real estate discussion question ( 150 words minimim)
Qwert01
negoarticle.pdf
NEGOTIATION STRATEGY 4
Dealing with a Spoiler? Negotiate Around the Problem
Sometimes the best way to deal with obstinate negotiators is to bypass them completely. Here’s how to execute an effective workaround.
BY ROBERT C. BORDONE
NEGOTIATION DYNAMICS 7
Taking BATNA to the Next Level
By enhancing your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, you can gain a critical advantage at the table.
BY GUHAN SUBRAMANIAN
ACROSS THE TABLE 9
When Dividing the Pie, Smart Negotiators Get Creative
Don’t settle for uninspired compromises. Find ways to modify and expand resources to achieve more value.
BY DEBORAH M. KOLB AND PETER J. CARNEVALE
RESEARCH SUMMARIES 12
The Heat of the Moment
Do Attitudes Influence Results?
C O M M U N I C A T I O N
Negotiating Differences: How
Contrasting Styles Affect Outcomes
Not everyone bargains the same way. By becoming
attuned to various social motives, you can adapt
your own approach for the better.
B Y L A U R I E R . W E I N G A R T
H O W W O U L D Y O U D E S C R I B E your negotiating
style? Are you a cooperative negotiator who
focuses on crafting agreements that benefit
everyone, or do you actively compete to get a better
deal than your counterpart? Perhaps you follow a
third route, concentrating only on maximizing
your own outcomes with little concern for how the
other side performs.
In any given negotiation, your style has a stable compo-
nent that comes from your disposition and personality; continued on page 2
some people are naturally more cooperative than others,
for instance. Yet your style will also fluctuate depending on
the situation and the person across the table. For example,
you’re more likely to focus on maximizing joint gain when
you’re negotiating a joint venture with a trusted colleague,
than when you’re battling with other department heads
over the annual budget.
What happens when negotiators with different styles—
or those with similar styles, for that matter—meet at the
bargaining table? Are certain style combinations more
desirable than others? Should you try to adapt your style to
each negotiation? This article addresses these and other
commonly asked questions about negotiation style and, in
particular, illuminates the consequences of using coopera-
tive versus more self-interested strategies.
“What type of negotiator am I?” Differences in social motives, or one’s preference for certain
types of outcomes in interactions with others, affect how
individuals approach negotiation. Psychologists have iden-
tified four basic types of social motives that drive human
behavior in competitive situations such as negotiation:
1. Individualists are motivated to maximize their
own outcomes without concern for the out-
comes of others. About half of U.S. negotiators
studied (typically students and businesspeople)
have an individualistic orientation, making this
the most common group.
2. Cooperators, comprising approximately 25% to
35% of U.S. study participants, are motivated to
I N S I D E
Negotiation and Decision-Making Strategies That Deliver Results
A Newsletter Published by
the Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law School
Volume 10
Number 1
January 2007
maximize both their own and other parties’
outcomes and to ensure that gains are fairly
distributed.
3. Competitives, comprising about 5% to 10% of
U.S. study participants, prefer outcomes that
maximize the difference between their own and
others’ outcomes. They want to win—and by a
wide margin. As a result, their behavior tends to
be the most self-serving, and their lack of trust
makes joint problem solving difficult.
4. Altruists seek to maximize the other party’s out-
come without concern for their own. Altruists
are difficult to find in today’s business world, so
little research has been done on this motive in
negotiation contexts.
Because relatively few people fall into the latter two cate-
gories, most of the negotiation literature has focused on indi-
vidualists and cooperators; this article will as well. Carsten De
Dreu of the University of Amsterdam, Seungwoo Kwon of
Korea University, and I have found that individualists engage
in more value-claiming behavior than do cooperators;
specifically, they are more likely than cooperators to make
threats (within limits), to argue and substantiate their posi-
tions, and to make single-issue offers. Cooperators are more
likely than individualists to engage in value-creating strate-
gies such as providing information, asking questions, gaining
insight into the other party, and making multi-issue offers
and tradeoffs. However, cooperators sometimes act competi-
tively, just as individualists sometimes cooperate. As I will
explain, your counterpart’s approach can influence your own
choice of strategy significantly.
“What type of negotiator should I be?” Should a negotiator focus on maximizing her own out-
comes, or should she take a more cooperative approach?
Cooperative negotiators are more likely than hard bar-
gainers to discover creative solutions that expand the pie of
resources for both sides, as Catherine H. Tinsley and Kath-
leen O’Connor concluded in their December 2006 Negoti-
ation article, “Want the Best Deal Possible? Cultivate a
Cooperative Reputation.” Furthermore, those who engage
in cooperative strategies report higher satisfaction with the
negotiation process and its outcomes than do more self-
interested or competitive negotiators—and they build
strong business relationships as a result.
Cooperators are also more effective than individualists
at using value-creating strategies to improve their own
outcomes, my research with Mary Kern of Baruch College
and Jeanne Brett of Northwestern University has shown.
Why might this be true? It could be that cooperators
appear more sincere than individualists when working to
create value.
Despite the proven benefits of cooperative behavior, many
negotiators fail to engage fully in the process of maximizing
joint gain. Some don’t gravitate naturally toward strategies
aimed at meeting both sides’ interests. Others worry that
cooperation leaves them vulnerable to exploitation.
It’s tempting to draw conclusions about the relative
advantages and disadvantages of particular social motives.
Yet even if you were to change your approach, style differ-
ences would continue to crop up in your negotiations.
Your overarching social motive influences not only what
strategies you use but also how you use them—and the
same goes for your counterpart.
Negotiating Differences (continued)
2 Negotiation
Production and Marketing Circulation and Fulfillment pnmsi Production Manager Beverly Freeman Design Flanders + Associates
Editorial Publisher Susan Hackley
Managing Director Program on Negotiation
Assistant Director James Kerwin Academic Editor Guhan Subramanian Managing Editor Margaret Bucholt Editor Katie Shonk
Letters and editorial submissions: Send questions, comments, and proposals to
Editor, Negotiation, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 1563
Massachusetts Avenue, 513 Pound Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138-2903 or to
Subscription rates: To subscribe to Negotiation, visit www.pon.harvard.edu.
$149/year in the United States; $169/year in Canada, Mexico, and all other coun-
tries. Single newsletter issue, PDF only: $20; article, PDF only: $10. For discounts
on group subscriptions (two or more copies to same location), call 800-391-8629
or e-mail [email protected].
Service and permissions: Negotiation (ISSN 1546-9522) is published monthly by the
Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 1563 Massachusetts Avenue, 513 Pound
Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138-2903. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
Negotiation, Program on Negotiation, P.O. Box 230, Boyds, MD 20841-0230. To resolve
subscription service problems, please call 800-391-8629 or 301-528-2676.
Copyright © 2007 by President and Fellows of Harvard College. Quotation of up
to 50 words per article is permitted with attribution to Negotiation. Otherwise,
material may not be republished, quoted, or reproduced in any form without
permission of the Program on Negotiation. To request permission to copy,
republish, or quote materials, please call 800-391-8629 or 301-528-2676, or e-mail
Articles in this newsletter draw on a variety of sources, including published reports,
interviews with practicing managers and consultants, and research by scholars,
some but not all of whom are affiliated with Harvard University. Articles reflect the
views of the author.
Negotiation About this publication
Negotiation offers subscribers practical advice and guidance for developing and
honing skills in the art of negotiation. Published monthly, Negotiation’s editorial
content is provided by academics from Harvard Law School, Harvard Business
School, and other centers around the world. Negotiation is one of an array of
teaching, training, and learning tools and services offered by the Program on
Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School.
About the Program on Negotiation
The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School is a world-renowned inter-
disciplinary center focused on negotiation and conflict resolution. Founded in
1983, PON is a consortium of faculty, students, and associates at Harvard University,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University, and other Boston-area
schools. Drawing from numerous fields of study, including law, business, govern-
ment, psychology, economics, anthropology, and education, PON connects rigorous
research and scholarship with a deep understanding of practice.
looming deadline. Some begin working to create value. This
shift may help them reach an agreement, but they may not
actually achieve high outcomes for themselves.
Yet individualistic negotiating pairs can reach high-
quality agreements, my colleagues and I have found. (See
the sidebar “Individualists: Cooperate to Claim Value.”)
“What if we have different social motives?” When a cooperator and an individualist bargain, the situa-
tion grows more complex. In addition to engaging your
own strategy, you must react and adjust to a style that may
strike you as foreign or inappropriate.
Notably, though, people in negotiation tend to converge
in their approaches, which allows their interactions to
become more predictable, Kathleen McGinn of Harvard
Business School and Angela Keros of Goldman Sachs have
found. Negotiators get in sync by purposefully reciprocat-
ing each other’s approaches and subconsciously mimick-
ing behaviors, my research with Michael Prietula of Emory
University and Elaine Hyder and Chris Genovese of
Carnegie Mellon University has shown.
Whose social motive will dominate the “hybrid” style?
Individualists will not dominate and outperform coopera-
tors for the simple reason that a cooperator is not necessarily
January 2007 3
“What if we have the same social motive?” When two people share the same motive, they fall prey to
the same flaws and reinforce each other’s failings. Consider
a labor negotiation in which the chief management nego-
tiator withholds information about revenue projections,
while the labor leader holds back details about workforce
sentiment. Impasse is the predicable result. When you’re
negotiating with a fellow individualist or a fellow coopera-
tor, your goal should be to overcome the inherent flaws of
your orientation.
The case of two cooperators. Two cooperators who meet at the negotiating table risk
concentrating so closely on each other’s interests that they
lose sight of their own—and settle for outcomes that split
the difference rather than truly satisfy both parties’ inter-
ests. Imagine that a newly hired research analyst fails to ask
his manager for a cutting-edge workstation for fear of
appearing greedy. The manager, who has already been
quite responsive to his requests, would happily provide the
workstation were she aware of the potential upside. Unfor-
tunately, this joint benefit goes undiscovered.
My research with Mara Olekalns of the University of
Melbourne and Jeanne Brett suggests strategies that can
improve the outcomes of such negotiations. When you’re
negotiating with a fellow cooperator, include value-claiming
behaviors in your repertoire: make offers that focus on a sin-
gle issue, communicate your own preferences and positions,
and clarify your limits. When you claim value in a context of
cooperation and trust, you focus the negotiation on explor-
ing value-maximizing agreements—but be careful not to
shift talks from problem solving into contentiousness.
The case of two individualists. When two individualists negotiate, their natural ten-
dency to use value-claiming strategies, such as making
demands and threats, can escalate into conflict and
impasse, Olekalns and Philip Smith of the University of
Melbourne have found. As Katie A. Liljenquist and Adam
D. Galinsky noted in their September 2006 Negotiation
article, “How to Defuse Threats at the Bargaining Table,”
people tend to reciprocate negative behaviors more than
positive ones.
As conflict increases, the odds of maximizing mutual
gain decrease, as do your chances of maximizing individual
gain. Suppose two individualists negotiate a joint venture.
Although both parties may feel they got the best outcome
possible, the resulting agreement will likely overlook syner-
gies across the two organizations. An exception to this ten-
dency sometimes emerges when individualists face a
INDIVIDUALISTS: COOPERATE TO CLAIM VALUE
What happens in negotiations between two individu-
alists who care little about each other’s outcomes? Sup-
pose an engineer and an industrial designer are
arguing over the design of a car bumper. The designer
cares only about whether the bumper matches the style
of the vehicle; the engineer is concerned only about
how the bumper connects to the front. After describ-
ing the trouble he’s having with the existing design, the
engineer presents a solution that the designer deems
“ugly.” The designer threatens to involve her boss if the
engineer doesn’t revert to a prior design
You’re the engineer—what do you do? First, balance
your value-claiming strategies by working to create
value. Ask the designer to explain where she thinks the
new design went wrong, and identify possible solu-
tions and low-priority issues on which you can offer
tradeoffs. Second, remind her that there’s hope for a
solution if you both let down your guard and work
together. Third, listen openly to the designer’s propos-
als and try to build on them. Above all, ensure that
your cooperative moves are reciprocated, or you’ll be
vulnerable to exploitation.
4 Negotiation
an individualist, you should avoid revealing too much
information if none is forthcoming. Instead, reciprocate
contentious behavior while signaling your desire to switch
to cooperation. Merely identifying a tactic as unacceptable
can neutralize it, assuming you provide a more effective
course.
If you’re an individualist, don’t lose sight of your ability
to protect yourself from difficult opponents. Even when a
solution is not immediately obvious, you’re likely to keep
forging ahead. At the same time, pick up the signals your
counterpart is sending. Reciprocate cooperative behavior,
and don’t be overly wary until you are absolutely sure the
other side can’t be trusted. �
Laurie R. Weingart is a professor of organizational behavior at the
Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University, where she
has researched and taught negotiation skills for more than 15 years.
She can be reached at [email protected].
To order a reprint of this article, call 800-391-8629.
a naïve negotiator. Brett, Olekalns, Smith, and I have found
that cooperators are more sensitive than individualists to
the approaches of others and more likely to adjust in response.
They claim more value when negotiating with individualists.
Much less sensitive to the negotiating environment,
individualists tend to focus on claiming value regardless of
their counterparts’ social motive. Individualists may not
even realize they are negotiating with cooperative oppo-
nents, who quickly switch tactics in response to competi-
tive behavior.
“How can I capitalize on my natural tendencies?” Rather than trying to overhaul your social motive completely,
it makes more sense to work on strengthening your natural
talents and practicing the best elements of other styles.
If you’re a cooperator, this means capitalizing on your
ability to detect others’ social motives and adapting your
own approach accordingly. Although you shouldn’t
immediately abandon problem solving when faced with
Negotiating Differences (continued)
N E G O T I A T I O N S T R A T E G Y
Dealing with a Spoiler? Negotiate Around the Problem
Sometimes the best way to deal with obstinate negotiators is to bypass them completely.
Here’s how to execute an effective workaround.
B Y R O B E R T C . B O R D O N E
A T ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, most of us have confronted a fel- low negotiator who seemed intent on blocking even
our most reasonable requests and actions. This was the sit-
uation faced by Alexis, the CIO at a midsize publishing
company. Phil, the company’s CEO, hired Alexis to create
an online information system tailored to the needs of their
largest customers. Phil promised to support Alexis as she
implemented the new system and restructured the IT
department. The two met on many occasions to negotiate
issues related to cost, increased staff needs, impact on cus-
tomers, and coordination challenges.
Despite his promises of cooperation, in almost every
meeting with Alexis, Phil proved to be a barrier to her
problem-solving efforts. He repeatedly denied her request
to increase the size of her staff, limited her authority, and
delayed making important decisions. To her frustration
and embarrassment, Alexis faced huge project delays, ris-
ing costs, and low credibility throughout the organization.
She felt stuck between two unhappy choices: accepting the
status quo or starting another job search.
In past issues of Negotiation, we’ve shown you ways to
transform a difficult counterpart’s no into a hearty yes. But
what happens when you’ve followed all this good advice
and still find yourself faced with a perpetual naysayer?
When interpersonal and tactical strategies fail to win
over someone whose approval is essential to your goals, the
negotiation may seem hopeless. Fortunately, there is an
option of last resort. Consider crafting what I call a
workaround—a strategic approach to getting what you
need without the involvement or support of your adversary.
What type of spoiler are you facing? When your best efforts fail to budge the other party in the
right direction, you may be facing one of the three types of
“spoilers” identified by Stanford University professor
Stephen John Stedman.
