earner died or was disabled. One insurance company was a Johnny-come-lately to the field. Its salespeople found that the management of the largest savings-and-loan banks were not interested in giving their leads to more than one company. To meet the situation the new company instructed its salespeople to try a new tactic.

"Look," they would tell the bankers, "we're offering you a new type of service. We are not going to solicit customers personally as your old company does, and we're not going to call on the customers when they first make the loan, as it does. We're going to service your accounts in an entirely different way. We will use direct mail exclusively and we want only the names of customers who have not bought insurance from your present insurance company. We feel that you owe it to your bank and mortgagors to be given a double opportunity to protect your investment with insurance." The bank was forced to agree. The mail solicitation was extremely successful. The holders of the mortgages were in a better position to buy insurance after they had owned their houses for several years. They had more responsibilities, were more mature, and were better able to afford it.

Before much time had passed, 90 percent of the mortgage insurance went to the new firm. As soon as they reached this position, they went to the banks and said, "We now have ninety percent of the business. Don't you think that the type of service we are giving warrants our covering your customers one hundred percent?" Soon they were the sole surviving insurance company servicing the savings-and-loan associations in their area. They used the salami tactic in other areas with equal success and ended up servicing many of the banks throughout the United States.

Bracketing ("How to make and hit the mark"). This expression is taken from the old artillery term in which the first shell was arranged to fire above the target, the second below the target, and thereafter this bracket was split successively until reduced to an on-target distance. An executive of a large business firm explained his ability to retain his top position by saying he used the strategy of bracketing. His duties require him to make many decisions. He does not spend all of the decision time trying to be "right on target." He is satisfied if he is in the right area. Thereafter he merely cuts down the degree of error.

When debtors have not paid a bill, try billing them for a larger amount than due. They will usually call to dispute your figures, verify the correct amount that they owe you, and probably be quite reasonable about settling the smaller debt.

An employer had a contract with a tailoring union. Although the contract recognized four classifications of workers, all were paid the same standard rate. In the opinion of the employer the standard rate was a high one. However, this did not stop the union from asking for still higher wages. The employer had a counter-proposal: he was willing to increase the wages-of course, not as much as the union wanted-but he wanted the job classifications to be redefined. Instead of four, he wanted six classifications. The union, in consideration of the wage increase, did extend the classifications. The employer was willing to agree to a grandfather clause-that is, none of the employees then on the payroll would be subject to the new classifications-and to pay still higher wages to top expert tailors. However, he would also over a period of time pay lower rates for less skilled labor. By bracketing, paying a lower rate and a higher rate, he was able to average out the wages with the median wage right on his target.

Agency. The possible uses of an agent in negotiations are so important that they are being presented here as a separate strategic topic. It has been contended that partisan zeal should be every attorney's byword. It should also be the byword of every agent representing parties to a negotiation.

Sometimes it is expedient to let an agent conduct your negotiation for you. Certain circumstances may force you to such a decision; it can occur in any negotiation. Francis Bacon, in his essay Of Negotiating, wrote of agents:

“It is generally better to deal . . . by the mediation of a third than by a man's self... In choice of instruments, it is better to choose men of a plainer son, that are like to do that that is committed to them, and to report back again faithfully the success, than those that are cunning to contrive out of other men's business somewhat to grace themselves, and will help the matter in report for satisfaction sake. Use also such persons as affect the business wherein they are employed; for that quickeneth much; and such as are fit for the matter; as bold men for expostulation, fair-spoken men for persuasion, crafty men for inquiry and observation, forward and absurd men for business that doth not well bear out itself. Use also such as have been lucky, and prevailed before in things wherein you have employed them; for that breeds confidence, and they will strive to maintain their prescription.”

Here is an instance in which the role of an agent was played with good results.

A conference had been arranged between a man’s client and his opposer. His attorney and he were also to be present. The man’s client failed to show up at the appointed time. After waiting for him quite a while, the man suggested that they begin the negotiation. As their talk went on, he found that he was being singularly successful in getting the opposition to make commitments; but every time they asked the man for a commitment, he would say, "Well, I'm sorry, but I only have limited authority." By serving in the role of an agent, he secured many concessions for his client without committing him in any way.

The technique of giving the negotiating agent only limited authority or tying him down to specific instructions beyond which he dare not commit himself has proved extremely advantageous in many cases. The opposing party, realizing that the agent is bound to live up to the instructions, is more restrained in making demands.

In certain cases the agent may have an additional individual incentive to secure a favorable settlement. For example, when an insurance company represents a defendant in an automobile accident case, it is acting as an agent on behalf of the defendant. It also has an incentive to get the best possible settlement because it will have to pay for any damages awarded to the plaintiff, together with court costs.

Sometimes it is judicious to delegate all authority to an agent. Business people do this when they place their employees under fidelity bonds. Should any case of theft or dishonesty arise, they are relieved of the task of prosecuting or condoning the crime. They do not have the authority to act because they have placed or delegated full authority in the hands of the insurance company. This arrangement saves them from having to make many troublesome decisions. One man achieves almost the same degree of protection and avoids involvement as well-without the expense of bonding his employees. He requires every applicant for a job to fill out the regular bonding form, which he then simply files away without taking out a bond. The employee is under the impression that he has been bonded and is deterred from committing a dishonest act by the thought that he would then be up against the bonding company, which would be a lot harsher with him than the employer is likely to be.

Although an agent is often desirable in one's own cause, it also follows that in negotiations it is best to avoid dealing with the adversary's agent. If at all possible, deal with the principal. A corollary to this is, do not take for granted that you are actually dealing with the principal or even the proper party.

A pertinent case, which occurred some time ago, gives a bizarre illustration of the main point and its corollary. A man’s client's father had vanished for approximately six months after the United States entered World War II. It was only by chance that a relative discovered that the father had been working as a cook for a construction firm that had a contract to do some defense installations in Iran. Since the father was an accomplished linguist, it seemed strange that he should take a job as a cook.

Some years later his client related the story to him and said that he had been trying unsuccessfully to collect the proceeds of an insurance policy provided for all employees of the construction firm. The attorney who had been handling the case for his client heard many different stories explaining the father's conduct. One that seemed most convincing was that the father was working for the OSS and was sent on a secret mission to Iran to ascertain what was going on along the Soviet border. Having obtained the information, he wanted to get home quickly. Therefore, he started a fight with a superior. He was summarily discharged and was placed on a steamer sailing to the United States. Somewhere in the Atlantic, the steamer was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. There were a few survivors. From their written statements it was ascertained that the father was last seen floating on a raft. These circumstances, plus the passage of several years, were enough to establish the fact that he was dead. However, the construction firm for whom he worked told the attorney that they had discharged him prior to his death and therefore were no longer responsible. The lawyer pointed out that the man might have been a government agent. In answer the construction firm said that this was all the more reason for not paying any claim. Three years of threats, claims, and lawsuits were unproductive. This was the situation when the man was introduced into the picture, being retained and substituted as attorney.

After an initial investigation, the man determined that the construction firm had worked in Iran under a cost-plus government contract. If the firm could be made to pay any money, they would be reimbursed by the federal government. Therefore, he decided that his approach would be to circumvent the construction firm and go directly to the government agency that had employed the firm. The man presented his claim there.

The government agency to which the claim was made was receptive. Within one week after he had exhibited all the necessary documentation and evidence, the U.S. government paid the full claim. He never did find out if the man was or was not with the OSS. However, it is his firm belief that the father was indeed one of those heroes who had sacrificed both their identities and their lives during World War II.

The lesson to be learned from this case is always to deal with the person who signs the checks.

International corporations now use bicultural people as a type of mediator or agent. Such companies are now familiar with the kinds of cultural conflicts they meet when they set up operations in a foreign country. For example, in India a local executive will tend to hire people exclusively from his particular area. Since employment is priceless to the Indian, this sort of regional nepotism is hard to combat. The local man is constantly beset by his employees-who are also his neighbors. They feed him the "inside story" about the "others. "

www.hayatodev.net

Bedava ödev siteniz

Çok Okunan 10 Ödev

Son Okunan 10 Ödev

Kategoriler:

Haberler:

Yüklemeler

Faydalı Linkler

İngilizce-Ödevleri : WHY DO WE NEGOTIATE

INDEX

WHY DO WE NEGOTIATE?