Introduction
In a fast-changing and volatile global scene where businesses, communications and technology have adopted platforms never before seen, it has become highly competitive to sell a product, service, goods and ideas. It has come to pass that what worked previously for the past decade may or may not be acceptable anymore.
Competitive moves, as Allred (2000) underscored, has become the focus of attention in negotiation courses and textbooks so that he had outlined a framework of prescriptive advice for how negotiators cab manage the tension effectively by distinguishing between best practices that tend to work well in all situations, as well as strategic practices that tend to work well in certain situations and poorly in others such as asserting, accommodating, integrating and avoiding practices.
Negotiation practices and strategies shall be discussed thoroughly in the context of the video “The Sluggers Come Home” that depicts the story of negotiations between a baseball club owner and the brothers who own a nearby baseball stadium. It illustrates how they come to terms using the three major steps in negotiations: preparation, bargaining and settlement, as well as demonstrating key principles of rational negotiation and common tactics and strategies of rational negotiating for profitable agreements.
Discussion
It was proposed that negotiating is the art of making better deals and, making the right deal can turn a small venture into a big one, or it can turn a quiet product into a blockbuster. It is therefore necessary to be equipped with skill, preparation, and confidence in order to negotiate well. The Slugger video depicts the following which are necessary in an enjoyable and successful negotiation:
- Anchors – how to control the range of negotiations and make it work for and not against you
- Framing – getting full understanding on why the words one choose can be just as important as the positions you take
- The myth of the fixed-pie – knowing when being too tough can cost money
- Escalation of commitment – knowing when and why there’s the need to walk away
- First offers – learning both when not to make the first offer and how to make the right offer when you do
- Bidding strategies – identifying the hidden messages behind bids and offers
- Post-settlement settlements – learning how one can adjust good agreements and make them great ones
- Uncertainty – understanding why risks can smooth your path to agreement
- Flinches, nibbles, and red herrings – learning why they work and how to counteract them.
Elsewhere, strategic negotiation (Fells, 2000) is generally accepted to consist of rational and analytical process for the creation of value added agreements shared among the parties for mutual benefits as has been the case for the Curry Filed and the Sluggers, as well as Barbara Meyers, the real estate developer. Dietmeyer and Kaplan (2004) proposed the four step process of :
- Estimate the blueprint, that is the consequences of failing to reach agreement and prepare a wish list of potential trades
- Validate the estimation
- Use the blueprint to create value and develop multiple equal offers
- Apply the blueprint to divide the created value.
It is also necessary that the questions: 1) What are the consequences of not reaching an agreement? and, 2) What items or details are likely to be included if we reach an agreement? be answered. In the process the negotiator may offer three separate options consisting of a long term, short term or middle of the road alternatives. The priority will vary from one negotiation to another, as well as whether it is a long term repeat relations or one time transaction (Dietmeyer and Kaplan, 2004).
Value is a keyword that is created in negotiation. Listening was suggested to help a negotiator create value and maintain the relationship with the other party without posing much risk to that negotiator’s efforts to claim value and useless in virtually all situations.
Nevertheless, cooperative moves to create value often expose one to exploitation in claiming value terms (Lax and Sebenius, 1986) while maintaining or enhancing a relationship with the other party is what has been pointed out to be sought (Kramer and Messick, 1995).
Strategic practice, in one hand could be useful in some instances only and includes sharing information which could create value but might lead to exploitation (Allred, 2000) so that specified conditions are necessary wherein negotiators use such practices. As in the video, sharing of information about what may Ted and Billy Curry take advantage out of the negotiation which they might not have thought possible before is necessary to win their confidence. But Walton and McKersie (1966) pointed out that in sharing of information, the negotiators become more cooperative and trustworthy.
Timing, a concept on the mediation of large scale or international disputes and sectarian violence, as well as “ripeness” has also been considered in the negotiation process although it has been framed in terms of the dynamic, structural, and perceptual characteristics of a conflict as well as on the readiness of the parties to engage in a serious and sustained process of negotiation with the assistance of a third party, a mediator or facilitator (Bercovitch, 1997).
Nevertheless, in many instances, focus is on using interest-based or integrative “win-win” negotiation strategies to produce satisfying, mutually beneficial outcomes (Thompson, 1998) and these are attractive as well as useful. This becomes futile in cases where another party is not willing to step up and respond at all. Walton et al (1994) suggested that parties may also find themselves drawn to respond to threats with counter threats, escalating the negotiation to a standoff from which it is difficult or embarrassing to retreat or move towards a workable solution. The Slugger video, however, tackled this issue by having prepared negotiators who are in a positive mood to have their piece be heard.
Ury, Brett and Goldberg (1993) set a framework of interests, rights and power as strategic options for negotiating as it is also necessary that a strategic negotiation know when and how negotiators can effectively implement interests, rights, and power strategies in negotiations, as much as knowing when to deflect other negotiators intent on using contentious rights and power strategies (Lytle et al, 1999).
Negotiation behaviour, however, has also been highlighted as an important factor in the process as scholars view emotional estates as predictors of negotiating outcomes. Cognitive and emotional approaches to negotiation had been predictors of outcomes related to the negotiable item and to the social relationship between the parties (Allred, 1999, Baron, 1990, Barry and Oliver, 1996, Barsade, 2002, Carnevale and Isen, 1986, Forgas, 1998, Keltner, Ellsworth and Edwards, 1993, Kramer, Newton and Pommerenke, 1993, Kumar, 1997, Sutton and Rafaeli, 1988, Thompson, Medvec, Seiden, & Kopelman, 2001, Thompson, Nadler & Kim, 1999). Emotion play an important role at the negotiating table and Barry (1999) argued that the “wilful use of emotional display or expression [is important] as a tactical gambit by an individual negotiator,” (p. 3) so that assertion and conceptualise emotions are deliberate behavioural strategy available to negotiators. Barry (1999) also suggested two distinct yet related subsets or a more general category called affect, which are divided between emotions and mood. Mood could be a more diffused psychological state while emotion has been defined as a differentiated response to a specific situation. Mooods are enduring while emotions are relatively short-lived and might be triggered by an identifiable event but can also be brought on as a means to achieve a desired end.
Likewise, the strategic display of emotions in negotiating rests on two fundamental assumptions that: 1) negotiators may or can control their behavioural emotional display during social interactions, and, 2) emotional displays are communicated convincingly to other parties. It has also been proposed that deliberate regulation of emotion may involve different levels of acting (Cote, 2005). Internal experience and external display of emotions are seen in deep acting which are aligned, and considered authentic, but in other times, a negotiator’s emotional strategy may be at odds with how he or she feels at the moment of which surface acting occurs, and may be considered inauthentic (Cote, 2005). Skilled negotiators could and may intentionally adjust their emotional display in a desired direction by either amplifying or suppressing their own experienced emotion (Hochschild, 1983).
Although there may be ethical concerns regarding the intentional display of emotions that range from less forthright or honest manner to downright manipulative tactic, its is but comparable to misrepresentation of information as a negotiation strategy.
There may be other considerations to take in negotiating as one suggested by Ury et al (1988) to note that arguing people usually stand or sit face-to-face, thereby proposing to find a suitable excuse to sit side-by-side by pulling out a document or proposed agreement and sit down next to the counterpart to review it as talking side-by-side reinforce the “partnership” idea facing a tough challenge together.
Other proposals include developing a resolute bargaining style by: being persistent, be tenacious by hanging in there (Cohen, 1980; be committed to your proposal or beliefs and be passionate in convincing the other party by using power of emotion and drama at critical junctures in the negotiation process; begin using extreme positions so as to allow the other person to secure a smaller bargain or request making the deal reasonable as compared to an outlandish one (Cialdini, 1993); employing negative reinforcement where an unpleasant, hostile or negative person to be around could extricate what he or she wants making the other wilfully give in during the aversive situation (Thompson et al, 2001); be tough throughout the negotiation in order to gain respect from the opposition as negotiators that make fewer and smaller concessions are more effective in terms of maximising individual gain as compared to those who make larger and more frequent concessions (Siegel & Fouraker, 1960); develop a rational bargaining style by controlling emotional display (Thompson et al, 2001); make strategic decisions mostly executive in nature by improving the ability to make effective, more rational decisions to negotiate smarter (Bazerman and Neale, 1992); be professional by conducting yourself in dispassionate fashion in the business meeting; develop rational strategies and desire to win at rational analysis (Bazerman and Neale, 1992); and think logically by avoiding emotion that can overwhelm logic (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987).
Conclusion
In consideration of “The Sluggers Come Home” video, we were able to distinguish various ways in stressing as well as opposing or deflecting an item or issue which could be a value for one party or for another. It presents all views of three negotiators who are all investing for the purpose of gaining. In each side of the story, there is a need to have an advantage but be in consideration of what the other two parties may gain.
While different objectives may be targeted by each negotiator, by being able to strategically pose or meet halfway in instances where there is a need, as well as being ready to have alternatives or options where weight is also given on the other party or parties, negotiation could prove to be either useful or promising.
It is then necessary that all parties prior to meeting or negotiating, be well-informed about advantages and disadvantages in entering into an agreement, options that could be met where a first or priority is not possible, as well as other possibilities that could be gained when closing one deal.
Likewise, it must also be necessary that every negotiator possess skills in drawing out the best from the other negotiator, making him strategic as well as having the positive attitude to belt out necessary information or alternative where standoff may occur.
References
Allred, Keith (1999). “Anger and retaliation: Toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in organisations.” In Research in negotiations (Bies and Lewicki, eds). Vol 7, 27-58. JAI Press.
Allred, Keith. (2000) “Distinguishing Best and Strategic Practices: A Framework for Managing the Dilemma between Creating and Claiming Value.” Negotiation Journal. 387-398
Baron, R. A. (1990). “Environmentally induced positive affect: Its impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation and conflict.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20 (5) 368-384.
Barry, B. and oliver, R. (1996). “Affect in dyadic negotiation: A model and propositions: Organisational behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 67 (2), 127-143.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). “The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behaviour.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 644-675.
Bazerman, M. and Neale M. (1992). Negotiating Rationally. Free Press.
Bercovitch, J. (ed) (1997). Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation. Lynne Rienner
Brett, J, Wiengart, L and Olekalns, M 2003, ‘Baubles, bangles and beads: modeling the evolution of negotiating groups over time’, in S Blount, B Mannix and M Neale (eds) Research on managing groups and teams: time in groups, JAI Press, Stanford, Conn. (volume 6).
Carnevale, P. and Isen, A. (1986). “The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation.” Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 37 (1), 1-13.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. William Morrow.
Cohen, H. (1980). You can negotiate anything. Bantam Books.
Cote, S. (2005). “A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain.” Academy of Management Review 30 (3), 509-530.
Fells, R. (2000). “Negotiating ‘strategically’” in Human resources strategies: an applied approach. McGraw-Hill. Pp 81-116
Fells, RE 2000b, ‘Of models and journeys: keeping negotiation and mediation on track’, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 209-219.
Forgas, J. (1998). “On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (3), 565-577.
Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialisation of human feeling. University of California Press.
Holmes, M 1992, ‘Phase structures in negotiation’ in L Putnam and M Roloff (eds), Communication and negotiation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 83-105.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P., and Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (5) 740-752.
Kramer, R., Newton, E. and Pommerenke, P. (1993). “Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: Effects of self-esteem and mood.” Organisational Behaviour and human Decision Processes 56 (1), 110-133.
Kramer, R.M. and Messick, D.M. (1995). “Negotiation as a social process. Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage.
Lax, D.A. and J.K. Sebenius (1986). “The manager as negotiator.” The Free Press, new York.
Lytle, A., Brett, J. and Shapiro, D. (1999). “The Strategic Use of Interests, Rights, and Power to Resolve Disputes.” Negotiation Journal. 31-52
Olekalns, M and Smith, P 2000, ‘Understanding optimal outcomes: the role of strategy sequences in competitive negotiations’, Human Communication Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 527-557.
Saunders, H 1985, ‘We need a larger theory of negotiation: the importance of pre-negotiating phases’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 249-262.
Susskind, L. and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books.
Sutton, R. and Rafaeli, A. (1988). “Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organisational sales: the case of convenience stores.” Academy of Management Journal 31 (3) 461-487.
Thompson, L. Medvec, V., Seiden, V., and Kopelman S. (2001). “Poker face, smiley face, and rant ‘n’ rave: Myths and realities about emotion in negotiation.” In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group processes (Hoggs and Tindal, eds). (139-163). Blackwell Publishers.
Thompson, L., Nadler, J. and Kim, P.H. (1999). “Some like it hot: The case for the Emotional Negotiator.” In Shared cognition in organisations: The management of knowledge (Thompson and Levine, eds) pp 139-161. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ury, W., Brett, J., and Goldberg, S. (1998). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut costs of conflict. Jossey-Bass.
Ury, W., Brett, J., and Goldberg, S. (1993). A behavioural theory of labour negotiation: An analysis of a social interaction system (2nd ed) Ithaca, ILR Press.
Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1966). Behavioural dilemmas in mixed motive decision making.” Behavioural Sciences, 370-384
Instruction
UK, 7 pp
Negotiation
Harvard
Citation of Video ‘The Sluggers Come Home’
Stanford University (1997) The Stanford video guide to negotiating: The Sluggers come home, Kantola Productions, Mill Valley, CA (videorecording).
Question: Understanding the phase nature of the process is a key element of good negotiation. Discuss this statement with respect to the video “The Sluggers Come Home”
Referencing the essay
Your in-text citations and reference list for both assignments should be consistent and follow the Harvard citation and referencing guidelines. Information on referencing styles is available in the library.
Formatting the essay
The essay must be in essay format (no dot points) and double spaced in 12 point font.
Structuring the essay
Introduction: a succinct outline of the aims, purpose and structure of the paper and short summary of conclusions reached. An introduction in papers of this length is usually only one or two paragraphs.
Body of the paper: the analysis. The social sciences technique of analysing involves more than just describing what happened. In this course, it is used to explain why events occurred, and suggest implications of the events. The purpose of conceptual literature generally in the social sciences is broadly twofold: to predict and/or explain. The analysis in the essay must use the negotiation conceptual literature to answer the question.
Some concluding statements, which summarise your overall evaluation. Rely on your own opinions, but back them up by referring to the literature, and to your previous analysis of the material. A concluding paragraph, which sums up your principal conclusions in the essay.
The first time you in-text reference it, refer to it as Stanford University (1997) (hereafter called ‘The Sluggers’). After that, just refer to it as ‘the video’ or ‘The Sluggers’.