memberfeedback,·agreeonprocess issuesandspeakingpartsasagroup(e.g.,doyourgroupmembersunderstandandagree on who will contact the other party to request a meeting or respond to inquiries the other party mayhaveaboutthegroup?,areyourmembersclearhowthemeetingwillbeconductedandwhattheagendawill be?),and.rememberthatit is bettertoofferto theotherpartythatyou will respondto a questionata laterdateratherthantoarguewithothergroupmembersoverwhatanappropriateanswermightbeDon'tthinkofthenegotiation as"win-or-lose"proposition.You should avoid the all-or-nothing wayofthinkingbyfocusingonsharedinterestsandgoals.Toagreeuponaresolutiontotheproblem,eachparty should trytosuggest solutions thattheotherside wouldfind appealinggiven its concernsandinterests.Also,inanegotiation,compromiseshouldbeanexpectedpartoftheprocess.Stayfocusedonyourgoalandacceptthat,inordertoreachanagreementwiththeotherparty.youprobablywon'tgeteverythingyouwant,butyou canmake somegreatprogressforyourmembersandyourcommunity.Reading SEmotionandNonverbal Communication inNegotiationEmotions play an important part in the negotiation process,although it is only in recent years that theireffectisbeingstudied.Emotionshavethepotentialtoplayeitherapositiveornegativeroleinnegotiation.During negotiations,the decision as to whether ornotto settle rests in partonemotionalfactors.Negativeemotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior,and can cause conflicts to escalate andnegotiationstobreakdown,butmaybeinstrumentalinattainingconcessions.Ontheotherhand,positiveemotions oftenfacilitate reaching anagreementand help to maximize jointgains,but can also beinstrumental in attaining concessions.Positive and negative discrete emotions canbe strategicallydisplayed to influence task and relational outcomes and may play out differently across culturalboundaries.1.AffectEffect.Dispositional affects affect thevarious stages ofthenegotiationprocess:which strategies are planned tobe used,which strategies areactually chosen,the way the other party andhis orher intentions areperceived, their willingness to reach an agreement and the final negotiated outcomes. Positive affectivity(PA)andnegative affectivity(NA)of oneormore of thenegotiatingsidescan leadto verydifferentoutcomes.Positiveaffect innegotiation.Evenbeforethe negotiationprocess starts,peopleinapositivemoodhavemoreconfidence,andhighertendenciestoplantouseacooperativestrategy.Duringthenegotiation,negotiatorswhoare in a positivemoodtendtoenjoytheinteractionmore,showless contentiousbehavior,use less aggressivetactics and more cooperative strategies.This in turn increases the likelihoodthatparties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability to find integrative gains. Indeed,comparedwithnegotiatorswithnegativeornaturalaffectivity,negotiatorswithpositiveaffectivityreachedmoreagreementsandtendedtohonorthoseagreementsmore.Thosefavorableoutcomesareduetobetterdecisionmakingprocesses,suchasflexiblethinking,creativeproblemsolving,respectforothers
member feedback, • agree on process issues and speaking parts as a group (e.g., do your group members understand and agree on who will contact the other party to request a meeting or respond to inquiries the other party may have about the group?, are your members clear how the meeting will be conducted and what the agenda will be?), and • remember that it is better to offer to the other party that you will respond to a question at a later date rather than to argue with other group members over what an appropriate answer might be. Don’t think of the negotiation as “win-or-lose” proposition. You should avoid the all-or-nothing way of thinking by focusing on shared interests and goals. To agree upon a resolution to the problem, each party should try to suggest solutions that the other side would find appealing given its concerns and interests. Also, in a negotiation, compromise should be an expected part of the process. Stay focused on your goal and accept that, in order to reach an agreement with the other party, you probably won’t get everything you want, but you can make some great progress for your members and your community. Reading 8 Emotion and Nonverbal Communication in Negotiation Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process, although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. During negotiations, the decision as to whether or not to settle rests in part on emotional factors. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, but may be instrumental in attaining concessions. On the other hand, positive emotions often facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains, but can also be instrumental in attaining concessions. Positive and negative discrete emotions can be strategically displayed to influence task and relational outcomes and may play out differently across cultural boundaries. 1. Affect Effect. Dispositional affects affect the various stages of the negotiation process: which strategies are planned to be used, which strategies are actually chosen, the way the other party and his or her intentions are perceived, their willingness to reach an agreement and the final negotiated outcomes. Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) of one or more of the negotiating sides can lead to very different outcomes. Positive affect in negotiation. Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence, and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy. During the negotiation, negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics and more cooperative strategies. This in turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability to find integrative gains. Indeed, compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity, negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more. Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as flexible thinking, creative problem solving, respect for others’
perspectives,willingness to take risks and higher confidence.Post negotiation positive affecthasbeneficial consequencesaswell.It increases satisfactionwithachievedoutcomeand influencesone'sdesireforfuture interactions.ThePAaroused byreaching anagreementfacilitates the dyadicrelationship,whichresult inaffectivecommitmentthat sets thestagefor subsequentinteractions.PAalso has itsdrawbacks:itdistortsperceptionof self-performance,suchthatperformanceis judgedtoberelativelybetterthan itactuallyis.Thus,studies involvingself-reportsonachievedoutcomesmightbebiasedNegative affect in negotiation.Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in thenegotiationprocess.Althoughvariousnegativeemotionsaffectnegotiationoutcomes,byfarthemostresearchedisanger.Angrynegotiatorsplantousemorecompetitivestrategiesandtocooperateless,evenbeforethenegotiationstarts.Thesecompetitivestrategiesarerelatedtoreduced jointoutcomes.Duringnegotiations,angerdisruptstheprocessbyreducingtheleveloftrust,cloudingparties'judgment,narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement toretaliating against the other side.Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent's interests and arelessaccurate in judgingtheirinterests,thusachievelower jointgains.Moreover,becauseangermakesnegotiators more self-centered in their preferences,it increases the likelihood thatthey will rejectprofitableoffers.Opponentswhoreallygetangry(orcry,orotherwiselosecontrol)aremorelikelytomakeerrors:makesuretheyare inyourfavor.Angerdoesnothelpinachievingnegotiationgoalseither.it reduces jointgainsand does nothelptoboostpersonal gains,as angrynegotiatorsdonotsucceedinclaimingmoreforthemselves.Moreover,negativeemotionsleadtoacceptanceofsettlementsthatarenot in thepositiveutility function but ratherhave anegative utility.However,expression of negativeemotions duringnegotiation cansometimesbe beneficial:legitimatelyexpressed anger can beaneffectivewaytoshowone'scommitment,sincerity,andneeds.Moreover,althoughNAreducesgainsinintegrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such as zero-sum). In his work onnegativeaffectarousal and whitenoise,Seidner(1991)found supportforthe existenceof anegativeaffectarousalmechanismthroughobservationsregardingthedevaluationofspeakersfromotherethnicorigins."Negotiation may benegativelyaffected,in turn,by submergedhostility toward an ethnic orgendergroup.2.ConditionsforEmotionAffectinNegotiationResearch indicates that negotiator's emotions do notnecessarily affect the negotiation process.Albarracinetal.(2oo3)suggested thattherearetwo conditionsforemotionalaffect,bothrelatedtotheability(presenceofenvironmentalorcognitivedisturbances)andthemotivation: Identification of the affect: requires high motivation, high ability or both.? Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either themotivation,theabilityorbotharelow.According to this model,emotions areexpectedto affectnegotiations onlywhenoneis highandtheotheris low.Whenbothabilityandmotivationarelowtheaffectwill notbeidentified,andwhenbotharehightheaffectwillbeidentifybutdiscountedas irrelevantfor judgment.Apossibleimplicationofthismodelis,forexample,thatthepositiveeffectsPAhasonnegotiations(asdescribedabove)willbeseenonlywheneithermotivationorabilityarelow.3.TheEffectofthePartner'sEmotionsMost studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator's own emotions on the
perspectives, willingness to take risks and higher confidence. Post negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well. It increases satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one’s desire for future interactions. The PA aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which result in affective commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions. PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self-performance, such that performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is. Thus, studies involving self-reports on achieved outcomes might be biased. Negative affect in negotiation. Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes , by far the most researched is anger. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts. These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties’ judgment, narrowing parties’ focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side. Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent’s interests and are less accurate in judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains. Moreover, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers. Opponents who really get angry (or cry, or otherwise lose control) are more likely to make errors: make sure they are in your favor. Anger does not help in achieving negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains and does not help to boost personal gains, as angry negotiators do not succeed in claiming more for themselves. Moreover, negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility. However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one’s commitment, sincerity, and needs. Moreover, although NA reduces gains in integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such as zero-sum). In his work on negative affect arousal and white noise, Seidner (1991) found support for the existence of a negative affect arousal mechanism through observations regarding the devaluation of speakers from other ethnic origins." Negotiation may be negatively affected, in turn, by submerged hostility towar d an ethnic or gender group. 2. Conditions for Emotion Affect in Negotiation Research indicates that negotiator’s emotions do not necessarily affect the negotiation process. Albarracın et al. (2003) suggested that there are two conditions for emotional affect, both related to the ability (presence of environmental or cognitive disturbances) and the motivation: ▪ Identification of the affect: requires high motivation, high ability or both. ▪ Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either the motivation, the ability or both are low. According to this model, emotions are expected to affect negotiations only when one is high and the other is low. When both ability and motivation are low the affect will not be identified, and when both are high the affect will be identify but discounted as irrelevant for judgment. A possible implication of this model is, for example, that the positive effects PA has on negotiations (as described above) will be seen only when either motivation or ability are low. 3. The Effect of the Partner’s Emotions Most studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator’s own emotions on the
process.However,whattheotherpartyfeelsmightbejustasimportant,asgroupemotionsareknowntoaffectprocessesbothatthegroupandthepersonallevels.Whenit comesto negotiations,trustintheotherpartyisanecessaryconditionforitsemotiontoaffect,andvisibilityenhancestheeffect.Emotionscontributetonegotiationprocessesbysignalingwhatonefeelsandthinksandcanthuspreventtheotherpartyfrom engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signalsto keep in the same way, while NApoints that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed.Partner'semotionscanhavetwobasiceffectsonnegotiator'semotionsandbehavior:mimetic/reciprocaorcomplementary.Forexample,disappointmentor sadnessmight leadto compassionandmorecooperation.InastudybyButtetal.(2oo5)whichsimulatedrealmulti-phasenegotiation,mostpeoplereactedtothepartner'semotionsinreciprocal,ratherthancomplementary,manner.Specificemotionswerefoundtohavedifferenteffectsontheopponent'sfeelingsandstrategieschosen:·Angercausedtheopponentstoplacelowerdemandsandtoconcedemoreinazero-sumnegotiationbutalsotoevaluatethenegotiationlessfavorably.Itprovokedbothdominatingandyieldingbehaviorsoftheopponent.Prideledtomoreintegrativeandcompromisestrategiesbythepartner·Guilt orregretexpressedbythenegotiatorledtobetterimpressionofhimbytheopponent,howeveritalso ledtheopponenttoplacehigherdemands.Onthe otherhand,personalguilt wasrelatedtomoresatisfactionwithwhatoneachieved..Worry ordisappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lowerdemands bytheopponent.4.NonverbalCommunication inNegotiationCommunicationisakeyelementofnegotiation.Effectivenegotiationrequiresthatparticipantseffectivelyconvey and interpret information.Participants ina negotiationwill communicate informationnotonlyverbally but non-verballythroughbodylanguage andgestures.By understanding how nonverbalcommunicationworks,anegotiatorisbetterequippedto interprettheinformationotherparticipantsareleaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate.Non-verbal"anchoring".Inanegotiation,apersoncangaintheadvantagebyverballyexpressinghis/orher positionfirst.Byanchoring"yourposition,youestablishthepositionfromwhichthenegotiationwillproceed.Ina likemanner,onecan"anchor"andgainadvantagewithnonverbal(bodylanguage)ques.·Personal space: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power.Negotiators canrepelthis strategicadvantagebypositioningalliesintheroomtosurroundthatindividual.·First impression:Beginthenegotiationwithpositivegesturesandenthusiasm.Looktheperson intheeye with sincerity. if you cannot maintain eye contact, the other person might think you are hidingsomething orthatyou areinsincere.Givea solid handshake.Reading non-verbal communication.Being able to read the non-verbal communication of anotherperson can significantly aid in the communication process.By being aware of inconsistencies between aperson'sverbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them,negotiators will beable to cometobetterresolutions.Examples of incongruity in bodylanguageinclude:· Nervous laugh:A laugh not matching the situation. This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort
process. However, what the other party feels might be just as important, as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels. When it comes to negotiations, trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect, and visibility enhances the effect. Emotions contribute to negotiation processes by signaling what one feels and thinks and can thus prevent the other party from engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signals to keep in the same way, while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed. Partner’s emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator’s emotions and behavior: mimetic/reciprocal or complementary. For example, disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation. In a study by Butt et al. (2005) which simulated real multi-phase negotiation, most people reacted to the partner’s emotions in reciprocal, rather than complementary, manner. Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent’s feelings and strategies chosen: • Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably. It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent. • Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner. • Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of him by the opponent, however it also led the opponent to place higher demands. On the other hand, personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved. • Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent. 4. Nonverbal Communication in Negotiation Communication is a key element of negotiation. Effective negotiation requires that participants effectively convey and interpret information. Participants in a negotiation will communicate information not only verbally but non-verbally through body language and gestures. By understanding how nonverbal communication works, a negotiator is better equipped to interpret the information other participants are leaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate. Non-verbal “anchoring”. In a negotiation, a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing his/or her position first. By “anchoring” your position, you establish the position from which the negotiation will proceed. In a like manner, one can “anchor” and gain advantage with nonverbal (body language) ques. • Personal space: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power. Negotiators can repel this strategic advantage by positioning allies in the room to surround that individual. • First impression: Begin the negotiation with positive gestures and enthusiasm. Look the person in the eye with sincerity. If you cannot maintain eye contact, the other person might think you are hiding something or that you are insincere. Give a solid handshake. Reading non-verbal communication. Being able to read the non-verbal communication of another person can significantly aid in the communication process. By being aware of inconsistencies between a person’s verbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them, negotiators will be able to come to better resolutions. Examples of incongruity in body language include: • Nervous laugh: A laugh not matching the situation. This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort
When this happens,itmaybegoodto probewithquestions todiscoverthe person's truefeelings.Positive words but negative body language:If someone asks their negotiation partner if they areannoyed andthe person pounds theirfist and responds sharply,"what makes youthink anything isbotheringme?"·Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/herhands in this position reveals frustrationeven when he/she is smiling. This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negativeattitude.:Ifpossible,itmaybehelpful fornegotiationpartnerstospendtimetogetherinacomfortablesettingoutsideofthenegotiationroom.Knowinghoweachpartnernon-verballycommunicatesoutsideofthenegotiation settingwill helpnegotiationpartnersto sense incongruitybetweenverbaland non-verbalcommunication within the negotiation setting.Conveying receptivity.The way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other mayinfluencehowreceptiveeachistotheotherperson'smessageand ideas.:Face and eyes:Receptive negotiators smile,make plenty of eye contact.This conveys the idea thatthere is more interest in the person than in what is being said. On the other hand, non-receptivenegotiatorsmake little to no eye contact.Their eyesmaybe squinted,jawmuscles clenched and headturned slightlyawayfromthespeaker.·Armsandhands:Toshowreceptivity,negotiatorsshouldspreadarmsandopenhandsontableorrelaxed ontheirlap.Negotiators show poorreceptivitywhen their hands are clenched,crossed,positioned infrontoftheirmouth, or rubbingtheback oftheir neck.·Legs and feet:Receptive negotiators sit withlegs together or one leg slightly in front ofthe other.Whenstanding, they distribute weight evenly and place hands on their hips with their body tilted toward thespeaker.Non-receptive negotiators stand withlegs crossed,pointing awayfromthe speaker..Torso:Receptive negotiators sit on the edgeof their chair,unbutton their suit coatwith their body tiltedtoward the speaker.Non-receptivenegotiatorsmaylean backintheir chair andkeep their suit coatbuttoned.Receptivenegotiatorstendtoappearrelaxedwiththeirhandsopenandpalmsvisiblydisplayed.Reading9TheBehaviorofSkilledNegotiators1.HowtheSkilledNegotiatorPlansNegotiationemphasizestheimportanceofplanning.Howdoestheskillednegotiatorplan?Amount of Planning Time.There is no significant difference between the total planning time whichskilledandaveragenegotiatorsspendpriortoactual negotiation.Itsuggeststhatit isnottheamountofplanningtimewhichmakesforsuccess,buthowthattimeisusedExploration ofOptions.Theskillednegotiatorconsidersa widerrangeofoutcomesoroptionsforactionthan the average negotiator.Skilled negotiators are concerned with the whole spectrum of possibilities, both those which they could
When this happens, it may be good to probe with questions to discover the person’s true feelings. • Positive words but negative body language: If someone asks their negotiation partner if they are annoyed and the person pounds their fist and responds sharply, “what makes you think anything is bothering me?” • Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/her hands in this position reveals frustration even when he/she is smiling. This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negative attitude. • If possible, it may be helpful for negotiation partners to spend time together in a comfortable setting outside of the negotiation room. Knowing how each partner non-verbally communicates outside of the negotiation setting will help negotiation partners to sense incongruity between verbal and non -verbal communication within the negotiation setting. Conveying receptivity. The way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other may influence how receptive each is to the other person’s message and ideas. • Face and eyes: Receptive negotiators smile, make plenty of eye contact. This conveys the idea that there is more interest in the person than in what is being said. On the other hand, non -receptive negotiators make little to no eye contact. Their eyes may be squinted, jaw muscles clenched and head turned slightly away from the speaker. • Arms and hands: To show receptivity, negotiators should spread arms and open hands on table or relaxed on their lap. Negotiators show poor receptivity when their hands are clenched, crossed, positioned in front of their mouth, or rubbing the back of their neck. • Legs and feet: Receptive negotiators sit with legs together or one leg slightly in front of the other. When standing, they distribute weight evenly and place hands on their hips with their body tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators stand with legs crossed, pointing away from the speaker. • Torso: Receptive negotiators sit on the edge of their chair, unbutton their suit coat with their body tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators may lean back in their chair and keep their suit coat buttoned. Receptive negotiators tend to appear relaxed with their hands open and palms visibly displayed. Reading 9 The Behavior of Skilled Negotiators 1. How the Skilled Negotiator Plans Negotiation emphasizes the importance of planning. How does the skilled negotiator plan? Amount of Planning Time. There is no significant difference between the total planning time which skilled and average negotiators spend prior to actual negotiation. It suggests that it is not the amount of planning time which makes for success, but how that time is used. Exploration of Options.The skilled negotiator considers a wider range of outcomes or options for action than the average negotiator. Skilled negotiators are concerned with the whole spectrum of possibilities, both those which they could
introducethemselvesandthosewhichmightbeintroducedbythepeopletheynegotiatewith.Incontrasttheaveragenegotiatorconsidersfewoptions.Theyareespeciallyless likelytoconsideroptionswhichmightberaisedbytheotherparty.CommonGround.Does the skillednegotiatorconcentrateduringplanning ontheareaswhichholdmostpotential for conflict, or instead give attention to possible areas of common ground?Although both skilledandaveragenegotiatorstendtoconcentrateontheconflictareas,skillednegotiatorstendtogiveoverthreetimes as muchattention to commongroundareasasdoaveragenegotiators.It can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It may be,for example, that the sklled negotiator has alreadybuilt a climate of agreement so that undue concentration on conflict is unnecessary. Equallyconcentrationonthecommongroundareasmaybethekeytobuildingasatisfactoryclimateinthefirstplace.A relatively high concentration on common ground areas is known to be an effective strategy ofpersuasion,notablywith“pull"stylesofpersuasionandinsellingsituations.Inanyevent,potentialnegotiatorswishingtomodelthemselvesonsuccessful performerswoulddowellto pay special attention to areas ofanticipated common ground and not just to areas of conflict.Long-termor Short-term? It is often suggested that skilled negotiators spend much of their planningtimeconsideringthelong-termimplicationsoftheissues,whileunskillednegotiatorsconcentrateontheshort-term.Is this true in practice?Researchers found thatboth skilled and averagenegotiators show analarming concentration on the short-term aspectof issues.With average negotiators,approximately onecommentin25duringtheirplanning isof along-termconsideration,namelya commentwhichinvolvesanyfactor extending beyond the immediate implementation of the issue under negotiation.The skillednegotiator,whileshowingtwiceasmanylong-termcomments,still onlyaverages8.5percentoftotalplanningcomments.Evenso,theydemonstratehowlittleplanningtimeisgivenbymostnegotiatorstothelong-termimplicationsofwhattheynegotiate.SettingLimits.Skillednegotiators weresignificantlymore likelyto setupperand lowerlimits-toplan intermsofadefinedrange(e.g."wehopetoget37g,butwewouldsettleforaminimumof34g").Averagenegotiators,in contrast, were more likely to plan their objectives around a fixed point (e.g.,"we aim tosettleat83g").Alithoughonepossibleexplanationisthatskilled negotiatorshavemorefreedom,whichgives them the discretion of upper and lower limits. Even where the average negotiators haveconsiderablecapacitytovarythetermsofanagreement,theyusually approachthenegotiation withafixed-pointobjectiveinmind.Theconclusion,forwould-benegotiators,isthatitispreferabletoapproacha negotiationwithobjectives specifyinga clearlydefinedrange,ratherthanto baseplanningon aninflexiblesingle-pointobjective.Sequence and Issue Planning.The term“planning"frequentlyrefers to a process of sequencing-putting a number of events, points, or potential occurrences into a time sequence. This concept ofplanning,called sequence planning,works efficiently with inanimateobjects, or in circumstances wherethe planner has real control over the sequence in which events will occur. Average negotiators place veryheavyreliance on sequenceplanning.So,forexample,theywouldfrequentlyverbalizea potentialnegotiationintermslike,"First I'llcoverCandfinallygoontoD."Inordertosucceed,sequenceplanning
introduce themselves and those which might be introduced by the people they negotiate with. In contrast, the average negotiator considers few options. They are especially less likely to consider options which might be raised by the other party. Common Ground. Does the skilled negotiator concentrate during planning on the areas which hold most potential for conflict, or instead give attention to possible areas of common ground?Although both skilled and average negotiators tend to concentrate on the conflict areas, skilled negotiators tend to give over three times as much attention to common ground areas as do average negotiators. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It may be, for example, that the skilled negotiator has already built a climate of agreement so that undue concentration on conflict is unnecessary. Equally, concentration on the common ground areas may be the key to building a satisfactory climate in the first place. A relatively high concentration on common ground areas is known to be an effective strategy of persuasion, notably with “pull” styles of persuasion and in selling situations. In any event, potential negotiators wishing to model themselves on successful performers would do well to pay special attention to areas of anticipated common ground and not just to area s of conflict. Long-term or Short-term? It is often suggested that skilled negotiators spend much of their planning time considering the long-term implications of the issues, while unskilled negotiators concentrate on the short-term. Is this true in practice? Researchers found that both skilled and average negotiators show an alarming concentration on the short-term aspect of issues. With average negotiators, approximately one comment in 25 during their planning is of a long-term consideration, namely a comment which involves any factor extending beyond the immediate implementation of the issue under negotiation. The skilled negotiator, while showing twice as many long-term comments, still only averages 8.5 percent of total planning comments. Even so, they demonstrate how little planning time is given by most negotiators to the long-term implications of what they negotiate. Setting Limits. Skilled negotiators were significantly more likely to set upper and lower limits—to plan in terms of a defined range (e.g., “we hope to get 37¢, but we would settle for a minimum of 34¢”). Average negotiators, in contrast, were more likely to plan their objectives around a fixed point (e.g., “we aim to settle at 83¢”). Although one possible explanation is that skilled negotiators have more freedom, which gives them the discretion of upper and lower limits. Even where the average negotiators have considerable capacity to vary the terms of an agreement, they usually approach the negotiation with a fixed-point objective in mind. The conclusion, for would-be negotiators, is that it is preferable to approach a negotiation with objectives specifying a clearly defined range, rather than to base planning on an inflexible single-point objective. Sequence and Issue Planning. The term “planning” frequently refers to a process of sequencing— putting a number of events, points, or potential occurrences into a time sequence. This concept of planning, called sequence planning, works efficiently with inanimate objects, or in circumstances where the planner has real control over the sequence in which events will occur. Average negotiators place very heavy reliance on sequence planning. So, for example, they would frequently verbalize a potent ial negotiation in terms like, “First I’ll cover C and finally go on to D.” In order to succeed, sequence planning