Chapter 1: Introduction to Negotiation

Posted in Chapter 1: Introduction on March 5, 2010| Leave a Comment »

6 Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation

1. Two or more parties involved

• It involves two or more individuals, groups or organizations

2. Conflict of needs & desires

• What one party wants is may not be what the other wants

3. Voluntary process

• Negotiators negotiate by choice

• Believe that they can get a better deal by negotiating than accepting what is voluntarily

exchanged

4. “Give & take “ process

• Parties move away from their opening positions to middle position (compromise) to reach an

agreement accepted by both

5. Preference for negotiation & search for agreement to fighting openly

• Parties prefer to invent their own solution that resolves the conflict

• No fixed rules on how to resolve the conflict

6. Management of tangibles & resolution of intangibles

• Intangible factors (psychological motivations) that may directly or indirectly influence parties in

negotiation

• Examples : the need to “win”, “look good”, protect one’s reputation

• Have enormous influence on negotiation processes & outcomes

Interdependence

– Parties need each other to achieve their desired objectives / outcomes.

– Either they need to coordinate with each other to achieve their own objectives

– Or choose to work together because joint efforts can produce better outcomes than individual

effort

Types of Interdependence affect Outcomes

• Goals of both parties are interconnected such that only 1 party achieve his/her goal Zero-sum /

distributive situation , -ve correlation between their goal

attainments

• Goals of both parties are linked such that when 1 party’s goal achievement helps the other party

achieve his/her goal as well Non-zero-sum / integrative

situation , +ve correlation between their goal attainments

Alternatives Shape Interdependence

• Desirability of alternatives to working together is used to evaluate interdependence

• Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

• Need to understand one’s & counterpart’s BATNA

Mutual Adjustment

– One of the key causes of changes occurring during negotiation

– One assumption for successful mutual adjustment : the more information one has about the

other party , the better

– However, too much information may only confuse the parties involved

Mutual Adjustment & Concession Making

• When one party adjust his position to the another nearer to the counterpart’s position, it’s

concession making

• Parties involved will likely make similar concessions until a mutual agreement is reached.

Two dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment

Dilemma of honesty

o How much to tell the other party?

o Revealing too much info puts one in a vulnerable position, susceptible to being taken advantage

of

o Revealing too little info may not help in allowing both parties to look for an agreement

Dilemma of trust

o How much should one believe what the other party says?

o Believing in all of the other party’s words may put one in disadvantage

o Not believing in the other party’s words may make it difficult to find an agreement

Value Claiming & Value Creation

– Two types of negotiation:

o Distributive

o Intergrative

– Distributive is associated with Value Claiming

o Only 1 winner

o Each party tries to claim as much as possible from the fixed resource

– Integrative is associated with Value Creation

o Win-win strategies applied to create win-win situations

o Finding ways for all parties to meet their goals and objectives by either finding more resources

or coordinating and sharing the resources

– Most negotiations have a combination of value creation & claiming processes

o Negotiators must be able to identify situations that require more of one approach than the other

o Negotiators should be versatile and comfortable with the use of both approaches

o Negotiators tend to see problems as more distributive/competitive than they really are
Key differences between Negotiators

• Differences in interests

o Items are seldom regarded equally in negotiations

• Differences in judgments about the future

o People hold differing views about the future value of something

• Differences in risk tolerance

o Different people have different risk appetite

• Differences in time preference

– Time has different impact on different parties

Conflict

– It is defined as “a disagreement in interests, views or positions.”

Levels of Conflict

1. Intrapersonal or intrapsychic conflict

a. Occurs within a person

b. Can include conflicting ideas, emotions etc.

2. Interpersonal conflict

a. Occurs between individuals

b. Clash of interests, views between eg. Co-workers, classmates, friends

3. Intragroup conflict

a. Occurs within groups or organizations

b. Affects groups’ ability to function well

4. Intergroup conflict

a. Occurs between different groups or organizations

b. Most complex form of negotiation

5 major strategies for Conflict Management

• Contending

– Strong focus on own desired outcomes

– Little concern for other’s outcomes

• Yielding

– Little concern for own desired outcomes

– Highly concerned about other’s outcomes

– “let the other win” mentality

• Inaction

– Little concern in either one’s own or other party’s outcomes

– Associated with passivity

• Problem-solving
– High concern for both one’s own and other’s party’s outcomes

– Both parties try to make the most out of their collaborative efforts in the conflict

• Compromising

– Making moderate efforts to achieve one’s and other party’s outcomes

Chapter 2: Hardball Tactics
March 5, 2010 by nego4biz

8 Typical Hardball Tactics

1. Good Cop / Bad Cop

a. “Bad cop” plays the role of the bad guy who takes tough measures (threats, intimidation)

against the targeted party

b. “Bad cop” leaves the negotiation table for the “Good cop” to come and offer the targeted party

“an easy way out” of the situation

c. The “easy way out” option is meant for the targeted party to yield to the team’s demands

Advantages

• Often results in negotiated agreements

Disadvantages

• Easily seen through by targeted party

• Can be countered easily by clearly exposing the negotiators’ plot

• Distracts the negotiators from the negotiation goals

Dealing with Good Cop / Bad Cop

• Openly exposing the negotiators’ plot

2. Lowball / Highball

a. Starts the negotiation with a unreasonable low(high) opening offer

Advantages

• Aims to get the other party to re-evaluate his opening offer & move closer to his resistance point

Disadvantages

• Other party may not want to negotiate at all

• Requires a skilled negotiator to explain his extreme opening offer if the other party continues to

negotiate

Dealing with Lowball / Highball

• Best tactic : ask for a more reasonable opening offer instead of a counter offer

• Insisting on a reasonable opening offer before negotiating further

• Show that you are familiar with the bargaining mix and therefore you will not be fooled

• Show your displeasure of such tactic used against you by threatening to leave the negotiating
table

• Come up with an extreme counter offer

3. Bogey

a. Negotiator pretends that an unimportant issue is quite important to him

b. Use this tactic to trade and make concessions for issues that are really important

Advantages

• Difficult to defend against

Disadvantages

• Difficult to enact

• May backfire if the other party takes you seriously and therefore giving you what you want to

bogey away

Dealing with Bogey

• Question why the negotiator wants a particular outcome or makes a sudden reversal in positions

• Not conceding to what the negotiator wants after his sudden reversal in position

4. The Nibble

a. Negotiator adds a small item(the nibble) to the agreement when the both parties had spent

significant time & effort in negotiation and the agreement is near

Advantages

• None

Disadvantages

• Although the nibble is small in size, it’s enough to upset the other party

• The other party may be motivated to seek revenge in future negotiations

Dealing with The Nibble

• Ask the negotiator “What else do you want?” every time he asks for a nibble, until all issues are

raised and identified

• Come up with one’s own nibbles in exchange for the negotiator’s nibbles

5. Chicken

a. The negotiator uses a big bluff with a threatened action, in order to force the other party to

“chicken out” and yield to their demands

Advantages

• Non

Disadvantages

• Turns the negotiation into a high-stakes gamble for both sides

• Makes it hard to distinguish whether either party will follow through on his/her stated course of

action

Dealing with Chicken

• Preparation before negotiation helps to understand both parties’ situations

• Using external sources to verify what’s exchanged in the negotiation

6. Intimidation

a. Many tactics take the form of intimidation

b. Common point of these tactics: the use of emotional ploys to force the other party to yield

c. Other forms of intimidation : increasing the appearance of legitimacy & guilt

d. All these tactics make intimidator feel more powerful

e. Leads the targeted party to give in due to emotional rather than objective reasons

Dealing with Intimidation

• Discuss the negotiation process with the intimidator, stating that you expect a fair negotiation

process

• Ignore the intimidation

• Using a team to negotiate with the intimidator

o Not everyone in the team is intimidated by the same things

o Team members provide mutual support to one another through the process

7. Aggressive Behavior

a. Similar to intimidation tactics

b. Being aggressive in establishing your position and attacking the other party’s position eg.

i. Asking for best offer early in the negotiation

ii. Getting the other party to explain his position by justifying item by item

c. Getting the other party to make many concessions

Dealing with Aggressive Behavior

• Stop the negotiation to discuss the process itself

• Using a team of negotiators to negotiate with the aggressive party

8. Snow Job

a. To overwhelm the other party with large amount of information, such that the other party have

a problem determining which information are real or important

b. To use technical or expert language such that a non-expert party cannot understand and would

simply acknowledge it just to avoid embarrassment

Dealing with Snow Job

• Not to be afraid to ask questions until a clearly understood answer is obtained

• Use of technical experts to discuss and verify technical issues

• Looking out for inconsistency in the negotiator’s answer or response & ask if in doubt

Chapter 2: Distributive Negotiation

• The Distributive Bargaining Situation

• Goals of one party are in fundamental, direct conflict to another party
 • Resources are fixed and limited
• Maximizing one’s own share of resources is the goal

The Distributive Bargaining Situation

Preparation—set a
• Target point, aspiration point
• Walkaway, resistance point
• Asking price, initial offer
• The Distributive Bargaining
Situation

• The Role of Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement

• Alternatives give the negotiator power to walk away from the negotiation
– If alternatives are attractive, negotiators can:
• Set their goals higher
• Make fewer concessions
– If there are no attractive alternatives:
• Negotiators have much less bargaining power
• The Distributive Bargaining
Situation

• Fundamental Strategies
• Push for settlement near opponent’s resistance point
• Get the other party to change their resistance point
• If settlement range is negative, either:
– Get the other side to change their resistance point
– Modify your own resistance point
• Convince the other party that the settlement is the best possible
• Keys to the Strategies
The keys to implementing any of the four strategies are:
• Discovering the other party’s resistance point
• Influencing the other party’s resistance point
• Tactical Tasks of Negotiators
• Assess outcome values and the costs of termination for the other party
• Manage the other party’s impressions
• Modify the other party’s perceptions
• Manipulate the actual costs of delay or termination
• Assess Outcome Values and the Costs of Termination for the Other Party
• Indirectly
– Determine information opponent used to set:
• Target
• Resistance points
• Directly
– Opponent reveals the information
• Manage the Other Party’s Impressions
• Screen your behavior:
– Say and do as little as possible
– Direct action to alter impressions
– Present facts that enhance one’s position
• Modify the Other Party’s Perceptions
• Make outcomes appear less attractive
• Make the cost of obtaining goals appear higher
• Make demands and positions appear more or less attractive to the other party –whichever
suits your needs
• Manipulate the Actual Costs of
Delay or Termination
• Plan disruptive action
– Raise the costs of delay to the other party
• Form an alliance with outsiders
 – Involve (or threaten to involve) other parties who can influence the outcome in
your favor
• Schedule manipulations
– One party is usually more vulnerable to delaying than the other
• Positions Taken
During Negotiations
• Opening offer
– Where will you start?
• Opening stance
– What is your attitude?
• Competitive? Moderate?
• Initial concessions
– Should any be made? If so, how large?
• Positions Taken
During Negotiations
• The role of concessions
– Without them, there is either capitulation or deadlock
• Patterns of concession making
– The pattern contains valuable information
• Final offer (making a commitment)
– “This is all I can do”
• Commitments:
Tactical Considerations
• Establishing a commitment
– Three properties:
• Finality
• Specificity
• Consequences
• Preventing the other party from committing prematurely
– Their commitment reduces your flexibility
– Commitments:
Tactical Considerations
• Ways to abandon a committed position
– Plan a way out
– Let it die silently
– Restate the commitment in more general terms
– Minimize the damage to the relationship if the other backs off
– Closing the Deal
• Provide alternatives (2 or 3 packages)
• Assume the close
• Split the difference
• Exploding offers
• Deal sweeteners
• Dealing with Typical
Hardball Tactics
• Four main options:
– Ignore them
– Discuss them
– Respond in kind
– Co-opt the other party (befriend them)
• Typical Hardball Tactics
• Good Cop/Bad Cop
• Lowball/Highball
• Bogey (playing up an issue of little importance)
• The Nibble (asking for a number of small concessions to)
• Typical Hardball Tactics
• Chicken
• Intimidation
• Aggressive Behavior
• Snow Job (overwhelm the other party with information)
– Summary
Negotiators need to:
• Set a clear target and resistance points
 • Understand and work to improve their BATNA
• Start with good opening offer
• Make appropriate concessions
• Manage the commitment process
Chapter 3: Integrative Negotiation
Posted in Chapter 3: Intregrative negotiation on March 5, 2010| Leave a Comment »

7 Key Factors in Achieving Successful Integrative Negotiation

1. Common Objective or Goal

• It is important for individuals to focus on the commonalities within a group to achieve successful

integrative outcome. Parties have to believe that collaborative efforts will be beneficial to all of

them. Therefore, it is important for them to establish common, shared or joint goals among them.

Common goal

• A goal that is being shared equally among one another.

• One that would not be accomplished without each other’s collaboration.

Shared goal

• A goal that both parties hopes to achieve but are beneficial to each other in a different way.

Joint goal

• A goal that comprises of a collective effort to combine differing individual goals together.

2. Faith in One’s Problem-Solving Ability

• Parties must have a collaborative attitude when working together.

• The absence of such mentality will result in a lower devotion to collaborative relationship

3. A Belief in the Validity of One’s Own Position and the Other’s Perspectives

• Parties should respect and accepts the view, interest and desires of other parties and incorporate

them into the negotiation problem instead of challenging their viewpoint.

• Hence, search for mutually beneficial alternatives that lead to satisfying negotiation outcomes.

4. Motivation and Commitment to Work Together

• Parties must be highly motivated to collaborate rather than to compete

• They should be committed to achieve a mutually beneficial objective or goal

• One should present interpersonal style that are more:

1) Friendly than Competitive

2) Flexible(but firm) than Obstinate (but yielding)

3) Accepting and Trusting than Defensive and Evasive

• Parties should state their needs clearly, be willing to focus on the similarities and accepts

differences among each other

• Be comfortable with inconsistencies and uncertainties

5. Trust

• Parties must be able to elicit a certain level of trust towards the other party, vice versa.
• The eliciting of trust will facilitate the sharing of information and greater accuracy in

communicating individuals’ needs, wants, positions and desires in the given situation.

6. Clear and Accurate Communication

• Parties must be willing to share relevant information and state what they want clearly to prevent

any misunderstanding as a result of generalities or vagueness

• Parties must be willing to speak up and clarify any ambiguities

• Parties must make sure that the messages that were communicated through numerous

communication channels are consistent.

• Parties should always give everyone a chance to speak, no one should dominate the negotiation

process

7. An understanding of the Dynamics of Integrative Negotiation

• To achieve a successful outcome in Integrative Negotiation, one should truly understand the

dynamics, key elements, structure and principles that make up integrative negotiation.

• It is only through thorough understanding and training that one will be able to successfully

pursue the process.

6 Key Strategies for Reaching Integrative Negotiation

1. Expand the Pie

• Effective for negotiations that experience shortages in resources that fails to meet both parties

objectives or interest

• Assumes that the enlargement of resources will solve the problem

Solution:

• Add resources (expand the pie) so that both parties can achieve their objectives

How?

• Ask diagnostic questions, such as, “Is there a resource shortage, How can resources be

expanded to meet both parties needs/interest?”

• Make package deals

• Unbundle issues

Advantages:

• Requires no information from the other parties except of their interest

• Simple and easy method to solve problems relating to resource shortages

Disadvantages:

• Not applicable to problems that are outside the scope of shortages in resources

2. Logrolling

• Effective for negotiation that have more than one conflicting issues that are of different priorities

Solution

• Involves the trading off of issues between parties so that both achieve their preferred outcome
How?

• Done by trial and error, experimenting with numerous package deals that satisfies everyone’s

interest

• Ask diagnostic questions,”Can I unbundle issues, make one issue into smaller ones that can then

be logrolled?”

• Unbundling issues and unlinking them

• Making package deals

Advantages:

• Result in a win-win options

• Simple and easy way to solve negotiations with multiple conflicting issues

• Enable the establishment of long-term working relationships

Disadvantages:

• Time-consuming

• Only applicable to negotiation that have more than one conflicting issue at stake

• Not suitable for successive negotiations-where parties takes turn to get what they want

• Not suitable for parties that do not wish to establish long-term working relationships

3. Non Specific Compensation

• Involves the paying off of a non specific compensation to the party that accommodates to the

other party’s interest and objectives

• The payoff is unrelated to substantive negotiation but adequate for the party in agreeing to the

other party’s preferences.

How?

• Parties should know how much compensation is sufficient in making the accommodative party

satisfied

• Need to experiment with different types of compensation offers to identify the one that satisfies

the other party the most

• Ask diagnostic questions, “What are the things that will be inexpensive to me but valuable to the

other party?”

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

• Time-consuming

• Fear of turning into distributive situation when , the other party may request for high demands

as in return for accommodating while the other tries to play down the compensation that he/she

will pay.

4. Cut the Cost for Compliance

• Involves the achieving of one’s objective by minimizing the cost incurred by the agreeing party
How?

• Parties are required to have personal knowledge of the agreeing party’s needs, wants, desire and

preferences.

Advantages:

• More sophisticated as compared to logrolling and nonspecific compensation as it requires a more

detailed personal knowledge of the agreeing party

Disadvantages:

• Time-consuming

5. Bridging

• Involves the inventing of a new options that meet the needs of both parties

How?

• Through the revealing of sufficient information which discloses interests and needs that facilitate

the invention of new options

Advantages:

• Highly satisfying when negotiators commit themselves to win-win negotiations

Disadvantages:

• Do not always remedy all concerns

• Not applicable when parties commit themselves to win-lose negotiations

6. Post Settlement –Settlement

• Involves the using of current settlement as a benchmark or (BATNA) to explore other

possible/satisfying options and agreement

How?

• Find a more satisfying option or agreement over the present negotiated outcome

Advantages:

• Enable both parties another chance to reach an even more satisfying outcome

Disadvantages:

Chapter 5: Perception, Cognition and  Emotion

March 5, 2010 by nego4biz

Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. In layman’s terms, it

is a sense-making process where people interpret their environment so to respond appropriately.

As perception depends on the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and comprehension, here

could always be errors in the interpretation and subsequent communication. Some forms of such

distortions are as follows;

I. Types of Perceptual Distortions

 –          Stereotyping

 Assign attributes to one solely on the basis of the membership to a particular large
group or category (social, racial, religious or sexual orientations )
 Eg: He is an Italian so he must know so much about Rome.
 Very common, highly resistant to change once formed

–          Halo effect

 Generalize many attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of the individuals
without any consistent relationship between them
 Positive effect à good attribute, negative effect à bad attribute
 Reasons for occurrence
o Very little experience with the other party
o When the person is well known
o When the qualities have strong moral implications
o Eg: He is smiling so he must be telling the truth!

–          selective perception

 Singles out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out information
that does confirm the belief.

–          Projection

 Assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves.

 Eg: I feel upset to postpone things, so he also will probably get frustrated if I tell him to
delay our meeting.

Framing

Frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of

situations based on their own experiences, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.

Type of Frames Used in Disputes

Substantive

 Disposition about key issue and concern in the conflict

 Neglects how parties will resolve the dispute

Outcome

 Predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation

 Primarily used by distributive negotiators

Aspiration

 Predisposition to a broader set of interests, needs and concern other than a specific
outcome.
 Primarily used by integrative negotiators

Process

 Procedure on how parties will resolve their dispute.

 Does not care much about specific key issues and concern in the conflict

Identity
 Definition of oneself, based on membership of a number of different social groups such
as gender, religion, ethnic origin, etc
 Used to differentiate themselves from others and tend to be positive

Characterization

 One’s definition of the other parties, shaped by prior or early experience and knowledge
about others.
 Tend to be negative in conflicts

Loss/ Gain

 Definition of risk and reward associated with different outcomes

 Can frame the outcome as loss or reward based on risk preference of other parties
 For instance, a car buyer can view the transaction as a monetary cost of the purchase
(loss) or the value (gain) of the item.

How frames work in Negotiation

 Negotiators can use more than one frame
 Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict
 Different types of frames or content from the two parties can cause misunderstanding
and conflict escalation
 Can reframe the conflict into the frame that is more compatible for both parties3.
Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements
1. Aspiration frames lead to integrative agreement
2. Outcome or negative frames can lead to distributive agreement
 Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues
1. People discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frame.
2. People discussing relationship may be likely to use characterization frame
 Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors
1. Differences in personality
2. Value differences
3. Power differences
4. Differences in background
5. Social context

Different approach on how frames work in negotiation

1. Interests
1. Frame the conflicts based on interest, not on their positions and
demands
2. Rights
1. Use some standards and rules to decide who has legitimacy, who is
correct and fair in resolving the problem
3. Power
1. Create win-lose situation
2. Resolve the conflict based on power – ability  to coerce the other by
imposing other types of forces – economic pressures, expertise, legitimate
authority, etc

II. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

 Irrational Escalation of Commitment – stick with a failing course of action
o Eg: a country continues to pour resources into an unwinnable war because
the conflict has already happened.
 Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs – assume that all negotiations are win-lose
 Anchoring and Adjustment – effect of standard against which subsequent adjustments
are made during negotiation
 Issue Framing and Risk – more risk averse when a decision problem is framed as gain,
and risk seeking when framed as a loss
 Availability of Information- depends on how easily information can be recalled and used
 The Winner’s curse – tendency to settle quickly and subsequently feel discomfort about
a win that comes easily
o Eg: the other party gives in too easily, so there might be something wrong
with the outcome or I could have done better.
 Overconfidence – tendency to believe their ability to be correct or accurate is greater
than for real.
 The Law of Small Numbers- tendency to draw conclusions from small sizes
o Eg: assuming all negotiations as distributive based on a number of past
negotiations or prior experiences
 Self-Serving Biases- explain behaviors by making attributions to the person or situation
o Eg: If I mess up, it’s bad luck. If you mess up, it’s your fault!
 Endowment Effect – tendency to overvalue something you posess
 Eg: One is likely to pay $3 for a mug if he is to buy from others, but values $7 on the
same mug he owns.
 Ignoring Others’ Cognitions – ignoring the other party’s perceptions and thoughts hence
working with incomplete information
 Reactive Devaluation- devaluing the other party’s concessions simply because the other
party made them

Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

 Be aware that misperceptions and cognitive biases can occur as negotiators gather and
process information and discuss them in a structured manner within their team and with their
counterparts
 Careful discussion of the issues and preference can reduce the effects of perceptual
biases

III. Mood, Emotion and Negotiation

 Mood and emotion are different in specificity (emotion is directed at more specific
targets), intensity (mood is less intense) and duration(mood is more enduring)
 Negotiations create both positive (happiness)and negative (dejection-related, agitation-
related) emotions
 Positive emotions generally have positive consequences for negotiations (lead parties to
integrative process)
 Negative emotions generally have negative consequences for negotiations (lead parties
to competitive or distributive process or escalate conflicts)
 Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation gambits
 The effect of positive and negative emotion in negotiation

1)      Positive feelings may have negative consequences

 More susceptible to a competitive opponent’s deceptive tactics

 Less focus on arguments of other party, leading to less-than-optimal outcomes
 Create strong positive expectations, experiencing the defeat more strongly and treating
other more harshly if an satisfying integrative agreement is not found

2)      Negative feelings may create positive outcomes

 Negative emotion has information value

 Motivate people to either leave the situation or resolve the problem
 Alerting other party of a problem in relationship, leading both to work on fixing the
problem

Chapter 6: Communication During Negotiation

March 5, 2010 by nego4biz

Offers, Counteroffers, and Motives

-The communicative framework for negotiation

1). the communication of offers is a dynamic process

2). the offer process is interactive

3). various internal and external factors drive the interaction and “motivate” a bargainer to change

his or her offer.

Ÿ   Information about Alternatives

Negotiators with an attractive BATNA should tell the other party about it if they expect to receive

its full benefits.

-The style and tone used to convey information about an attractive BATNA

1).Politely making the other party aware of one’s good alternative can provide leverage without

alienating the other party.

2).Waving a good BATNA in the other party’s face in an imposing or condescending manner may

be construed as aggressive and threatening.

Ÿ   Information about Outcomes

Negotiators should be cautious about sharing their outcomes or even their positive reactions to

outcomes with the other party, especially if they are going to negotiate with that party again in the

future.

Ÿ   Social Accounts

Three explanation types:

1).Explanations of mitigating circumstances

2).Explanations of exonerating circumstances

3).Reframing explanation

Ÿ   Communication about Process

How well it is going or what procedures might be adopted to improve the situation.

Consider: Is More Information Always Better?

“Information-is-weakness Effect”: Negotiators who know the complete preferences of both parties

may have more difficulty determining fair outcomes that negotiators who do not have this

information.

l  How People Communicate in Negotiation

Ÿ   Use of Language
-Two levels of language operation: Logical level & Pragmatic level: The meaning conveyed by a

statement or proposition is combined with a logical surface message and several pragmatic levels.

Parties whose statements communicated interests in both the substance of the negotiation and the

relationship with the other party achieved better, more integrative solutions.

Ÿ   Use of Nonverbal Communication

1).Make Eye Contact

–When listening: show others you are paying attention and listening that you consider them

important

–When delivering: emphasize the importance of the message that is being sent

2).Adjust Body Position

One’s body position indicates whether one is paying attention to the other party.

–To show you are attentive: hold your body erect, lean slightly forward, and face the other person

directly

–To show strong rejection or disapproval: crossing arms, bowing the head, furrowing the brow,

and squeezing eyebrows together.

3).Nonverbally Encourage or Discourage What the Other Says

Indicate encouragement: brief eye contact, a smile, or a nod of the head.

Indicate discouragement: a frown, a scowl, a shake of the head, or a grab of one’s chest in mock

pain

Ÿ   Selection of a Communication Channel

–Face-to-face negotiators are more easily to develop personal rapport, more inclined to disclose

information truthfully, increasing their ability to attain mutual gain.

–What e-mail negotiations lack is schmoozing—off-task or relationship-focused conversations.

l  How to Improve Communication in Negotiation

Ÿ   The Use of Questions

Questions in Negotiation:

1).Manageable: cause attention or prepare the other person’s thinking for further questions, get

information, generate thoughts

2).Unmanageable: cause difficulty, give information, bring the discussion to a false conclusion

–collect and diagnose information, assist the other party in addressing and expressing needs and

interests

–pry or lever a negotiation out of a breakdown or an apparent dead end

Ÿ   Listening

1). Passive listening

Receive the message while providing no feedback to the sender about the accuracy or

completeness of reception. (Can be used as the best strategy when the counterpart is talkative)

2).Acknowledgment:

Receivers occasionally nod their heads, maintain eye contact, or interject responses like “I see,”

“mm-hmm.” “interesting,” “really,” and the like.

3).Active listening

Restate or paraphrase the sender’s message in their own language

Ÿ   Role Reversal

Gain an understanding of the other party’s perspective or frame of reference: allow negotiators to

understand more completely the other party’s position by actively arguing these positions until the

other party is convinced that he or she is understood.

l  Special Communication Considerations at the Close of Negotiations

Ÿ   Avoiding Fatal Mistakes

Ÿ   Achieving Closure

–avoid surrendering important information needlessly, and to refrain from making “dumb remarks”

that push a wavering counterpart away from the agreement

–recognize the other party’s faux pas and dumb remarks for what they are and refuse to respond

or be distracted by them

Chapter 7: Sources of Power and Dealing With Others Who Have

More Power
Posted in Chapter 7: Power on March 5, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Power – capabilities negotiators can assemble to give themselves an advantage or increase the

probability of achieving their objectives

 Sources of Power – How People Acquire Power

Traditional Sources of Power

–          Expert power

 from having unique, in-depth information about a subject

–          Reward power

 from ability to reward other for doing what needs to be done

–          Coercive power

 from ability to punish other for not doing what needs to be done

–          Legitimate power

 from hierarchical status within organization

–          Referent power

 from respect or admiration one commands due to attributes like personality, integrity,
interpersonal style and the like

Major Source of Power in Negotiation

–          informational sources of power

–          personal sources of power

–          power based on position in an organization

–          relationship-based sources of power

–          contextual sources of power

1) Informational Sources of Power

–          most common source of power – derived from ability to assemble and organize facts and

data to support one’s position, arguments or desired outcomes

–          challenge other’s position or desired outcomes

–          undermine the effectiveness of the other’s negotiating argument

–          power based on expertise is a special form of information power – only for those who have

achievement some level of command and mastery of a body of information

–          experts’ arguments are more credible than nonexperts’ ones

–          to use expert power, demonstrate that this expertise actually exists and is relevant to the

issues under discussion

 2) Personal Sources of Power

–          have different psychological orientations to social situations

–          cognitive orientation
 individual differences in ideological frames of reference
 shape one’s expectations, the way individual process social information about power and
people’s willingness to share power
 3 types of ideological frames
o The unitary

 Beliefs that society is an integrated whole and that the interests of

individuals and society are one, such that power can be largely ignored or, when
needed, be used by benevolent authorities to benefit the good of all. (communal)
o The radical
 Beliefs that society is in a continual clash of social, political, and
class interests, and that power is inherently and structurally imbalanced (Marxist)
o The pluralist
 Beliefs that power is distributed relatively equally across various
groups, which compete and bargain for a share of the continually evolving balance
of power (liberal democracies)

–          motivational orientation
 differences rooted more in need and energizing elements of the personality rather than
in ideology
 power motive – a need to influence and control others and to seek positions of power
and authority

–          dispositions and skills

 Competitive dispositions and skill emphasize on “power over” approach along with skills
such as sustaining energy and stamina, maintaining focus and having high expertise, strong
self-confidence and high tolerance for conflict.
 Cooperative dispositions and skill emphasize on “power with” approach along with skills
such as sensitivity to others, flexibility and ability to consider and incorporate other’s views
into an agreement

–          moral orientation
 different moral view about power and its use

3) Power Based on Position in an organization

–          legitimate power

 exist at the foundation of our social structure

 from occupying a particular job, office or position in an organizational hierarchy
 make people feel proper (legitimate) to receive directions from others and proper
(obligatory) to follow it
 ways of acquiring legitimate power
o by birthright
o by election (from peers)
o by appointment (from superior)
o by cultural value (the young respects the old)
 legitimate power cannot function without  obedience or the consent of the governed
 types of social legitimate powers
o legitimate power of reciprocity
 if a person something positive for other, the gesture or favor is
expected to be returned
o legitimate power of equity
  someone has a right to request compensation from other if he/she
goes out of his way or endures suffering for the other
o legitimate power of responsibility or dependence
 we have an obligation to help others who cannot help themselves
and are dependent on us

–          resource control

 resource can be anything valued by participants in the negotiation

 ability to create or control and dispense resources is a major power source in
organizations
 develop and maintain control over some desirable reward that other party wants or 
control over some punishment the other wants to avoid

4) Relationship-Based Sources of Power

–          good interdependence

 has strong impact on how likely parties will be to constructively use power
 shape “power with” orientation between parties, inducing higher expectations of
assistance, more persuasion and less coercion and more trusting and friendly attitude

–          referent power

 Derived from the respect or admiration one commands due to attributes such as
personality, interpersonal style, integrity and the like.
 Based on an appeal to commonalities
 Has negative forms to create distance between themselves and others or to label others

5) Contextual Sources of Power

–          BATNAs

 Alternative deal that a negotiator might pursue in case of negotiation failure

 Offers negotiator significant power

–          Culture

 Often contains many implicit rules about use of power and more or less processes
 Company culture shapes what kind of power are seen as legitimate and illegitimate or
how people use influence and react to influence
 National cultures also differ in the degree to which these “power over” or “power with”
orientations are supported or encouraged

–          Agents, constituencies and external audiences

 Negotiation process is more complex when acting as agents, or other parties such as
public media, critics, etc are present to observe.
 These other parties might or might not share your interests, putting pressure on either
party.

Dealing with Others Who Have More Power

1. Never do an all-or-nothing deal – deal with several other partners to lower risks
2. Make the other party smaller- diversify into multiple negotiations by establishing
relationships with several departments or individuals in an organization
3. Make yourself bigger- build coalitions
4. Build momentum through doing deals in sequence
5. Use the power of competition to leverage power-create competition among partners
by using BATNA
6. Constrain yourself- limit the ways you can do business
7. Good information is always a source of power – seek information that is most
compelling and persuasive to the counterpart
 8. Do what you can to manage the process – steer the deal in an advantageous
direction. Do not let the high-power party control the process (agenda, cadence, timing,
location)

Chapter8: Ethics in Negotiation

Posted in Chapter 8: Ethics, tagged Articles on March 4, 2010| Leave a Comment »

What are ethics?

Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a

process for setting those standards.

Ethics grow out of particular philosophies, which purport to:

1. Define the nature of the world in which we live in

2. Prescribe rules for living together

Four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics in business negotiation:

1. End result ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to
achieve
2. Duty ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold
appropriate rules and principles
3. Social contract – Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms, values, and
strategy of my organization or community
4. Personalistic ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal
convictions

Ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics:

1. Traditional competitive bargaining

2. Emotional manipulation
3. Misrepresentation
4. Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks
5. Inappropriate information gathering
6. Bluffing

Tactics 1 and 2 are generally viewed as appropriate and are likely to be used. However, the other

four categories are generally seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation.

Deception by Omission versus Commision

A negotiator using this tactic deceives the other party about what she wants on the common-value

issue and then (grudgingly) agrees to accept the other party’s preferences, which in reality

matches her own.

Researchers discovered that negotiators used 2 forms of deception in misrepresenting the

common-value issue:

1. Misrepresentation by omission – failing to disclose information that would benefit the

other
2. Misrepresentation by commission – actually lying about the common-value issue

Why Use Deceptive Tactics?

 1. The Power Motive

 To increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment

 Because negotiation is often primarily an exchange of facts, arguments, and logic
between two wholly rational information-processing entities, whoever has better information,
or uses it more persuasively, stands to “win” the negotiation
 Individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactics when the other party is perceived
to be uninformed or unknowledgeable about the situation under negotiation, particularly
when the stakes are high.

2. Other Motives

 Individualistic vs Cooperative orientations

 Individualistic – those looking to maximize their own outcome, regardless of the
consequences for the other – more likely to use misrepresentation as a strategy.
 Cultural Differences à Motivational differences
 Individuals in a more individualistic culture (like the U.S.) are more likely to use
deception for personal gain than those in a more collectivist culture (Israel).
 Personal motivational orientation – Cooperative vs Competitive

Consequences of Unethical Conduct

Based on 3 aspects of the situation:

1. Effectiveness

 If using the tactic allows a negotiator to attain rewarding outcomes that would be
unavailable if he had behaved ethically, and if the unethical conduct is not punished by
others, the frequency of unethical conduct is likely to increase because the negotiator
believes he can get away with it

2. Reaction of others

 Arises from judgments and evaluations by the person who was the “target” of the tactic
 Depending on whether these parties recognize the tactic and whether they evaluate it
as proper or improper to use, the negotiator may receive a great deal of feedback.
 People who discover that they have been deceived or exploited are typically angry and
unlikely to trust the unethical negotiator again, may seek revenge from the negotiator in
future dealings, and may also generalize this experience to negotiations with others.

3. Reactions of self

 Under some conditions – such as when the other party has truly suffered – a negotiator
may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt or remorse
 On one hand, while the use of these tactics may have strong consequences for the
negotiator’s reputation and trustworthiness, parties seldom appear to take these outcomes
into consideration in the short term
 On the other hand, particularly if the tactic had worked, the negotiator may be able to
rationalize and justify the use of the tactic
 Some explanations and justifications are as follows:
1. The tactic was unavoidable
2. The tactic was harmless
3. The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences
4. The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated
5. “They had it coming” or “They deserve it” or “I’m just getting my due”
6. “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first”
7. “He started it”
8. The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
 These explanations and justifications help people to rationalize the behavior to
themselves as well as allow the negotiator to convince others that the conduct that would
ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable
 So, How Can Negotiators Deal With The Other Party’s Use of Deception?

1. Ask Probing Questions

 Research shows that most buyers fail to ask questions, and that asking questions can
reveal a great deal of information, some of which the negotiator intentionally leave
undisclosed
 While asking questions can help a negotiator determine whether another negotiator is
being deceptive, such cross-examination may actually increase the seller’s tendency to be
deceptive in areas where questions are not being asked

2. Force the Other Party to Lie or Back Off

 Pose a question that forces him or her to tell a direct lie or else abandon or qualify the
assertion
 This kind of question may make the other party nervous about liability for fraudulent
negotiator behavior

3. “Call” the Tactic

 Indicate to the other side that you know he is bluffing or lying

 Do so tactfully but firmly, and indicate your displeasure

4. Discuss What You See and Offer to Help the Other Party Change to More Honest Behaviors

 Tries to assure the other party that telling the truth is, in the long term, more likely to
get him what he wants, than any form of bluffing or deception will

5. Respond in Kind

 If the other party bluffs, you bluff more. If she misrepresents, you misrepresent.
 Not recommended, but if she recognizes that you are lying too, she may also realize
that the tactic is unlikely to work

6. Ignore the Tactic

All in all, ethics in negotiator is a blurred topic. There is a fine line between good ethical behavior

and unethical behavior. Although some behaviors are clearly unethical, others depend on the

culture, personal motivation and reaction of the negotiators.

Chapter 9: Relationships in Negotiation

March 5, 2010 by nego4biz

Negotiation within Relationships

When negotiating in the context of an important relationship, relationship issues could dramatically

change the approach to negotiation strategy and tactics

1. Negotiation within relationships takes place over time.

2. Negotiation is often not a way to discuss an issue, but a way to learn more about the
other party and increase interdependence.
3. Resolution of simple distributive issues has implications for the future.
4. Distributive issues within relationship negotiations can be emotionally hot.
5. Negotiating within relationships may never end.
–Parties may defer negotiations over tough issues in order to start on the right foot.

–Attempting to anticipate the future and negotiate everything up front is often impossible.

–Issues on which parties truly disagree may never go away.

1. In many negotiations, the other person’s behavior is the focal problem.

2. In some negotiations, relationship preservation is the overarching negotiation goal,
and parties may make concessions on substantive issues to preserve or enhance the
relationship.

l  Key Elements in Managing Negotiations within Relationships

Ÿ   Reputation

–Reputations are perceptual and highly subjective in nature.

–An individual can have a number of different, even conflicting, reputations.

–Reputation is influenced by an individual’s personal characteristics and accomplishments.

–Reputations develop over time; once developed, they are hard to change.

–Negative reputation is difficult to “repair”.

Ÿ   Trust

–Many people show remarkably high levels of trust when approaching a new relationship.

–Trust tends to cue cooperative behavior.

–Individual motives shape both trust and expectations of the other’s behavior.

–Trustors, and those trusted, may focus on different things as trust is being guilt.

–The nature of the negotiation task can shape how parties judge the trust.

–Greater expectations of trust between negotiators lead to greater information sharing, therefore

tend to enhance effectiveness in achieving a good outcome.

–Distributive processes may tend to reduce trust while integrative processes tend to increase

trust.
–Trust increases the likelihood that negotiation will proceed on a favorable course over the life of a

negotiation.

–Face-to-face negotiation encourages greater trust development.

–Negotiators who are representing others’ interest tend to behave in a less trusting way.

Trust Repair

ž   The more severe the breach of trust, the more difficult it is to repair trust and reconcile the

relationship.

ž   If the parties had a good past relationship, it was easier to repair trust.

ž   The party who breach the trust must apologize as soon as better.

ž   The apology must be sincere enough.

ž   The one who makes the apology must take personal responsibility for having created the

breach.

ž   Apologies were more effective when the trust breach appeared to be an isolated event rather

than habitual and repetitive for the other party.

Ÿ   Justice

Forms of justice:

1)         Distributive Justice: about the distribution of outcomes

2)         Procedural Justice: about the process of determining outcomes

3)         Interactional Justice: about how parties treat each other in one-to-one relationship

4)         Systemic Justice: about how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the

norms that develop for how they should be treated.

Relationships among Reputation, Trust, and Justice

They are all central to relationship negotiations and feed each other.

l  Relationship Repair

Find out:

Ÿ   What might be causing any present misunderstanding, and what can I do to understand it

better?
Ÿ   What might be causing a lack of trust, and what can I do to begin to repair trust that might

have been broken?

Ÿ   What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced, and what can I do to put the focus on

persuasion rather than coercion?

Ÿ   What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected, and what can I do to

demonstrate acceptance and respect?

Ÿ   What might be causing one or both of us to get upset, and what can I do to balance emotion

and reason?

Chapter 11: International and Cross-Cultural  Negotiation

March 5, 2010 by nego4biz

What defines culture?

Culture is the set of shared values and beliefs of a group of people.

What Makes International Negotiation Different?

Two overall contexts have an influence on international negotiations: the environmental

context and the immediate context.

Environmental Context:

Includes environmental factors that neither negotiator controls that influence the negotiation.

Seven factors:

1. Political and Legal Pluralism

 Firms conducting business in different countries are working with different legal and
political systems
 Political considerations may enhance or detract from business negotiations in various
countries at different times

2. International Economics

 Exchange value of international currencies naturally fluctuates

 The less stable the currency, the greater risk for both parties
 Any change in the value of a currency can significantly affect the value of the agreement
for both parties

3. Foreign Governments and Bureaucracies

 Countries differ in the extent to which the government regulates industries and
organisations

4. Instability

 Instability may take many forms: lack of resources, shortages of other goods and
services, and political instability
 Challenge for international negotiators to anticipate changes accurately and with enough
lead time to adjust for their consequences
 Negotiators facing unstable circumstances should include clauses in their contracts that
allow easy cancellation or neutral arbitration, and consider purchasing insurance policies to
guarantee contract provisions

5. Ideology

 Negotiators from other countries do not always share the same ideology
 Clashes in ideology may lead to parties disagreeing at the most fundamental level about
what is being negotiated

6. Culture

 People from different cultures appear to negotiate differently

 People from different cultures may also interpret the fundamental processes of
negotiations differently

7. External Stakeholders

 International negotiators can receive a great deal of promotion and guidance from their
government via the trade section of their embassy, and from other business people via
professional associations

Immediate Context:

Includes factors over which negotiators appear to have some control.

1. Relative Bargaining Power

 Relative power has frequently been operationalized as the amount of equity that each
side is willing to invest in the new venture
 The presumption is that the party who invests more equity has more power in the
negotiation and therefore will have more influence on the negotiation process and outcome

2. Levels of Conflict

 High conflict situations – those based on ethnicity, identity, or geography – are harder
to resolve
 Also important is the extent to which negotiators frame the negotiation differently or
conceptualize what the negotiation concerns

3. Relationship between Negotiators

 Negotiations are part of a larger relationship between two parties

 The history of relations between the parties will influence the current negotiation, just
as the current negotiation will become part of any future negotiations between the parties

4. Desired Outcomes

 Tangible and intangible factors play a large role in determining the outcomes of
international negotiations
 Countries often use international negotiations to achieve both domestic and
international political goals

5. Immediate Stakeholders

 Include the negotiators themselves as well as the people they directly represent
 Skills, abilities, and international experience of the negotiator clearly can have a large
impact on the process and outcome of international negotiations

Conceptualizing Culture and Negotiation

Concept of culture:

1. Culture is a group-level phenomenon – a defined group of people shares beliefs,

values, and behavioral expectations.
2. Cultural beliefs, values, and behavioral expectations are learned and passed on to
new members of the group.

Cultural attribution error – the tendency to overlook the importance of situational factors in favor

of cultural explanations

Culture as shared values

 Cross cultural comparisons are made by finding the important norms and values that
distinguish one culture from another and then understanding how these differences will
influence international negotiation.

Four Dimensions that Describe the Important Differences Among the Cultures:

1. Individualism/Collectivism

 The extent to which the society is organized around individuals or the group
 Negotiators from collectivist cultures will strongly depend on cultivating and sustaining a
long-term relationship, whereas negotiators from individualistic cultures may be more likely
to swap negotiators, using whatever short-term criteria seem appropriate

2. Power Distance

 Describes the “extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and
institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”
 Greater power distance will be more likely to concentrate decision making at the top
 Negotiators from comparatively high power distance cultures may need to seek approval
from their supervisors more frequently, and for more issues, leading to a slower negotiation
process

3. Career Success/Quality of Life

 Cultures differed in the extent to which they held values that promoted career success
or quality of life
 Increases competitiveness when negotiators from career success cultures meet

4. Uncertainty Avoidance

 Indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or
comfortable in unstructured situations

10 Different Ways Culture can Influence Negotiations

1. Definition of Negotiation
2. Negotiation Opportunity
3. Selection of Negotiators
4. Protocol
5. Communication
6. Time Sensitivity
7. Risk Propensity
8. Groups versus Individuals
9. Nature of Agreements
10. Emotionalism

Culturally Responsive Negotiation Strategies

According to Familiarity with the other party’s culture:

Low Familiarity
 Employ Agents or Advisors (Unilateral Strategy)
 Bring in a Mediator (Joint Strategy)
 Induce the Other Negotiator to Use Your Approach (Joint Strategy)

Moderate Familiarity

 Adapt to the Other Negotiator’s Approach (Unilateral Strategy)

 Coordinate Adjustment (Joint Strategy)

High Familiarity

 Embrace the Other Negotiator’s Approach (Unilateral Strategy)

 Improvise an Approach (Joint Strategy)
 Effect Symphony (Joint Strategy)

Multiple Choice Quiz

(See related pages)

1
Most of the complexities in multiparty negotiations will increase linearly, if not
exponentially, as more parties, constituencies, and audiences are added.

True
A)

False
B)

2
Negotiators who have some way to control the number of parties at the table may begin
to strategically manipulate this control to serve their objectives.
 True
A)

False
B)

3
A single negotiator is simply one of the parties in a multiparty negotiation and wants to
ensure that his or her own issues and interests are clearly incorporated into the final
agreement

True
A)

False
B)

4
When a chairperson is also advocating a particular position or preferred outcome, it will
be difficult for that individual to act or be seen as "neutral."

True
A)

False
B)

5
Conflict is a natural part of group life that improves members' ability to complete tasks,
work together, and sustain these relationships.

True
A)

False
B)

6
Multiparty negotiations differ from two-party deliberations in which of the following
ways?

Multiparty negotiations have more negotiators at the table.

A)

More issues and more information are introduced than when two parties negotiate.
B)

The environment changes from a one-on-one dialogue to small group discussion.

C)

The process for multiparty negotiators is more complex than two-party ones.
D)

All of the above statements about multiparty negotiations are true.

E)

7
In multiparty negotiations, research shows that parties who approached multiple issues
simultaneously:

achieved lower quality agreements.

A)

increased the likelihood of achieving agreement.

B)
 exchanged less information.
C)

have less insight into the preferences and priorities of the other parties at the table.
D)
Research shows that parties who approached multiple issues simultaneously
E) achieved all of the above.

8
There are five ways in which the complexity increases as three or more parties
simultaneously engage in negotiation. Which one of the following statements is
incorrect?

There are simply more parties involved in the negotiation.

A)
More parties bring more issues and positions to the table, and thus more
B) perspectives must be presented and discussed.
When negotiations become socially more complex, the social norms emerge that
affect member participation, which reduces the stronger pressures to conform and
C) suppress disagreement.
As the negotiations become procedurally more complex, the parties may have to
negotiate a new process that allows them to coordinate their actions more
D) effectively.
As the negotiations become more strategically complex, the parties must monitor
the moves and actions of several other parties in determining what each will do
E) next.

9
What are the three key stages and phases that characterize multilateral negotiations?
the prenegotiation stage, managing the actual negotiations, and managing the
A) agreement stage.
the coalition building stage, the relationship development stage, the networking
B) stage.

the coalition building stage, the networking stage, and the actual negotiation stage.
C)
the prenegotiation stage, the networking stage, and the managing the agreement
D) stage.
None of the above lists the three key stages and phases that characterize
E) multilateral negotiations.

1
0 Which of the following questions should not be asked as part of the requirements for
building a relationship in the connect model?

Can we agree to have a constructive conversation?

A)

Can our conversation be productive enough to make a difference?

B)

Can we restructure the agreement to include the original issue?

C)

Can we all commit to making improvements?

D)

Can we understand and appreciate each other's perspective?

E)
Advertisements