NEGOTIATING AS EMOTION MANAGEMENT

NEGOTIATING AS EMOTION MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATING AS EMOTION MANAGEMENT Willem Mastenbroek Mastenbroek, W.F.G. Negotiating as emotion management / W.F.G. Mastenbroek Heemstede: Holland Business Publications ISBN 90-74885-21-7 NUGI 727 © W.F.G. Mastenbroek, 2002 All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. 5 Contents 5 1 Distinctive features of this book 6 2 The historical development of negotiating skills 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Dilemma's, primary drives and mixed negotiating: a brief outline 2.3 Negotiating skills in historical perspective 2.4 Conclusions 2.5 Summary 8 8 3 4 Models of negotiating 3.1 Negotiating as a series of techniques 3.2 Negotiating as handling dilemma's 3.3 Negotiating styles and emotional patterns 3.4 Core activities of modern negotiating 3.5 Profiles of negotiating: Integration of techniques, dilemma's and emotional patterns 9 14 39 43 45 45 53 56 60 62 Four core activities 4.1 Obtaining substantial results 4.2 Influencing the balance of power 4.3 Promoting a constructive climate 4.4 Obtaining flexibility 4.5 Final remark 67 67 74 83 88 100 5 Special situations 5.1 Preparing negotiations 5.2 Chairing negotiations 5.3 Influencing your constituency 5.4 Negotiating with a more powerful party 5.5 From fighting to negotiating 5.6 Emotional manipulations 101 101 108 115 118 121 125 6 State of the art 6.1 Recent developments 6.2 Summary and conclusions 131 131 136 List of figures 140 References 141 6 1 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THIS BOOK Brief overview Negotiating is a precarious ability. A historical perspective shows it is also a scarce ability. This is because emotions often drive us in other directions than dialogue and compromise. Chapter 2 'The historical development of negotiating skills' describes the precariousness of negotiating skills. It took centuries, if not millennia to develop the emotional make-up for fostering compromise and relationships of trust. A fight for dominance was never far away. The historical perspective is not very common; it proves to be of central importance to understand the process of becoming a skilful negotiator. Other chapters of this book focus more directly on the do's and don'ts of negotiating. In each chapter you will find also how these do's and don'ts are related to patterns of emotion management and different stages in the development of negotiating skills. All these insights come together in an integrative model of negotiating. This model provides a firm grasp of negotiating activities. The main goal of this book is to help people become better negotiators. Added value What are the characteristics of this book? In what ways does it provide useful insights and tools to the reader? • This book is the only study on the historical development of negotiating skills; not only through the ages in our social history but also in the individual history of persons becoming adults. This approach may seem a bit academic, but it provides a perspective with great added value: nobody is born a skilled 7 • • • • negotiator. What are the pitfalls, drives and behavioral dynamics in becoming a more skilful negotiator and how have people learned to deal with conflicting interests? The book clarifies the importance of emotions and offers tools for emotion-management. It concerns the uncovering of underlying emotional impulses and providing tools which lead to more effective negotiating. In modern literature on negotiating emotions are generally neglected. This book is an exception. The book provides a model of negotiating which links practical tactics with an integrative concept. This concept provides an operational overview and gives you a firmer grasp and understanding of incidents and behavior at the negotiating table. This model of negotiating overcomes the ongoing debate between win-win and win-lose approaches. It integrates the more explorative and relation-oriented tactics with more distributive and power-oriented tactics in one framework. Power games, stubborn constituencies, deadlock and manipulation are not seen as aberrations but as quite common in many situations. Any mature concept on negotiating has to accommodate these behaviors. The book is very easy to link to training courses in negotiating skills. The summaries and checklists provide easy access to the contents of the book. Its concepts are expressed by scales which can be used as scoring devices and as a means for personal feedback. The more theoretical chapters are chapter 2 'The historical development of negotiating skills' and to a lesser extent chapter 3 'Models of negotiating'. Chapter 3 already contains many practical recommendations. Especially chapter 2 may seem a little bit academic. However, I consider it an indispensable means to understand the important role of emotions. Chapter 2 is also crucial to clarify the precariousness of negotiating skills. Readers who are first and foremost interested in practical applications will find much to go on in chapters 3 through 6. 8 2 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEGOTIATING SKILLS 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Dilemma's, primary drives and mixed negotiating: a brief outline 2.3 Negotiating skills in historical perspective 2.4 Conclusions 2.5 Summary 2.1 Introduction What do we learn from negotiating textbooks or in workshops? Do you recognize a few of these recommendations? − Be flexible and firm − Separate the issue from the person − Ask for underlying interests − Explore alternatives − Improve listening skills. Is it possible to express the skills of negotiating by do's and don'ts like this? These nice and simple maxim's miss an important point: When interests collide emotions stir up. Anger or fright, stubbornness, arrogance, fear, boldness, distrust, aloofness, revenge and desorientation are part of the action Of course, we know we have to control these feelings. But this does not solve the issue. Effective negotiating presupposes ways and means of emotion management. It presupposes a particular emotional style. This style 9 we don't find in modern textbooks and training. A sketch of the historical development of negotiating skills will clarify the struggle to deal with emotions. I will describe how over the years people learn to become more versatile and differentiate their feelings and responses. Every negotiator goes through this same learning process. I want to improve our understanding of this individual learning process by clarifying the collective learning process as it has evolved over the past five centuries in the West. I will start with a brief description of emotions very common to negotiators: negotiating as a struggle with impulses such as forcing one's way, being compliant or clinging to calmness and control. Negotiators often experience these conflicting impulses simultaneously. Because they are difficult to combine, negotiating is experienced as coping with dilemmas. These dilemmas find their expression in conceptual distinctions like integrative versus distributive negotiating We will discover how emotions and impulses were experienced a few centuries ago. Luckily, some early authors provide us with penetrating insights. Their testimonies will clarify in what direction behavior and underlying emotions have changed over the past 500 years, at least in Western societies. 2.2 Dilemma's, primary drives and mixed negotiating: a brief outline Negotiating as handling dilemmas Negotiating is often experienced as dealing with dilemmas: how open or closed, how friendly or hostile, how tough or how lenient should one be? These dilemmas fit in the central dilemma of coping with the tension between cooperative behavior versus fighting behavior (see figure 1). 10 Figure 1 Toughness dilemma in negotiating Cooperative |________________________ Lenient Friendly Fighting _| Tough Aggressive People often vacillate between the two in their conduct. Sometimes they feel they give in too much, sometimes they adopt an overly tough, fighting attitude. Problems occur when people have to function in the area in between. Fighting is clear: dominate, force issues, score. Cooperation is also clear: openness, trust. Developing behavior to manage this dilemma with a certain degree of agility is one of the basic things negotiators have to learn. Time and again the literature on negotiating provides clues how to fight cleverly (Calero, 1979; Cohen, 1980; Ringer, 1973; Schoonmaker, 1989). What could possibly be better than gaining dominance and using this to impose one's wishes? The message is: don't fight openly, that's too risky, but try to intimidate people in all sorts of subtle ways. Act friendly, then use trickery and manipulation. Confound them by being self-confident. Push through issues in a casual way. All of this is very much one-sided. It applies more to the hit-and-run type of negotiating. Situations characterized by continuity in the relations are much more common nowadays. In these situations trickery can only become counter-productive. Other authors advocate the 'win-win' approach. (Fisher, Ury, 1981; Susskind, Crinkshank, 1987) These authors address the development of openness and trust in particular. Power games are considered aberrations. Deadlocks should not occur, neither stubborn constituencies. Unfortunately, these are characteristics of most reallife situations. Every negotiation goes through moments of parties testing each other's strength. 11 Apart from the central cooperative - fighting dilemma mentioned above, another major dilemma in negotiating can be discerned: exploring negotiating versus avoiding negotiating (see figure 2). 'Exploring' aims at jointly enlarging the cake or developing solutions attractive to both parties. At the same time it is tempting to hide one's real interests or to stick to one and the same position. 'Avoiding' shows by being passive or rigid. One is aloof, one shows restraint, calmness and control. Figure 2 Flexibility dilemma in negotiating Exploring | Flexible Searching Avoiding | Passive More of the same Pruitt's work (1991) on explorative behavior and some phase models of negotiating as a decision-making process (Scott, 1981; Zartman and Berman, 1982) handle this dilemma. These works provide a range of clues to increase the flexibility of negotiators. Overview of topics to be covered in this chapter My research led me to several authors from previous centuries, who in my opinion struggled with the same problems as described above. How much fighting behavior can you exhibit? Is friendly and cooperative behavior a good alternative? Is it better to avoid confrontation and keep quiet? One of the earliest authors, Rosier (1408-1475), a catholic bishop, elaborates the virtue of even-temperedness. He provides a range of recommendations focussing on suppressing emotions. A later author, Callières (1645-1717) writes that one should not lie and cheat when negotiating. Also, he devotes much attention to the message that one should not become violent. Callières' work contains only a few references to exploring behavior as we practice it in our time. But we do find plenty of references to the opposite: remaining distant, hiding your emotions, concealing your interests. This becomes especially clear in Callières' specific attention for handling emotions. The message is the same, time and again: 12 repress, keep hidden, conceal, feign. Two generations later Félice, who wrote a treatise on negotiating in 1778, also addresses the issue of emotions extensively. Comparing his work with Callières', we see a shift; apparently the problems of using violence and of lying and cheating are less prominent in Félice's day. However, the struggle with emotions is still very much in existence. The message of both authors is that aggressive impulses should be concealed by restraint. Behave friendly and cooperative, but in the meantime try to subject the other and if it doesn't work: keep a poker-face - bite the bullet and wait for better times. We indicated very briefly how the historical development of negotiating skills relates to dealing with primary drives and strong emotions. The described behavior and the advocated do's and don'ts are related to the tensions people experience between cooperative and fighting behavior and a third pole: avoiding behavior (see figure 3). Figure 3 Force field of primary impulses Fighting Aggressive Cooperative Lenient Restraint Avoiding In their more basic and crude forms, these three impulses can be seen as the simplest possible reactions in interaction. In this way they also can be seen as the repertoire of reactions most directly related to biological survival: fight, flight, submission. These impulses are discussed in a range of other studies. For example Horney's (1945) three basic interpersonal styles 'moving against' (fight), 'moving toward' (submission) and ' moving away' (flight). They also can be found in familiar behavioral science instruments such as the 'conflict grid' which is used to clarify styles of conflict handling. (Thomas, 1976; Pruitt, 1991). 13 This brief historical outline will be elaborated in the next sections. I will describe in greater detail how negotiating developed. The first authors to address negotiating were people with strong political affiliations. They were members f.i. Rosier and Callières, of the elites of the emerging states in the West. Their works show how negotiating is related to the growing interdependency between states. Authors are often very explicit about this. We rely on these first hand accounts to understand how negotiating developed over the centuries. These are accounts and observations of authors searching for more effective ways to deal with conflicting interests as alternatives to perennial warfare, violence and chaos. We will see how this search was impeded by great difficulties and long periods of stagnation. In a later phase, with ever-growing interdependencies and greater stability, commercial elites increasingly found themselves in negotiating situations. Gradually, more and more people in our Western society became bound to each other by closer interdependencies. With that development, interest in negotiating skills spread to more and more groups in society. The experience of negotiating as a normal skill practiced by nearly everyone, is a very recent one. We are leaving society by command and entering society by negotiation! Many recommendations and scientific studies in negotiating are available now. How can we tie these separate findings together? Is there an integrative framework available? We are still struggling to conceptualize all these experiences and findings. In my opinion we are inclined to one-sided models like competitive versus cooperative, distributive versus integrative, win-lose versus winwin. These models reflect the major dilemmas as experienced by negotiators. Most negotiating situations contain distributive as well as integrative elements. So, it is not a matter of choosing between either distributive or integrative negotiating. There may be a great deal of tension between these elements and it may be difficult to accommodate them. But that is exactly what good negotiating is about. Negotiating is of a mixed nature. And we are still having difficulties in developing models which express this mixed nature. I will present plenty of historical evidence to show how, over the centuries, people have gradually modified their behavior and learned to deal with their emotions. I will show how we learn to repress clear manifestations of primary emotions and how we tame and 14 mask them in endless variations. Negotiators gradually become more versatile in their behavioral reactions. They develop mixed behavior in which they combine toughness with flexibility, tenacity with friendliness. This mixed nature of negotiating, or as Lax and Sebenius (1986) call it, 'the simultaneousness of claiming value and creating value', becomes its most outstanding characteristic. People try to combine these conflicting impulses in a great many variations. For instance: − voicing one's demands with consideration for the interests of others − being friendly without giving in − inventiveness in designing creative solutions while retaining to one's preferences − being hard on issues, soft on persons. These combinations are crucial elements in modern negotiating. They may be simple to understand on a cognitive level, but they are difficult to handle on the emotional level. History shows we have struggled for centuries to develop the skills to handle mixed emotions. These skills have to be relearned by each new generation. The historical development of negotiating skills reflects the individual learning process. In a condensed way compressed into a lifetime - individuals go through a similar development or - more precisely - through similar struggles. 2.3 Negotiating skills in historical perspective An early sign of increasing control and restraint To my knowledge, the earliest publication in Western Europe in which negotiating is an important subject, is a treatise by Bernard du Rosier (1404-1475), also known in his days by the more commonly used Latin name Bernardus de Rosergio. When he was eighteen Bernard du Rosier entered the monastery as a member of the Augustinian order. In 1445, under pope Eugene IV, he went to Rome; he became Bishop of Basa in 1447; three years later he became bishop of the diocese Monte Alba; he became archbishop of Toulouse in 1452. 15 His treatise 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus' was written in 1436 at the court of the King of Castile. Central to the text is the concept of 'equanimitas' - even-temperedness. What does it refer to? Well, as is suggested in the term, it refers to keeping emotions under control continuously. Some examples: "... although offended, surmount these injuries of the heart and rise up to the most exalted attitude ... suppress emotions and show oneself in command." (Rosier, chapter 15, pp. 15, 16) "If the opposition causes delays in the negotiations, don't show vexation." (Rosier, chapter 19, p. 19) "Envoys must not show personal feelings about their own confusion to strangers whose earlier opinion of them was positive: let outrage yield to friendliness, impetuosity to wisdom, rigidity to adaptability and curtness to approachability. The appearance of envoys must remain distinguished and unmoved to those whose responses are less pleasant or negative, so that their sight remains on the future and better times." (Rosier, chapter 20, p. 20) What is so special about these recommendations? First of all: the type of recommendations itself. Up to that time, and even much later, texts about diplomacy were dominated by legal issues: rights and obligations. At best, there was an addition in terms of virtues an envoy should possess. Rosier's text is the first to show the transition from a general list of virtues to much more specific behavioral recommendations. Secondly, there is the constant emphasis on 'equanimitas' - even-temperedness, and curbing the affects. Rosier wages a civilization offensive to summon people to conquer their spontaneous impulses; impulses which apparently got the upper hand very easily. These recommendations do not sound very special to us. Any selfrespecting envoy wouldn't have any trouble with them. After all, we are talking about people who are used to functioning at courts. So why force these open doors? Rosier was evidently confronted with behavior that is radically different from that which we are used to. 16 This becomes clear earlier in his treatise when he describes the kind of behavior envoys should be wary of: − being inflated with supercilious, conceited arrogance − tyrannical behavior, clinging to greed − brazen and presumptuous forcing through − mocking religious matters − committing foul acts, being choleric or malicious − pursuing fame based on vanities. (Rosier, chapter 2, p. 5) Recent negotiating literature lacks such colorful references to untamed behavior. These days, containment of these strivings is more a matter-of-course. Struggling with violence It is almost impossible for us to imagine what the interaction and communication looked like in those days. The Dutch historian Huizinga (1924) provides an excellent picture. A characterization of the - in those days - regular communication would not be complete without terms like "lament, wail, wringing one's hands, prostrate oneself, bewilderment, savage exuberance, flaunting ostentation, groveling submissiveness, blind vengefulness and atrocious violence". Huizinga paints the following picture of social interaction: "From the thirteenth century onward inveterate party quarrels arise in nearly all countries: first in Italy, then in France, the Netherlands, Germany and England". "Racial pride, thirst of vengeance, fidelity, are their primary and direct motives". (Huizinga, 1924, p. 13) So violent and motley was life, that it bore the mixed smell of blood and of roses. The men of that time always oscillate between the fear of hell and the most naïve joy, between cruelty and tenderness, between harsh asceticism and insane attachment to the delights of this world, between hatred and goodness, always running to extremes. (Huizinga, 1924, p. 18) "The people could see their fate and that of the world only as an endless succession of evils. Bad government, extortion, the cupidity and violence of the great, wars and brigandage, 17 scarcity, misery and pestilence - to this is contemporary history nearly reduced in the eyes of the people. The feeling of general insecurity which was caused by the chronic form wars were apt to take, by the constant menace of the dangerous clashes, by the mistrust of justice, was further aggravated by the obsession of the coming end of the world, and by the fear of hell, of sorcerers and of devils. The background of all life in the world seems black. Everywhere the flames of hatred arise and injustice reigns. Satan covers a gloomy earth with his sombre wings". (Huizinga, 1924, p. 21) There undoubtedly were norms and agreements to regulate the mutual interaction, but "time after time the fierce roughness breaks through the embellished forms". "At the coronation banquet of Charles VI, in 1380, the Duke of Burgundy seeks, by force, to take the place to which he is entitled, as doyen of the peers, between the king and the Duke of Anjou. Already the train of the Duke begins to thrust aside their opponents; threatening cries arise, a scuffle is breaking out when the king prevents it, by doing justice to the claims of the Duke of Burgundy.' (Huizinga, pp. 38, 39) According to an observer at the peace conference at Atrecht in 1435, the participants "throw themselves on the ground, sobbing and groaning". (p. 6) The relatively refined life at the court is characterized as "continual noise and disorder, swearing and quarrels, jealousies and injuries, in short, the court is an abyss of sins, the gate of hell". (p. 38) A ferocious fight can erupt at any time over anything, whether it be a game of chess or a ceremonial funeral. Self-discipline and the curbing of emotions and drives were less constant and even. Plans and promises were easily overruled by the emotions of the moment. Direct, impulsive and irascible reactions were stronger. The risk that heated behavior and individual aggression could rapidly escalate into large-scale violence was far from imaginary. There was no confidence that the other side would have enough self-control, just as there was no confidence that people would refrain from assassination or ambush, in spite of all 18 the pledges. Wilder forms of showdowns and trials of strength are in fact the predecessors of our current negotiating behavior. Fanatism as normal Violence and intransigence were the dominant tendencies in situations of conflict. People could barely imagine other ways to deal with conflicting interests than confrontation. Compromise was not according to their code of honor and in that sense alien to their rationality. The dominant social standards allowed, and often even demanded subjugation, punishment, annihilation and revenge. Powelson (1994) refers to this attitude as quite normal for most societies in human history. In his impressive account of the historical development of economic change in nearly all regions of the world he only mentions two exceptions, i.e. Western Europe and Japan. Only there a behavioral repertoire developed in which subjugation or flight were not automatically the most natural ways to respond to tensions. Powelson refers to the endless struggles between warlords, princes and tyrants, which bred, and still breed, a behavioral repertoire far removed from negotiating and compromising. He also describes the, in many periods and regions quite normal, situation in which powerful rulers subjugated all rivals and enforced a peace characterized by a very steep power pyramid, most often of a ruthless and capricious nature. The exceptional situation in North West Europe and Japan was based on the fact that even the mightiest rulers in these two areas experienced various kinds of dependencies. To sustain the struggle with competitors these rulers had to find ways to get funds from their own subjects other than by ruthless exploitation or looting them. Lower ranking groups could utilize the power resource of allying themselves with higher-ranking groups. They were able to enforce some rights and could restrain arbitrariness and interference with regard to trade and production. In thousands upon thousands of conflicts, no group could impose its will; each learned to settle for some positive sum short of its deal. Thus were the rules of the market, corporate enterprise, parliamentary government, financial system, and commercial laws fashioned and endowed with sustaining power. More important, the various groups came to value longterm ends more that short-term ones, and they learned that 19 negotiation and compromise, not confrontation and violence would best achieve them. (Powelson, 1994: 11) Powelson (1994) calls this the power diffusion process; Elias (1994) refers to it as functional democratization. Van Vree (1999) describes in detail the example of the Netherlands, where bourgeois codes and types of conduct, characterized more by compromise and enduring relations based on trust, could evolve. An additional factor in Europe was that no sovereign was strong enough to withstand or subject all others without allies. Each country was constantly surrounded by potential enemies on all sides. To survive, coalitions had to be forged with other states, and these coalitions needed a more solid basis. Treachery, deceit and bribery proved too unstable a foundation. But time and again continual violence would seem to prevail over compromise. Internalization of the iron fence The 10th of September 1419, the French crown prince of France - later king Charles VII - and John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, met on a bridge across the river Yonne, built specifically for this meeting. In the middle a fence with bars as thick as an arm was built across the entire width of the bridge. In the fence was a small gate that could be locked and opened from both sides, so that one could only pass through if both parties agreed. During the talks on the bridge, the Duke, either at the advice of the crown prince, or on his own initiative, opened the door of the gate. It was also opened at the other side. As soon as John and his three men came through the door, they were slain (Schneider, 1987, pp. 15-17). Characteristic of the behavioral standards in those days is the reaction of the contemporaries. They did not accuse Charles of behaving treacherously or murderously. On the contrary, they were of the opinion that John had only himself to blame for his death. John had failed to observe the rules of the game and had not been careful enough. 20 Negotiating on specially constructed bridges with a fence separating the negotiators may seem rather awkward to us. But if we study history, we become aware that this is an already highly civilized form of negotiating. After the reign of Charlemagne, from the 9th up to the 13th century, it was quite common for fiefs, tribes and states to negotiate across rivers. Evidence is provided by Voss (1987). Of course, trying to negotiate by yelling across the water is not exactly convenient or practical. More sophisticated arrangements, in line with the physical dangers of negotiating, developed gradually. Meetings on ships, bridges and small islands were among them. These arrangements were not new, they had a long history. Tacitus (Historiae, V: 26; Schneider, 1977: 6) refers to the struggle between the Batavian leader Civilis and the Roman general Cerealis in 71 AD. They tried to negotiate an agreement on a bridge marked in the middle. Each was assigned his own place, separated from the other party. Tacitus also describes an incident between two generals, Arminicus and Flavius, in 9 AD. In spite of the river that separated them while they negotiated, they came very close to attacking each other (Tacitus, Annales II, 9). Huizinga (1924) mentions the shifts of mood and temper common in the Middle-Ages. His predecessors, the roman historians Tacitus en Suetonius write about the Roman era. From their work one gets very much the same impression of interaction and emotion management. Life at the court of the emperors as described by Suetonius is characterized by extreme cruelty as well as the most positive fidelity. Blind loyalty and easy treachery shift unpredictably. Small incidents cause rapidly escalating reactions. Exactly as Huizinga describes. So has there been little change during 15 centuries? Obviously the civilizing of behavior and emotions cannot be taken for granted. Stagnation and barbarization also belong to the normal course of events. As the known accounts of negotiations from the beginning of the Christian era into the 15th century in Western Europe show, negotiations are directly linked with violence and assassination. In this context we observe a sophistication of the technical means that reduce the chances of head-on and direct attack and compel people to restrain their tempers. So these 15 centuries do show some development in the technical constraints to more civilized behavior. Very gradually psychological changes also reveal themselves: The iron fence becomes internalized. It takes centuries before we 21 recognize this changing pattern of emotional controls in growing numbers of people. Rosier, as the advocate of 'even-temperedness', turns out to be a herald of the changes that were going to take place in Europe. For these were such that, gradually, more and more people felt compelled to negotiate without resorting to violence on the slightest provocation. Coping with deceit and manipulation For his day, Rosier's recommendations were extremely refined. It was obviously quite normal to lash out, betray or eliminate each other. Deceit was common. In the Byzantine empire it was developed into an art. Diplomacy among the Italian city-states permitted all means to promote the objectives of the state. Conspiracy, bribery, intrigue and even murder, were its normal tools. Machiavelli (1469-1527) relied on the outward appearance of virtue of the Prince. But virtue also implied strong tendencies to dominate and to force one's way through brutal means. In those days envoys were spies, actively conspiring, lying and deceiving for the good of the state. However, let us not forget that conspiracy, bribery and intrigue are already much more controlled and inhibited compared to ferocious violence and immediate physical attack. Moreover, less rude, more refined standards are developed for lying and deceiving. Not as a matter of morality but as tactics that prove more effective in situations of closer interdependencies. On some occasion, one even gets a glimpse of standards of trust and reliability. Machiavelli, with his keen sense for power provides the following advice to ambassadors and envoys in a letter written in 1522. And above all, a representative must strive to get reputation, which he does by striking actions which show him an able man and by being thought liberal and honest, not stingy and twofaced, and by not appearing to believe one thing and say another. This matter is very important; I know men who, through being clever and two-faced, have so completely lost the trust of a prince that they have never afterward been able to negotiate with him! And if, to be sure, sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defense. (Machiavelli, 1989, p. 116) 22 Changes in negotiating standards proved always controversial and disputed. Contradictions and counter movements are ample. Louis XI, King of France from 1461-1482, when sending ambassadors to Brittany, provided them with clear instructions. "If they lie to you, see to it that you lie much more to them." In 1604, Sir Henry Wooton defined an ambassador as "a man sent abroad to tell lies for his country's good." Mattingly (1988, p. 206), a known expert on renaissance diplomacy, states that most of Wooton's contemporaries would have accepted this statement readily. A long term historical perspective is needed to clarify the changing pattern. In the 16th century, assassination was no longer thought to be the safest way of disposing of opponents. Although occasionally the envoys of Venice resorted to it. Bribes were only refused by eccentrics. Nevertheless, the moral standards concerning bribery were changing. It was thought more respectable to accept a single payment than a regular subvention. (Nicolson, 1977, p. 37) Rosier was a pioneer. One factor may have been that he was part of a, at that time, relatively stable social configuration. This relative stability deteriorated rapidly in the last quarter of the 15th century. Florence's dominant position crumbled away. The rivalry between Italian cities was exacerbated. The church became more and more entangled in the game of fast-changing coalitions and intrigues. Negotiations were aimed at short-term gains. This required specific behavior and an emotional attitude known in those days as Virtù. In his standard text on the evolution of diplomacy Nicolson concisely characterizes this mentality: "Knowing their existence to be precarious, these despots and oligarchs aimed at immediate results only; they had no idea at all of the value of long-term policies or of the gradual creation of confidence. To them the art of negotiation became a game of hazard for high immediate stakes; it was conducted in an atmosphere of excitement, and with that combination of cunning, recklessness and ruthlessness which they lauded as Virtù." (Nicolson, 1977, p. 31) It would take centuries before someone would pick up where Rosier left off. This would become possible in the times of Richelieu 23 (1585-1641), when the network of negotiating partners stabilizes again. The security and stability that Richelieu attempts to hold onto are the basis of the negotiating style that François de Callières (1645-1717) wants to cultivate. Until that time there is stagnation. In "Renaissance diplomacy", Mattingly (1988) surveys the literature on diplomacy for over 200 years, from Rosier to the Spaniard De Vera's "El Embaxador" (1620). It concerns more than 40 treatises; these are largely the work of jurists defining the rights and immunities of diplomats. Another theme which gradually became more important covered the qualities that a good diplomat ought to possess in terms of a portrait of 'the perfect' ambassador. These two themes: legal questions and recommendable virtues, dominate the discussion for several centuries. Specific behavioral recommendations and clues for how to deal with emotions during close and continuous interaction are scarce. Keens-Soper and Schweizer (1983) provide another excellent summary of early diplomatic literature. They regard the Dutchman Abraham de Wicquefort as the first author whose focus was more on actual diplomatic practise. Wicquefort (1606-1682) wrote 'L'ambassadeur et ses Fonctions'. The purpose of this work was to describe what an envoy does and how he should conduct himself. He was on the threshold of a new development. Increasing restraint and less violence The person who was to set the tone for the development of negotiating skills in political practice for the next few centuries was François de Callières (1645-1717). His work was used as a standard text on negotiating well into the 20th century by generations of diplomats. As a civil servant of Louis XIV he was actively involved in a wide range of negotiations. He was one of the main negotiators of the French at the "Treaty of Rijswijk" (1697) that ended the Nineyear war. With profound insight he links the necessity of negotiating to the development of tighter interdependencies in Europe. 'To understand the permanent use of diplomacy and the necessity for continual negotiations, we must think of the states of which Europe is composed as being joined together by all kinds of necessary commerce, in such a way that they may be regarded as members of one Republic and that no considerable 24 change can take place in any one of them without affecting the condition, or disturbing the peace of all the others. The blunder of the smallest of sovereigns may indeed cast an apple of discord among all the greatest Powers, because there is no state so great which does not find it useful to have relations with the lesser states and to seek friends among the different parties of which even the smallest state is composed. History teems with the results of these conflicts which often have their beginnings in small events, easy to control or suppress at their birth, but which when grown in magnitude became the causes of long and bloody wars which have ravaged the principal states of Christendom.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 11) A very modern statement indeed nowadays valid on a worldwide scale! The feeling of mutual dependency articulated in this statement is quite unique. Even more unique is the fact that people can act on it. Powelson (1994) documents elaborately the historical evidence that elites tend to enhance their own power position at all costs; peace is by definition temporary and unstable, because it is a victor's peace. Furthermore, even if one were to endorse de Callière's statement, in his day emotion management was generally such that often enough 'small events' escalated into 'long and bloody wars'. The France of Louis XIV definitely did not avoid 'bloody wars', but there also emerged a diplomatic service that bred the kind of emotion management necessary to build solid coalitions and avoid senseless escalations. Callières was an outstanding representative of this development. What did top-negotiators learn in Calliéres time? Did they start to handle their primary drives differently? Callières provides some answers. A few of his recommendations: − do not act arrogantly − do not show contempt − do not immediately resort to threats − do not take a hostile attitude − do not give in to fits of rage − do not show off or flaunt yourself. 25 He also addresses the question of what sort of people should not be appointed to negotiate. The following list describes the personal characteristics deemed unacceptable in negotiators. They should not be: − gamblers − drunkards − quick-tempered, passionate characters − people of unruly and irregular conduct − people who mix with shady characters and who abandon themselves to frivolous amusement. Quite correct in themselves, these guidelines were apparently not self-evident at that time. Callières had to emphasize again and again that these types of behavior are not particular effective. These recommendations still closely resemble the admonitions of Rosier. Apparently, behavior hadn't changed much. But changes are taking off. Greater control and more subtlety Callières is far more articulate than Rosier. He develops more elaborate and detailed advice. He focuses in a more refined and varied way on self-restraint and discipline: 'Above all the good negotiator must have sufficient control over himself to resist the longing to speak before he has really thought what he shall say.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, pp. 19, 20) 'A man who is naturally violent and easily carried away is illfitted for the conduct of negotiations.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 34) '...for he will be so unreliable that at moments when he seeks the satisfaction of his ill-regulated desires he will be prepared to sell the highest secrets of his master' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 34) 'A man who is master of himself and always acts with sangfroid has a great advantage over him who is of a lively and easily inflamed nature. One may say indeed that they do not fight with equal arms; for in order to succeed in this kind of 26 work, one must rather listen than speak: and the phlegmatic temper, self-restraint, a faultless discretion and a patience which no trial can break down - these are the servants of success.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, pp. 35, 36) '...it would be easy to prove by modern examples that men do not act upon firm and stable means of conduct; that as a rule they are governed by passion and temperament more than by reason.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, pp. 47, 48) '...and finally, he (the good negotiator) must remember that if once he permits his own personal or outrageous feelings to guide his conduct in negotiation, he is on the sure and straight road to disaster.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 108) In our days, most of these recommendations still apply but are far more matter-of-course and self-evident. Remarkable are the numerous references to ill-regulated desires and outrageous feelings. Modern authors take a more disciplined temperament for granted. Negotiators may not always live up to this code of conduct but it is self-evident as a normal standard. In the days of Callières detailed explanations and exhortations were necessary. Elegance, cunning and concealment Some other recommendations by Callières, briefly summarized: − keep your true feelings hidden, conceal and secrete your interests − do not give the impression that you are a clever manipulator; this trait should remain hidden − exploit the weaknesses of others − use flattery − utilize "the flush of wine". Also, Callières emphasizes the importance of being familiar with the opponent's history and culture, and with courtly manners. Notable are his repeated warnings against dishonest behavior. The development of an impression of sincerity and good faith are seen as important by him: '.… the negotiator must appear as an agreeable, enlightened, and far-seeing person; he must beware of trying to pass himself 27 off too conspicuously as a crafty or adroit manipulator. The essence of skill lies in concealing it, and the negotiator must ever strive to leave an impression upon his fellow diplomatist of his sincerity and good faith.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 124) Noteworthy are the terms: 'appear', 'too conspicuously', 'concealing' and 'impression'. Nevertheless, we can speak of a development towards more trustworthy behavior. Common practice in Callières' days was closer to threat, confusion, deceit and bribery. So, Callières' guidelines refer to rather refined behavior if we compare them to an earlier stage, as he does himself by stating for instance; 'It is a capital error which prevails widely, that a clever negotiator must be a master of the art of deceit.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 31) More control, masking and feigning, less confrontation and deceit Two generations after Callières, in the second half of the eighteenth century, another French author Félice (1778) provides more guidelines regarding the art of negotiating. Félice was born in Rome in 1723. He became a professor of physics who expanded the work of the Encyclopedists. He sees negotiating as a 'recent' skill related to the development of stronger interdependencies. This is important because like those of Callières, his observations clearly demonstrate that the development of negotiating skills is closely related to changing networks of power and dependency. His observation that continuity in the relation is changing the techniques of negotiating is very astute. More than two centuries later modern authors are still explaining and elaborating this point. 'It is only in modern Europe, where the inhabitants are closely united by similar customs, a common religious basis, frequent commerce, and continual intellectual communication, that negotiation has been raised to an art and become stable. (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p. 60) 'However that may be, the custom of negotiating without interruption, or at least the possibility of doing so at any time, has made public negotiation more complex. The delays that that custom imposes on affairs demand greater firmness and 28 patience and a surer hold on passions than would have been required by a more expeditious negotiation. The habit of negotiating without interruption teaches all the ruses that the politicians use to fool each other, and its slowness gives all the time necessary to use them both to tire and to surprise each other. There are continual occasions to sound out, examine, and abuse the sentiments of others.' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p. 60) According to Félice a negotiator should: − become acquainted with the drives and the passions of his opponents − hide emotions, feign other emotions − be sincere − learn to look through the masks of others − avoid confrontation, act as if he concurs; he should not revert to open persuasion: 'The art of insinuation' − not mistake scheming for negotiating − be aware of the role of emotions like anxiety, fear, courage, doubt, passion. Especially noteworthy is his elaborate struggle with emotions. 'Men are moved by feelings alone. Even actions that at first glance may appear to be farthest from what are commonly called emotional acts have some hidden sentimental motive behind them.' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p. 49) 'If we want to dominate the emotions of others, we must master our own. Otherwise we will always be off on false adventures; we will not be able to await the proper moment or seize the right occasion, because we have been carried away. We will not be able to use gentle insinuations and charming words. Our emotions will warn others to be wary of us, and will make us imagine interests that often we do not have. They will blind us to the nature of the resources that we must use and to the ways of using them. Indeed, a man who wishes to succeed in negotiations must be able to hide his emotions to the point of appearing cold when he is overwhelmed with sorrow and calm when he is shaken with passion. Since it is impossible to 29 eliminate all emotion-indeed, it would be dangerous to be free of it entirely, one must at least learn to keep it in check and out of sight. It is often useful to appear to be shaken with emotion but of a different kind than that which is actually at work. An impassioned man gives hope of being won over, whereas a reserved man puts others on guard. In fact, a man who feigns emotions distracts those who are trying to get the upper hand on him. Such acting is permitted and is in no way contrary to proper behavior...' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p. 53) A pattern is discernible here. These writings reflect a society in which primary drives are less controlled. The presence of unregulated impulses is much stronger than today. The entire behavioral repertoire is less inhibited and less complex. However, a change is taking place. The struggle with primary affects is becoming more powerful. The quotations make it clear that social conditions apparently demand the suppression of affects and the feigning of emotions. Knowing others are doing the same, brings negotiating sometimes close to fooling each other; at least in modern eyes. This may seem a rather devious and clumsy way of dealing with each other. But it can also be seen as a stage in the process of learning to master one's affects and as very appropriate and cultivated behavior in that particular age. The treatises on negotiating by Rosier, Callières and Félice are part of a broader societal development in the direction of curbing one's passions and adhering to more refined behavioral standards. Elias (1939) explains this development in relation to the growing interdependencies and the higher density of the networks binding people together. Callières and Félice, judging by some of the quotations in this book, apparently came to the same conclusion. In Western Europe, from the Middle Ages on, this process was accelerated by the growing monopolization in the hands of a few central rulers, of two decisive sources of power: taxation and military power. Elias vividly describes the more inhibited and restrained manners needed to raise one's chances of acquiring prestige and obtaining positions of power in the newly flourishing commercial and political centers. Another impetus to greater caution and an ongoing curbing of affects was the need for people to 30 consolidate positions of power by distinguishing themselves through more restrained and refined behavior. More refinement To return to François de Callières: In his times the impulses of domination or submission together with related emotions like anger or fear, made themselves felt with greater intensity and fewer nuances. Compared to our times they were less complicated, less mixed with other emotions or reason. However, the need to check these urges became more and more pressing. Affective outbursts can be damaging. Apart from revealing hidden feelings they also have a destructive impact on relations. In the court society of François de Callières they were seen as a sign of weakness. The primary form of regulation became to restrain, suppress and disclaim them. A tendency to hide one's intentions and urges becomes visible. Strong forces towards less spontaneous and more calculated behavior develop. As La Bruyère (1922, p. 211) recounts when he characterizes typical behavior at the court of Louis XIV: 'A man who knows the court is master of his gestures, of his eyes and his expression; he is deep, impenetrable. He dissimulates the bad turns he does, smiles at his enemies, suppresses his ill-temper, disguises his passions, disavows his heart, acts against his feelings.' This regulation and concealment of direct aggression while retaining the wish, albeit camouflaged, to subjugate the other, can reach a high degree of perfection in certain networks of interdependencies. The desire to dominate is concealed by feigning indifference or conformance. This is supplemented by other techniques: using subtle schemes and devious means, a person nevertheless tries to gain the upper hand! The intention has not changed much, but behavior becomes much more even and restrained. It is no longer readily carried to one of the three extremes, shown in figure 3, with sudden switches to other extremes. It is more constant, less impassioned, more varied, more even and all-round. 31 Decreasing contrasts In an early stage of development, negotiating styles tend to be more one-sided and extreme, less differentiated and less mixed, more inflammable and erratic. In the developing networks of stronger and more continuous dependencies, restraint and dissimulation as a means of hiding one's real feelings and intentions become normal standards. Reading Callières and Félice shows, for instance, the flattery and restraint used as means towards dominance. We are dealing with tactical behavior. The arts of camouflage, of insinuation and manipulation are highly developed. Nevertheless, despite its calculated and finely tuned, even delicate manifestations, in our modern western eyes this behavior seems awkward and artificial. There is less flexibility, less openness, less informality. It is an ongoing pursuit for dominance often cloaked in submission and flattery or extreme self-restraint. Rosier, Callières and Félice are particularly interested in the way people control their emotions during negotiations. They are very specific on this subject: Do not show personal feelings, suppress and hide your emotions, exploit the affects of others. No wonder if you read to what emotions they are referring: fits of rage, ill-regulated desires, contempt, arrogance, fear. So they plead for a strict repression of these impulses. Not only behavioral manifestations of these emotions had to be repressed but also any verbal openness about underlying feelings and intentions. Also intentions of a more businesslike nature concerning factual interests and preferable goals had to be kept hidden. Suppression and discipline are not enough. Callières, and Félice even more, already write about creating impressions and building up the appearance of being courtly, agreeable and honest persons. Very sophisticated is Félice's observation that it is dangerous to show no emotions at all. This will make people suspicious about your true intentions, or at the very least it will put them on guard. So feign other emotions, behave impassioned but stay cold and calculating, put on a mask. Nowadays, this behavior may seem artificial and inauthentic, not to say faked, manipulative or even dishonest. These judgments are expressing more our recent behavioral standards than providing insight in what was really happening. In those days this "artificial" behavior was considered a very refined and very civilized mode of conduct. It demonstrated that people were really masters of 32 themselves, that there were no risks of hideous attacks, fits of anger, unpredictable shifts of temper, sudden switches in conduct. This controlled behavior made people feel more secure and relaxed in their contacts. This personal control, this stability and safety in relating to others were positive and civilized experiences, especially in a society where the moulding of drives and the tighter control of affects were not yet general practices. People also felt better, more civilized than others less skilled in these respects. So these behaviors were also a means of distinguishing oneself from other groups in society. This was another impetus to a more even curbing and moulding another incentive towards more differentiation and variation in courtly manners expressing control and distinction (Elias, 1983). Controlled decontrolling How appropriate are the recommendations of Callières and Félice in our days? Show no emotions, feign other emotions, stay cold and calculating! Are these sensible rules of conduct? Modern negotiators do not always agree in their reactions to these questions of feigning and masking. Some may agree with this line of action. Some may have developed the habits of 'poker-face' and 'no emotion in public' themselves. At the same time a lot of negotiators are keenly aware of the potential adverse effects of this type of behavior. It arouses suspicion and causes formal and calculating behavior at the other side of the table. Bit by bit you lose credibility and legitimacy. Another effect may turn out to be even more negative. The alienation of one's feelings, the constant suppression of one's impulses can have a suffocating effect on the persuasive powers. Senses become dull, lively expression is not trained, creativity and flexibility are not stimulated, hidden hostility may bottle up. Some negotiators are acutely aware of these dangers. For them a major challenge is to gradually develop more openness and directness about their interests and their feelings, but carefully in a controlled way. Apparently it is possible for people to master their emotions in other ways than by hiding and suppressing. People are able to use their emotions as a means of orientation and as a support for their interests. Tight suppression and control are superseded by varied and differentiated articulation. Well-tempered but also more open and more direct. 33 We are referring to an ongoing process of changing patterns of emotional restraint. It is no longer a matter of more and stricter restraints, it also includes a loosening up and a controlled decontrolling to become more open, direct, creative and persuasive (Elias, 1939; Wouters, 1990). These changing patterns of restraints mean a specific change in the way people deal with the tension balance own interests - common interest. People experience competition as well as cooperation in their relations. They learn to deal with this experience without 'either-or' solutions. They develop a higher tolerance for the 'mixedness' of relations in networks of more intense and symmetrical interdependencies. People learn to become more outspoken and direct about their own interests and their feelings in a controlled way. Simultaneously they experience greater empathy and are better able to identify with others. Firmness is combined with friendliness. Assertiveness with flexibility. So we see a still ongoing development towards a greater differentiation! We develop skills that enable us to tolerate a higher tension between autonomy and interdependence, between more private concerns and common interests. Our ability to simultaneously express the facts and feelings of autonomy and interdependency grows. We learn to be more direct and outspoken and more respectful and flexible. More open and direct ways of dealing with each other become possible because of a more stable and differentiated self-control. Negotiators feel more secure about each other's discipline. So this stage in the development of negotiating skills creates the conditions for another development. The next step in this development is to feel secure that people will not resent other people having different opinions and interests. In this stage people are able to appreciate outspokenness and informal behavior. They no longer experience it as provocative or threatening, especially when this more direct and relaxed attitude is combined with the open recognition of different interests and a creative and flexible search for compromise. This kind of negotiating becomes a means to develop trust and confidence between people, but only because interaction is embedded in close interdependencies and in a well-trained, more encompassing moderation of affects. 34 Interdependency and emotion management These changing patterns of emotion management are related to increasing interdependencies. These changes have nothing to do with an inherent or natural tendency towards more civilized and refined behavior. Nor are the particular skills or qualities of Rosier, Callières or other great minds a crucial factor. The impetus for behavioral change is directly related to the changing patterns of dependencies. The development of more extensive networks with more intense and more continuous interdependencies made it in the self interest of people to change their behavior. This process took off at the commercial and political junctions of relations in our early societies. This process also worked the other way around: More mutually expected self-control contributed to more stable networks. These networks often proved politically and economically stronger. To move to positions of power in these networks required more stable conduct. In this way different stages of emotion management conditioned ever stronger interdependencies and vice versa: Stronger interdependencies sustained stricter and more differentiated patterns of emotion management. In the late Middle-Ages this process accelerated and started to foster negotiating skills.∗ Several types of changes reinforced each other. In the first place there was the gradual monopolization of the two decisive power sources of 'taxation' and 'military violence' in a number of European areas. The internal pacification of these areas and the concentration of political, financial and military power generated court societies. A career at court became important for social success. This promoted the tempering of affects, decreasing contrasts, greater variety and elegance and the arts of masking and subtle manipulation. A typical example of the behavioral standards and the emotional skills one needed to consolidate and improve one's position is provided on page 29 in this book in the brief characterization of behavior at the court of Louis XIV. Another good example is provided by Gracián (1646), a Spanish priest, who ∗ These insights are based on the work of historians and sociologist like Elias (1939, 1969), Huizinga (1924) and McNeill (1991). Other examples of this approach are the works of Barrington Moore (1966), Bendix (1964), Bloch (1961), Goudsblom (1992), Mennell (1990), Powelson (1994), De Swaan (1990) and Wouters (1990). 35 frequented the court elites of his time. He meticulously codified which behavior was desired. − The best form of power is control of your emotions, which frees us from base impulses. − Keep people off-balance and in suspense. It is not elegant to show your hand and it serves no purpose. − Find people's weak spots; these concern people's primary motivations, which are not always the loftiest ones, because there are, after all, more scoundrels in this world than decent people. − Offer - limited - help frequently. − Do the sympathetic things personally, leave the dirty work to others. − The best tactic is to hide everything that may look like tactics. The development of this rather sophisticated tactical behavior is closely related to the monopolization of power resources in the hand of mighty rulers. The elites surrounding these sovereigns developed this more polished behavior as a way to get ahead. The dependency and the push and shove for favors, the fear of falling into disfavor and the mutual rivalry shaped this behavior on the various levels of the power pyramid. A constant focus on power, naturally covered up by elegant and pleasant behavior, is the common denominator. We may say that these types of behavior and emotion management are characteristic of court societies (Elias, 1969) as they were established during many periods of human history in many parts of the world. It resembles, for instance, the conduct at the courts of the Byzantine or Chinese empires. Changing balances of power In the West this type of emotion management blended with a different range of practices and emotional patterns. The difference can be explained by the rather unique structure of interdependencies that came to exist in the West. (Elias, 1939; McNeill, 1991, Powelson, 1994) To describe the features of this structure concisely I come to the following conclusions: 1. No ruling elite became the dominant elite of all Europe. For instance, early in the 15th century the Chinese emperor could recall the Chinese admiral from his exploratory expeditions all the way along the East African coasts (at that time China was 36 2. far ahead of Europe in terms of navigation and exploration; their technology, means of communication, industry and trade were also of a higher level). Not one European ruler would have been able to stop the expeditions from Europe. No emperor or king in Europe had the absolute power of the Chinese emperor. On the contrary, the characteristic pattern consisted of competing court elites and states. This rivalry had an energizing effect and promoted the art of negotiating. The mutual competition could not be settled by violence, although this was attempted continuously. Stable alliances based on a certain equality proved to be a strong power resource. With the increasing interdependency between states, constant negotiating proved to be the pre-eminent vehicle for more stable ties between states. Félice and Callières consider negotiating as a transnational skill, developed specifically for the relationships between states. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the French used the term 'négociation' when referring to the handling of the affairs of the state. This connotation was so strong that Félice (1778) had to note explicitly that negotiating is an activity that encompasses more than diplomatic affairs. He identifies negotiation as an aspect of all activities in human life. The monopolization of power in the hands of one elite within European states lagged behind in comparison to empires like Byzantium or China. There were powerful groups of merchants, artisans, ship owners and bankers; some political entities like Venice, the low countries and the Hanseatic cities were even partly dominated by these groups. The internal history of states was in effect a constant struggle between heterogeneous, powerful and relatively independent elites. Struggles which were settled by a mix of violence and negotiation. In some European countries merchant and artisan guilds managed to develop into self-assured groups with their own codes of conduct and mutual agreements to promote trade, barter and industry (Hoock and Jeannin, 1993). In some cases these groups became so powerful that they became part of the ruling elites. A behavioral code of more even, trustworthy conduct emerged. Although many similar groups came into existence in other societies, e.g. the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman empire, China and India, these groups were never able to develop their power and prestige with some substantial 37 3. continuity as for instance in Western Europe. They were subjugated by state bureaucracies and exploited by high-handed regime interventions. In addition they were often classified as horse-traders, cunning adventurers and usurers. Bargaining, negotiating and compromising represented lower class habits compared to courtly manners and the strict standards of etiquette cultivated at the palaces and courts. The elites showed great reservation, if not arbitrary and oppressive behavior to anyone who didn't meet their standards of power, status and prestige. Again and again one should stress the fact that these types of more oppressive behavior also became current in most Western-European societies. But not to the degree of refinement, continuity and total disregard of other behavioral standards it reached in most other great states and empires. A third difference was the relatively unstable nature of medieval society. Standards and behavioral codes had not as yet been internalized to the degree that change could be blocked. The heterogeneous elites and the still tribal traditions of clans with self-appointed leaders counterbalanced the tendency toward rigid command and control hierarchies common to empires and states throughout history. The rise of the West was neither planned nor foreseen by anyone, but the dynamics of sustained competition became a self-propelling force toward change. The dominant trait is the continued existence of multiple competing centers of power, both within states and between states. These multiple configurations characterized not only political relations, but also religious and economic relations. Alongside the age-long attempts to gain dominance by means of violence, an age-long learning process of negotiation and compromise evolved. The ongoing competition within and between these configurations fostered a growing negotiating ability to regulate the inherent instability of these networks. The development of parliamentary and more democratic governments meant a more peaceful and more stable regulation of conflicts. Negotiating became a skill for more and more citizens. We can regard the treatises by Rosier, Callières and Félice as supplementing the courtly behavioral codes. 'Supplementing' because they start to renounce arrogance, manipulation, intrigue, 38 cunning and deception. The mild and relatively open types of confrontation that go with negotiating are incompatible with intrigue and deception. Credibility, trust and stability in the relationships between more or less egalitarian partners demand different behavior than rivalry for the favors of a powerful ruler or than control of highly dependent subservients. Society by command does not breed the kind of emotion-management close to negotiating skills. Economic impulses After centuries of trial and error, we gradually see the changes becoming clearer. Endemic warfare and civil strife were turned into periodic war and strife. Next to violence, flight and subjugation, the standards of emotional control, compromise and negotiation developed more and more. Also bourgeois authors take part in this development, albeit in a very different way. Not from a political rationale, but from a commercial one. In Western Europe we observe the appearance of manuals for merchants and manufacturers (Hoock and Jeannin, 1993; Meuvret, 1971). These manuals contain numerous instructions regarding appropriate conduct and desired ways of interaction. Well-known is Le parfait Négociant by Jaques Savary. It was first published in 1675, reprinted more than 20 times in the following 125 years, and it was translated into German and Dutch. The book contains a separate chapter on conduct (Savary, 1675, part 1, book 3, chapter 2), where we find numerous instructions regarding reliable behavior, reasonable discussion and constructive negotiating. These manuals express the growing professional pride and selfawareness of the ever-growing groups of merchants, traders, entrepreneurs and business people. Of course these groups were also present in other societies, but they never developed comparable power and prestige. On the contrary, their initiative and incipient power were usually perceived as threats to the rulers. Moreover, rulers proved able to keep a tight control over entrepreneurial actions, using means like strict regulation, brutality, arbitrariness, heavy taxation and a denigrating attitude. So we see a shift in the utilization of negotiating. At first political control and the use of violence are the primary issue; diplomacy and negotiation are nearly synonymous. This to the extent that Félice has to state explicitly that negotiating can also be applied in the other 39 spheres of life. He is absolutely right; one century before he made this statement the same term was already used by his compatriot Savary in his writing about merchants. The abilities to negotiate permeate more and more aspects of human interaction. Business books on negotiating have indeed become very popular in our times. Recently this literature has been enriched with many social-psychological elements. When violence and threat are no longer decisive, personality increasingly becomes a means to gain advantage. The extensive attention for developing positive personal relations, influencing the negotiating climate and the absolute rejection of violence and direct material threats bear witness to this development. Psychological mechanisms like the control of power-behavior and the controlled decontrolling of emotions increasingly determine the rules of interaction. This is only possible when mutual dependencies grow stronger and power differences diminish. 2.4 Conclusions Several stages of control In an early stage of the development of negotiating skills restraints and controls are firmly established. Very restrained, almost ritualistic behavior has a definite function. It minimizes the risk of unpredictable, emotional outbursts. It prevents the demonstration of fits of anger, threats or signs of weakness which are regretted afterwards. It also functions as an expression and confirmation of status and power differences. Later, the strict suppression of affects, the feigning of emotions, flattery and the hiding of interests become less adequate if not counterproductive. They cause inflexibility and arouse suspicion. When emotional controls become more of a second nature, and when power differences become smaller, there is less need for ritualistic, formal and repetitive negotiating techniques. These impede more direct, flexible and constructive dealings which fit the still closer interdependencies. 'Fit' meaning: Providing competitive advantage in comparison to the social networks which lag behind in 40 developing these skills. The main stages in the development of negotiating skills are summarized in figure 4. Figure 4 The development of negotiating skills The development of negotiating skills, 3 stages: 1. Low level of drive repression (fight, flight, submission). Restraints are unstable. Moods and actions tend to extremes. 2. Restraints become more constant and even. Increasing variety in behavior, decreasing contrasts. Intentions become more disguised. 3. Restraints become less rigid. Controlled decontrolling of affects. Intention becomes: Developing reliable relations simultaneously with getting what you want. The most recent stage concerns the transition to a more differentiated self-control, which allows greater flexibility and more leeway for emotional impulses (but measured, channeled), tolerating and expressing higher levels of tension in the balance between autonomy and interdependency. People learn to deal with mixed emotions. They become more versatile in controlling these emotions. They are in touch with their feelings, they use their feelings to orientate themselves and to express themselves more lively and persuasively. This mixed orientation is possible because they have learned to differentiate their feelings and actions. Thus they are able to deal with the mixed character of negotiating: Getting what you want and developing reliable relations. Mixed negotiating as a concept. It is quite possible to order the multitude of negotiating tactics on the basis of the three basic impulses: fight, flight, submission (or moving against, away and toward; see figure 3). Many approaches to conflict handling and negotiating are based on grids directly linked to these basic styles (Pruitt, 1991; Thomas, 1976). These grids and basic styles are described in chapter 3. Recommendations building on this triangle of basic styles generally advocate a mixed 41 and flexible style: Depending on the situation one should choose from the available repertoire. Furthermore, one should develop active problem-solving behavior. This is a method to escape from the triangle by developing the explorative mode of negotiating as opposed to the more avoiding and restrained style. In my view such recommendations are a definite improvement compared to recommendations in favor of one of the poles. See for example the extensive literature on 'clever intimidation', skilled fighting and winning. The frequently advocated "win-win" method leans towards the pole of cooperative, open and friendly behavior, while neglecting the extremely important role of power, deadlock and stubborn constituencies. The conclusion that good negotiating consists of a mix of these three impulses, although markedly better than a one-sided choice, is not satisfactory. What does such a mix look like? This question is dealt with in the remaining parts of this book. It is not easy to go beyond the clichés of 'win-lose' and 'win-win' negotiating. Walton and McKersie (1965) opt for either integrative or distributive negotiating. However, the empirical evidence forces them to acknowledge the existence of 'mixed bargaining'. They don't quite know what to do with this. In a later publication Walton even attempts to do away with 'mixed bargaining'! He recommends a strict separation of the integrative and distributive elements in the actual negotiations: Separate agendas, different times and places, different negotiators (Walton, 1972, p. 104). An impractical, alien recommendation because the pre-eminent characteristic of negotiating is its mixed nature. Lax and Sebenius (1986) begin to transcend the division between 'win-lose' and 'win-win'. Time and again they observe in the practice of negotiating the mixing and simultaneousness of 'claiming and creating value'. Claiming value may overrun the creation of value. But not letting that happen is exactly what constructive negotiating is all about. Lax and Sebenius struggle to conceptualize this mixing. In this book I capture the mixed nature of negotiating by a differentiation of negotiating in four kinds of activities. (Chapters 3 and 4) The ability to distinguish among these activities and to combine them in mixed patterns, makes for effective negotiating. 42 These mixed patterns can be expressed in specific tactics and do's and don'ts like: − Combine tenacity with tact. − Do not confuse standing up for yourself with dominance and forcing through your views. − Be flexible and tough. − Separate the issue from the person. − Building a good relation has nothing to do with subdued and yielding behavior. − Listening closely and listing possible solutions has nothing to do with giving in. Negotiating as emotion management The tactics just mentioned above are easily understood on a rational level. Applying them into practice often proves a lot more difficult because the underlying emotional ability to deal with contrasting impulses has not always fully developed yet. To understand the difficulties people experience in this area we have studied the painstaking development of this ability from a historical point of view. We see that this development is related to the historical change towards increasingly dense networks in which people become more dependent on more others. These tactics provide indications how to deal with mixed affects and conflicting impulses more effectively. They give us something to go on, but they can only be fully effective if they are internalized, integrated in the psychology of the negotiator, becoming spontaneous in a certain sense. We are referring to a basic attitude, an internal structure characterized by such a degree of sensibility, that a variety of sometimes contrasting impulses can exist alongside one another. As I have described above this style of emotion management is not naturally given to human beings. This is a much neglected aspect in modern negotiating literature and in current educational and training courses. It seems as if learning to negotiate is learning the right dos and don'ts. This is close to plain nonsense; these dos and don'ts presuppose a specific emotional style. Learning to negotiate cannot be separated from this type of emotion management. 43 The past is the present History sometimes has the ring of tales about the past. However, the insights discussed in this chapter are closely tied to our present reality. The ability to negotiate is not an established human ability. In many societies conflicts are solved by fighting, constant terror or flight. The development of these societies did not always foster the abilities to negotiate. The learning process of negotiating skills is related to the historical development of increasingly dense networks in which people become more mutually dependent. However, in many parts of our world people do not feel these interdependencies. They feel outsiders and have-nots. These feelings foster violence and fanatism. Moreover, there often exists in these areas no strong tradition of solving social and political conflicts by peaceful means. Negotiating is a skill practiced by merchants, not a normal practice to channel social and political discontent. Social networks tend to 'command and obey' hierarchies. People are often afraid of, may even feel terrorized by the authorities of their own societies. In our world society they may feel disregarded, even exploited. This double powerlesness turns masses of people into social dynamite. Even when people do acquire the ability to negotiate, decivilizing and untaming processes can still gain the upper hand again. Negotiating is a precarious skill. Often enough, ongoing deadlock and escalation into hostilities still prove tempting. Clumsy negotiating itself can have an escalating effect. It takes effort from all people involved to anticipate and prevent gradual and unplanned polarization. This makes it all the more important to render the competencies of skilful negotiating transferable to practitioners. 2.5 Summary The learning process towards more skilful negotiating is still in full progress. My search for a better understanding of this process has been guided by the development of negotiating in our history and in our individual life-time development. I therefore describe the development of negotiating skills as a growing ability to differentiate behavioral reactions and emotions. A more even and stricter curbing of affects goes hand in hand with an increasing 44 variety in modes and nuances of conduct. Sudden switches diminish, control over emotions increases. At a certain stage this tighter control allows a loosening of restraints towards more flexible and direct interaction: 'controlled decontrolling'. This process is related to the historical development of increasingly dense networks in which people become more mutually dependent. Under these conditions more open and direct ways of dealing with each other start to provide competitive advantage. Firmness is combined with friendliness. Assertiveness with flexibility. We see a development towards a greater differentiation and more mixed patterns of actions and emotions. We learn to be more direct and outspoken and more respectful and flexible. One's ability to negotiate can be improved considerably by an understanding of this development in combination with training in the specific do's and don'ts and some personal feedback on one's negotiating style. However, such a process of learning will be severely hampered if one has not grown up in a social network that fosters the particular emotional make-up as described above. Within and between national cultures, there are substantial differences in emotion-management. Mixed negotiating presupposes a relatively high level of differentiation of one's behavior. Specific techniques and ideas may seem simple to understand and to practice. However, without the appropriate emotional make-up they are difficult to apply. These emotional conditions have been seriously neglected until now. This impedes our understanding of what skilful negotiating is really about. 45 3 MODELS OF NEGOTIATING 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Negotiating as a series of techniques Negotiating as handling dilemma's Negotiating styles and emotional patterns Core activities of modern negotiating Profiles of negotiating: Integration of techniques, dilemma's and emotional patterns This chapter offers several perspectives on negotiating. We start with a very common way of perceiving negotiations: As a matter of techniques. Next, we will describe some integrative concepts and gradually we will focus on the core activities of skilful negotiating tied together into several profiles. Together, chapter 2 and chapter 3 offer the conceptual base of skilful negotiating; section 3.5 'Profiles of negotiating: Integration of techniques, dilemma's and emotional patterns' provides a synthesis. Chapter 4 'Four core activities' elaborates this framework on the practical level of tactics and chapter 5 'Special situations' provides some important applications. Chapter 6 offers a conceptual ánd practical summary. 3.1 Negotiating as a series of techniques The next section contains a collection of negotiating techniques recommended by experienced negotiators. An important aspect op skilful negotiating is the use of the right techniques. So, a repertoire of techniques can be seen as an outstanding feature of any model of negotiating. There are authors who even restrict themselves to an 46 arsenal of do's and don'ts. Karrass (1974) once assembled nearly all available techniques. Time Time is a very important factor in negotiations. People need time to get accustomed to new things. Resistance and opposition to a new proposal are natural: people not only need to be convinced by arguments, but also, and sometimes mainly, need time to reconcile themselves to it. Parties often begin negotiations with unrealistic goals and premises: negotiating can sometimes be a rude awakening. Wishes and illusions cannot be abandoned between one moment and the next. Patience can be an important factor in negotiations. With patience, you can consciously allow time to work for you. Time limits and time pressure are part of negotiations. Always try to make time pressure work in your favor. − − − − − Do not accept any time pressure from your constituency. Be alert to time factors that are important for your opponents, for example, certain conferences at which they will want to show results, vacations, holidays, etc. If your opponent has all the time in the world, take more time yourself. Be sceptical about deadlines that others impose on you. It almost always turns out to be possible to postpone them. Take care that you do not set yourself a psychological time limit. We all plan, but do not allow a schedule to be a noose that you draw around your own neck. Time limits have a hypnotic effect. We tend to accept them even if we do not want to. This is why it is a good idea to link a proposal to a schedule as often as possible. It helps the other person to make the decision that you want him to make. Time limits work even when they ought not to. Impasses Most people are afraid of impasses. They are frustrating; they make us feel thwarted and helpless, while tension is clearly rising'. Impasses are inevitable now and then in negotiations. They can be consciously used as a tactical weapon which may well take the form of coercion. An impasse tests the tenacity and the strength of the 47 other party. It is also a means of generating new information or looking for alternative solutions. Manners of breaking out of an impasse are: − adjourning temporarily − giving a summary or overview of the various standpoints − making a small concession or suggesting that you will do so − exploring together the various alternatives and their respective consequences for the parties if the impasse continues − changing the composition of the delegation − changing the location − making an altered proposal − postponing the part of the negotiations that is causing difficulties until later − calling in a third party − calling for informal study − picking out a small part of the package and reaching agreement about that − systematically setting down the solutions once again − becoming emotional or starting to threaten if someone flares up − picking a key figure from the other delegation either to placate or to put under pressure − postponing negotiations − setting up a 'joint committee. Questions and answers It is very difficult for some people to give an answer to a question quickly and accurately. If you are one of these, the best solution is to think up and write down in advance all questions that might possibly be asked. Remember that some questions do not deserve an answer. The more time you have to think over a question, the better your answer will be. Suggestions in this context are: − Never answer before you fully understand the question; ask the other party to clarify it. − Remember that you can give an answer that goes into only a part of the question. − A way of avoiding questions is to answer one that was not asked. − Some questions can be shelved because insufficient information is available to answer them. 48 Questions are eye-openers. They promote information exchange and understanding between parties. The shortest way to understanding is a good question. Suggestions for asking questions are: − Do not ask antagonistic questions. − Do not ask questions that criticize the honesty of the other; it won't make him any more honest. − Don't forget to listen in your desire to ask a question; write the question down and wait for the right moment. − Make sure you have formulated your question ahead of time. − Have the courage to ask questions that pry into other people's affairs. − Have the courage to ask dumb questions. − Have the courage to ask questions that will be avoided; the answer may provide exceptional information. − Recess often enough to formulate new questions. − Be persistent in asking questions if the answer is evasive or poor. Answers that are not answers include the following: would you repeat the question - I don't understand the question completely - it depends - that is an entirely different subject - you must understand the history; it all started. . . - before I answer, you should understand the procedure as I have no experience with that, but I have heard - it varies because - it is not a matter of yes or no, but of the extent to which ….. - let's be more specific - it is not exactly as you put it - it's a question of how you look at it - as I just said ….. sometimes things just go that way ….. Adjourning The effectiveness of negotiating increases if adjournments are asked for; it makes more sense than long meetings and short breaks. Negotiating is not a ping-pong game in which each stroke must be answered immediately. Ask for time and use it to consult with your own people; you need it to: − oversee what they have heard − think over questions − develop new arguments − explore new alternatives − discuss possible concessions − consult experts 49 − − − − check rules and agreements (procedures) study changes in circumstances or conditions anticipate troublesome questions develop new questions yourself. Ambition The higher the aspiration level, the better the results. People who set a higher goal and oblige themselves to make efforts to reach it achieve more. There is a risk inherent in this: an impasse. Despite this risk, if you aim higher, you come out better. Do remain realistic, however. Occupying extreme negotiating positions or offering a little extra for no apparent reason will do your reputation no good. It arouses the impression that you are not to be taken seriously, that your credibility is low. A good rule is: do not ask anything that you cannot defend with facts and arguments; start with the highest defensible bid. Concessions − − − − − − − Give yourself negotiating leeway; start high, but never higher than you can substantiate with arguments. Let the other party make the first concession on an important matter, while you take the initiative on less important points. Save your own concession; the longer the other party has to wait, the more he will appreciate it. Tit-for-tat concessions are not necessary; if the other gives sixty, you can give forty; if he says, 'Let's split the difference,' you can always say, 'I can't'. Don't be afraid to say no; if you say no several times, the other party will stop asking. Don't be afraid to retract a concession made earlier. Make a concession that gives away nothing. Concessions that cost nothing are: − stating you will consider this point carefully − assuring the other that, although you might want to, you simply cannot − showing that other competent and respected persons have made the same choice − giving as thorough an explanation as possible. 50 Agenda Whoever controls the agenda controls what comes up and, more importantly, what does not come up for discussion. An agenda provides initiative; after all, it is a plan for discussion. Talk about the agenda before the negotiations start. − Do not simply accept an agenda from the other party without thinking through the consequences. − Look to see where and how your own topics can best be introduced. − Study any agenda formulated by the other party for significant omissions. Power of persuasion Know your facts − Know the history, the organization and the person with whom you will negotiate. − Have the courage to ask the other to describe his authority or area of competence. − Know the organizational structure of the other party. − Know all the necessary documents. Pay attention to your presentation − How do you sit (not nonchalant, but not too tense either)? − Look at those present. − Structure what you say (be ordered, simple, concise). − Use the equipment available (for example, the flip-over). − Pause for breath, do not rattle on. Adopt a constructive attitude without giving in − It is better to start with subjects on which agreement can easily be reached than with controversial issues. − Agreement on controversial issues is easier to reach if they are linked to matters on which it is fairly simple to reach agreement. − Acceptance increases when the similarities are emphasized more than the differences. − Agreement is more readily reached when there are common interests to be discovered. − Bring forward tentative summaries and conclusions yourself rather than leaving it to the other party. 51 Limit yourself in your arguments The more arguments you bring up, the greater is the chance that the other party finds one among them that he can cut down. Your other' arguments are contaminated by this weaker point. The experienced negotiator is selective in the use of his facts and continually asks himself how and when he can present them as convincingly as possible. He makes sparing but persuasive use of printed information (reports, texts of laws, statistics, etc.). Limit yourself in debating Sometimes negotiations deteriorate into almost endless debating: people merely repeat the same arguments over and over. They feel called upon to explain matters yet again and to straighten out 'misunderstandings', etc. The value of all these efforts is minimal: they are far more likely to worsen the climate. A good way to put a stop to this is to make a proposal and to keep the discussion aimed at proposals: what does one party want, what does the other want? On what conditions might a party be able to agree to a proposal? What compromises are conceivable? Only new facts and arguments are important. The 'old familiar tales' only waste time and arouse unnecessary irritation. Keep in touch with your emotions These do's and don'ts are easy to understand but sometimes difficult to practice. The reason? Awkward emotion management. Take for instance the last maxim "Limit yourself in debating". Why experience people difficulties in doing this? Why do they lock themselves in ongoing arguing? Because they have strong feelings and drives towards defending their position and attacking the position of the other side. Or because there is this strong emotional impulse to set things straight and to clarify their position once more. The way out of this trap, of course, is an awareness of this emotional pattern. An awareness also of this spiral of arguing with no added value. Most do's and don'ts have an emotional aspect. For instance: Why do people find it difficult to adjourn? Most often because they experience it as weak behavior. Another example: A little more elaborated because it concerns a very important issue and often difficult to deal with. 52 Why may a deadlock go on and on? Let us consider some of the best tactics to move away from an ongoing deadlock. − Seek for more and different information instead of correcting and judging information. − Search for the problems which lie at the root of the impasse instead of convincing and threatening. − Emphasize equality and mutual dependence (for example, by exploring the negative consequences of a continuing impasse) instead of acting in a superior fashion or withdrawing. − Adjourn and create informal contacts instead of going on and on with meetings. These four recommendations all presuppose a rather mature emotion management. It is much easier and, on the short run, emotionally much more satisfying to correct, to threat, to act superior and to go on stubbornly on the same track. If people are aware of these emotional traps towards enduring deadlock and further escalation they may choose for other emotions. However, the agility to deal more constructively with the situation is often hampered by an emotional pattern which clings to power and prestige. Also, one may be afraid to be perceived as weak. It proves to be quite another stage in the development of negotiating skills to experience aggressive and rigid behavior as weak, vulnerable and out of order. When to do what There are endless lists of tactics. They offer useful clues and suggestions. At the same time different situations ask for different tactics. There is little sense in these lists of when to do what. Moreover, as discussed just before, there has to be a fit with one's personal style, more specific one's emotional awareness and agility. Another drawback is the lack of integration. Series of tactics are not very consistent, often even contradictory. We need some theory to tie them together. The next sections of this chapter all contribute to a more integrative understanding. They will provide integrative concepts. Techniques will find their place in these concepts. So some more interesting techniques will be described but always related to integrative concepts of negotiating resulting into an overall model of negotiating. 53 3.2 Negotiating as handling dilemma's Introduction We have discussed in chapter 2 in the section 'Negotiating as handling dilemma's' (pp. 9-11) two negotiating dilemma's. This notion of negotiating as the handling of dilemma's will be used in this chapter as an element in a more integrative concept of negotiating. Cooperating-fighting Negotiating deals with the tension between more cooperative and more fighting impulses. Figure 5 provides examples how negotiating tactics deal with this tension. Figure 5 The handling of the cooperating-fighting dilemma's Cooperating, accomodating Negotiating Fighting, competing People try to understand the other. Understanding the other side is seen as a tactical instrument. People don't want to understand the other side; aversion to empathy. Information and arguments are presented as open for discussion. Firm presentation of facts and arguments, but margins are taken for granted. Information and arguments are presented as selfevident and unassailable. Tends to give in to Compromise oriented, preserve a good relation. 'it is a matter of give and take'. Sticks to his/her interests, does not mind about a good relation. 54 Cooperating, accomodating Negotiating Fighting, competing Remains friendly when challenged. When challenged reacts in proportion. When challenged, attacks. Weak points and personal problems can be discussed. Personal problems are hidden or presented circumspectly. There is no such thing as 'personal problems'. The interests of the other side are accepted as they are. The interests of the other party are tested in order to discover his priorities. The interests of the opponent are challenged. Dependent: 'Your interest is my interest'. Interdependent: 'What solutions will we find?'. Independent: 'What can I get out of it?'. Outside expertise is readily called in to aid the decisionmaking. Neutral outsiders are brought in only if there is complete deadlock. Neutral outsiders are not welcome, only supporters. Exploring-avoiding Another important dimension of negotiating has to do with the exploring-avoiding dimension. We elaborate this dimension in figure 6 'Exploring versus avoiding' on the next page. Practitioners as well as researchers emphasize over and over again the great importance of an active explorative attitude for skilful negotiating. A few more techniques to obtain procedural flexibility are: − − Try to have formal or informal "preliminary talks". Parties survey each other's interests and ideas. They avoid taking a pronounced position; Attempt to get alternatives. Do not respond too quickly with judgements or counter arguments. Instead look for alternative proposals and solutions; 55 − Enlarge the negotiating field. More issues over a longer period of time sometimes increase the chance of a package deal which is relatively favorable to both sides. Figure 6 Exploring versus avoiding Exploring 1 Avoiding 2 3 4 5 flexible, searching, active calm, patient staying on one track, passive Taking advantage of opportunities Taking time to weigh and Reliance on fixed analyze possibilities procedures Coming up with new ideas ability to improvise Trying to keep things consistent Sticking to original position, supplying more evidence one is "right" Creating alternatives Open to alternatives Repetitive, rigid Negotiations go through a number of phases. The notion of phases as an approach to the study of negotiations is well established, but relatively unexplored. Here we use a model of three phases as a procedural technique to improve flexibility: (1) Start with a diagnosis of mutual premises and interests; investigate where interests overlap and keep an eye on the priorities on both sides. Scanning other options and alternatives is also part of this. (2) Introducing a very broad "platform proposal" is often an effective next step: the platform proposal can serve as an outline for (3) amendment and alteration until a compromise is reached. Using these phases can help to prevent the situation from deteriorating into hostile arguments about positions. Explorative techniques and the phases of the negotiating process will be elaborated in 4.4 'Obtaining flexibility'. 56 3.3 Negotiating styles and emotional patterns These two dimensions can be used in several ways to clarify negotiating styles. Very common is the use of a grid. Pruitt (1991) and others base there research on a grid also often used by Thomas and Killman (1976) as the 'conflict-grid'. Figure 7 The negotiating grid In situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible we can describe a person's behavior along two basic dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual other person's Fighting/ attempts to satisfy the Exploring competing concerns. Assertiveness Each of the four poles identified on these two dimensions stands for a certain negotiating style. − Fighting. Pursuing self-interest at the expense of the other's. This style is often focused on power, and the fighter will resort to all available weapons - expertise, rank, financial sanctions in order to win. Fighting can come in the guise of 'decisive action is what weAvoiding need' or of defending a positionCooperating/ because 'one accommodating is right'. − Cooperating. One wants to preserve harmony and avoid disruption. In situations of opposed interests, this often leads to yielding. An important element of this style may be the Cooperativeness 57 − − perceived necessity to keep personal relations good above all else. Avoiding. Refusing to take on the confrontation. Avoidance can take the form of diplomatic evasion, postponement, stubbornly sticking to one track 'as a matter of principle', or simply evading the entire situation. Exploring. Trying to find a solution that satisfies the interests of both the parties involved as much as possible. This means studying a subject to identify the underlying interests and exploring alternatives that satisfy them. This way of looking to negotiating is helpful. It provides an overview of behavioral patterns and it focuses on the very important skill of exploring behavior. This skill enables us to escape from the triangle of basic impulses. The ability to explore means a moving away from the more primary impulses shown in figure 3, p. 12. In essence this is an emotional ability. In this respect a certain flexibility of styles and the ability to explore presuppose an emotional pattern which has to be learned in the process of becoming an adult person. It concerns already rather sophisticated emotion management. As such we can see it as an important step in the development of negotiating styles. These behavioral dimensions have provided a base to many authors for research and conceptual work. It concerns a longstanding research tradition. (Blake and Mouton, 1969; Horney, 1945; Pruitt, 1991; Thomas, 1976). The grid has found firm recognition and expresses a shared platform for ongoing research efforts. As discussed before we are becoming more and more pliable and flexible in our negotiating behavior. People may become less cornered in a particular style. All kinds of combinations prove possible. 58 Figure 8 Two dimensions and four styles Exploring The jovial style The aggressive style Cooperating Fighting The ethical style The analytical style Avoiding Figure 8 builds upon the same two dimensions and expresses some of these combinations. In this way it proves possible to clarify four mixed styles of negotiating (see figure 9). Figure 9 Four negotiating styles Analytical Productive Careful analysis. aspects Preference for hard facts and figures. Weighs all alternatives ahead of time. Reliance on sound procedures. Keeps things predictable. Holds firmly on to goals. Aggressive Ethical Jovial Want to get things done; likes accomplishment. Likes to organize and energize others. Takes advantage of opportunities. Quick to act, likes challenges. Able to stand high level of tension; keeps things on the move, comes up with new ideas. Trust and believe in common values. Sets high standards. Independent thinking, sticks to principles. Develops proposals in the common interest. Considerate, helpful, dedicated. Often a 'bridge' between two parties. Socially skilled, personal charm, diplomatic. Tries to influence the climate positively. Eager to try things out, sensitive to integrate solutions. Flexible. 59 Analytical Aggressive Ethical Jovial Over-preoccupation with details, no ability to improvise. Not sensitive enough to the climate of the discussions. Bossy, gives others too few changes. Easily becomes impatient and impulsive. Becomes 'preachy'. Overly concerned with ideals and common values to the point of being unrealistic. Offers too little resistance. Reluctant to take a stand, becomes ambivalent. Tendencies Amasses more and in a more 'evidence' conflict that he is right; becomes stubborn. Does not concede, even when he knows he is wrong. Becomes angry, tends to coercive pressure. Tries everything within his power to win his case. Sticks to his case because he is 'right' or gives in disappointed, is set apart. Overcompromising. Gives in to preserve harmony and good will. Less productive aspects when used in excess The styles in figure 9, can be seen as stages in the development of negotiating skills. Stages! Because, these two-dimensional styles are one-sided and still rather inflexible. They do not express the subtleties and the variance people are able to master. Modern negotiating moves into the more sophisticated mixed style as described at the end of this chapter 3. This mixed style, as fostered in dense networks of close and continuous interdependencies, builds on these stages but transcends them. Earlier in this book we have tried to clarify this style with do's and don'ts like: − combine tenacity with tact − be flexible and tough − separate the issue from the person − be assertive without forcing your way − develop a good relation without giving in. To reach a better understanding of this type of behavior and to conceptualize it more clearly a further conceptual development is necessary. 60 3.4 The core activities of modern negotiating The last section ended with a plea for better concepts to catch mixed negotiating behavior. To me, a better conceptualization means a differentiation of the very common distinction between cooperating and fighting behavior. Other ways to express the same distinction are: − integrative versus distributive − win-win versus win-lose − creating value versus claiming value. These distinctions are far too simple to catch the mixed behavior of experienced and mature negotiators. To conceptualize mixed negotiating a differentiation of the cooperating-fighting dilemma is needed in three kinds of activities (see figure 10). Figure 10 Three types of activities on the cooperating-fighting dilemma cooperating fighting Skilful negotiating is learning to differentiate in: Realizing one's interests Influencing the balance of power Promoting a constructive climate To capture the mixed nature of negotiating we need a differentiation of cooperating-fighting behavior in three types of activities: 1. Realizing one's interests 2. Influencing the balance of power 3. Promoting a constructive climate. All three can be expressed as dilemma's. A fourth type of activities has to do with obtaining flexibility. This type incorporates behavior on the exploring-avoiding dimension as discussed earlier in this chapter. 61 I will show how this conceptualization in four core activities is very helpful to specify able negotiating behavior. Figure 11 provides a brief overview. It concerns a next step in the development of negotiating skills. It presupposes the ability to differentiate among these types of activities in one's behavior. This concerns first and foremost an emotional ability. In an earlier stage it is much more easier and emotionally much more tempting to cluster emotional impulses into the rather simple scheme of figure 3: Either fight, flight or submission. Figure 11 Negotiating as four types of activities Activities Most important dilemma's Examples of tactics 1 Obtaining substantial results Conceding versus stubborn 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient, Tenacious Hard, indulgent stubborn Firm presentation of facts and arguments, blowing up small concessions, working with deadlines, allowing impasses to occur, coming up for your interests and sticking to basic premises. Bending versus domineering 1 2 3 4 5 Minimal Preserving Aggressive, resistance trying to dominate Presentation of new facts favorable to yourself, letting it be know you have alternatives to the present relationship, being manipulative, flooring the other party and being coercive now and then, taking and keeping the initiative. Jovial versus hostile 1 2 3 4 5 ConfidenCredible, Sarcastic, tial, jovial solid formal, unpredictable Promoting informal discussion, humor, showing an interest in matters, being consistent, showing something of the interdependence. Taking care not to cause a loss of face, separating role behavior from the person. Goal: favorable deal 2 Influencing the balance of power Goal: equilibrium or slight domination 3 Promoting a constructive climate Goal: positive personal relations 62 Activities Most important dilemma's Examples of tactics 4 Obtaining procedural flexibility Exploring versus avoiding 1 2 3 4 5 Flexible, Calm, Staying on searching, patient one track, active repetitive Searching for new information, enumerating alternative solutions, trying out ideas, adjourning to sound out ideas 'informally', brainstorming, thinking out aloud about tentative proposals, calling a study group, working with a platform proposal. Goal: flexibility In chapter 4 I will elaborate these four core activities. I will describe the strategies and tactics available to make negotiators more versatile in these four areas. In 3.5 'Profiles of negotiating' I want to provide an overview of major conclusions with the purpose to give you an idea of what this perspective on negotiating is really about. This will be helpful in understanding the chapters 4 - 6 because it offers an integrative framework. it ties together the different issues and negotiating activities. 3.5 Profiles of negotiating: Integration of techniques, dilemma's and emotional patterns As described in chapter 2 of this book negotiators learn to differentiate their behavior and emotions. We are now in the position to describe more clearly how this differentiation works. What it boils down to is that negotiators are able to learn to differentiate among these four activities and the corresponding feelings. In the case of a naive negotiator they 'contaminate' one another. Activities are more clustered around the basic impulses as described in figure 3. For instance, if one clings to one's interests, a person tends to behave in an irritated and wronged fashion. He/she wants to score, and tends to 63 go on and on on the same track. This tough stance will come across as even harder than is strictly necessary. Figure 12 shows this profile. Figure 12 The tough approach PROFILES OF NEGOTIATING Interests lenient hard Power bending subdued trying to dominate jovial personal hostile formal Climate Flexibility exploring repetitive This style tends to escalation and promotes an ongoing struggle. An alternative is to invest more in developing the climate and in personal and friendly relations. This is easy to combine with exploring behavior. Power is no longer seen as an important issue. Again, the more naive negotiator is inclined towards a certain contamination: He leans towards a more lenient and cooperative attitude in the area of interests as well. This profile is expressed in figure 13. 64 Figure 13 The cooperative approach PROFILES OF NEGOTIATING Interests lenient hard Power bending subdued trying to dominate jovial personal hostile formal Climate Flexibility exploring repetitive This style provokes exploitative behavior. It is too easy for the other side to rake in concessions and to explain the cooperative behavior of the other side as necessary, given one's own well-documented, constructive claims and proposals. The negotiator who is able to differentiate the four types of activities focuses his tenacity on his substantial interests. He realizes that an atmosphere of irritation will not strengthen his position; on the contrary! Furthermore, the continuity of the relationship makes it in his own best interest to keep the relation positive. He also realizes that scoring points and driving others into a corner have nothing to do with negotiating. Moreover, he realizes that mutual dependence can perhaps spell advantages for all the parties involved so he knows how to explore options and alternatives without giving in. Figure 14 expresses this mixed approach. 65 Figure 14 The mixed approach PROFILES OF NEGOTIATING Interests lenient hard Power bending subdued trying to dominate jovial personal hostile formal Climate Flexibility exploring repetitive This mixed and differentiated approach escapes from the triangle 'fight' (aggression), 'flight' (avoidance) and 'submission' (cooperation), as described in figure 3. We become more versatile in our choice between aggression and cooperation by distinguishing between the interests at stake, the power balance between people and the personal relations involved. We also get away from the triangle by developing explorative skills which are an alternative to avoidance and restraint. Developing this behavioral repertoire makes people more flexible. People feel less driven to rigid and one-sided action. Behavior also becomes more predictable because there is less need for sudden switches to other extremes. We have behavioral alternatives available, less simple, more differentiated and mixed. The mixed style presupposes a relatively complicated control of effects. Intransigence, forcing one's way or cooperative and subdued behavior still may prove tempting and a lot easier. Negotiating remains a precarious ability! 66 Conclusion Negotiators learn to guide and to differentiate their emotions and actions more and more. We have differentiated negotiating into four kinds of activities, each concerned with a specific dilemma. This distinction makes it easier to recognize and to understand what is happening. This prevents disorientation and contributes to effective negotiating. One can thus understand more precisely the meaning of certain activities and the intentions of the negotiating partner. It is easier to react adequately. The four activities are summarized in figure 15. Figure 15 Main elements of the negotiating model We made a start to clarify this model of negotiating. Its main elements are four core activities expressed on. The scales have been summarized above. Three specific profiles were provided: the distributive style, the integrative style and the mixed style. Some important mistakes which negotiators tend to make can be expressed very clearly on the scales. For instance, a tough stance on substance may get mixed up with aggressive power-play. Chapter 4 will elaborate these four core activities; the techniques negotiators use in these areas will be clarified. They will be specified on scales which can be used to chart the Realizing behaviorone's of negotiators. The scores on the material interests four scales indicate how behavior comes across. This may serve as an effective instrument for structuring feedback. Influencing the power balance Effective Negotiating Promoting a constructive climate Obtaining flexibility 67 4 FOUR CORE ACTIVITIES 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Obtaining substantial results Influencing the balance of power Promoting a constructive climate. Obtaining procedural flexibility Final remark 4.1 Obtaining substantial results Generally those aspects of negotiating which are aimed at achieving tangible results receive the most attention. I am referring to activities which focus on the content of negotiations: arguments, facts, standpoints, goals, interests, basic assumptions, compromise proposals, concessions and conditions. Negotiators try to influence the distribution of costs and benefits in a way favorable to them in matters of content, for example: − by presenting their proposals as self-evident − by presenting facts favorable to themselves − by making only small concessions. The most important activities are: − A tactical exchange of information about goals, expectations and acceptable solutions. − Presenting one's position in a way that influences the other party's perception of what is attainable. − Working step by step towards a compromise with concessions made on both sides. The tactical choices a negotiator must make here involve striking a balance between yielding and more persistent or even obstinate behavior. Figure 16 illustrates this dilemma. 68 Figure 16 The 'conceding versus stubborn' dilemma Conceding 1 Stubborn 2 3 4 5 Lenient, indulgent Tenacious, testing Hard, stubborn Information and argument are presented as open for discussion. Firm presentation of facts and arguments, but margins are taken for granted. Information and arguments are presented as self-evident and unassailable. The interests of the other side are accepted as they are. The interests of the other party are tested in order to discover his priorities. The interests of the opponent are challenged. Generous concessions facilitate the working out of compromises. Concessions are part of the game, but impasses are allowed to occur. Sticks to his interest even under great pressure. Coping with this dilemma can be greatly complicated by the fact that a negotiator is often not yet certain what goals are realistically attainable. To gain this knowledge he must first find out more about the priorities and options open to the other side. In order to arrive at results, the parties must have information about each other's goals. The party with a head start in this is at an advantage. It is easier for its negotiator to determine a good strategy and a favorable starting position. He knows better what is attainable and so he knows how far he can go in his demands. This increases the chance that he will not have to go to extremes in his willingness to make concessions. Both parties will be aware of this, and it makes them cautious in revealing information. Both parties are also aware that keeping back too much makes effective negotiating impossible. A second complicating factor in dealing with this dilemma is the tendency to keep the opponent's expectations low and to present one's own wishes as self-evident and unassailable. A negotiator knows that the resolution he demonstrates will have an influence, but he sees the determination of his opponent in the same light. Both 69 of them know that margins are built in. They will have to show some acceptance of this if any results are to be achieved. There are several ways of handling this dilemma. They will be treated here under three categories: tactical use of information, choice of position and concessions. The tactical use of information The tactical exchange of information has two purposes: 1. To find the opponent's bottom offer and bring it down further. 2. To clarify one's own demands in such a way that the opponent will see them as realistic and inevitable. In a nutshell, we are concerned here with influencing the 'attainabilities'. Tactical information can be provided in several ways. They include: − Information that boils down to 'it will also hurt the opponent'. The union may say: 'If company headquarters are moved to Birmingham, at least a quarter of the staff will decide to look for new jobs. And it is precisely the best qualified employees who will have the easiest time finding them.' − Information in which a concession is inflated in the hope that one will thus not have to make any further concessions. Management may say: 'Dropping the annual vacation closedown costs the company millions. You will understand that this is really a very big concession on our part.' − Providing information by choosing examples selectively. Management again may say: 'You want mediators in all departments. A similar system was introduced in Holland and the results were disastrous.' Providing tactical information is a party's right. But it will be effective only if the assertions can be substantiated with facts or by sources that also have some authority for the opponent. If negotiators seldom or never succeed in this, they become mere caricatures and lose their credibility. The border between tactical and incorrect information is rather vague. Providing patently false information generally has the effect of weakening one's own 70 negotiating position and considerably worsening the relationship between the parties. Interpreting and providing information in a light favorable to yourself is considered normal; the relationship need not suffer from it at all. These are fairly mild tactics to influence interests and positions. To test the opponent's position there are also harder tactics, for example: − Adjourning or breaking off negotiations. − Ignoring the position of the other party. − Referring to the constituency: 'I can't sell this to my people.' − Referring to personal consequences: 'If this is the way it has to be, I quit.' − Setting an ultimatum. − Bluffing - for example, by not showing any interest; or, if a demand is not accepted, by raising it at a following opportunity. There is a chance that the other party then asks you to be "reasonable'; that is, they show that they are prepared to talk about the first demand. A variant is starting out by being reasonable, but making new stipulations just when the opponent has accepted the previous ones. Regular use of this ploy to obtain extra concessions is known as 'salami tactics'. − Sending a spokesperson. The person with real authority makes sure that he is not present at the negotiations. He sends a representative and then calmly sits back to see what direction the negotiations will take. In this way he keeps his hands free and commits himself to nothing. The other party can only defend itself by immediately bringing up the opponent's level of authority, and, if they feel this is not satisfactory, by demanding to negotiate with the man who can make decisions. − The good and the evil negotiator. Sometimes a negotiating team makes use of a well-known interrogation technique. One of them takes the hard line, to the point of being unreasonable, while the other one is quite rational. A party will then try to do business with the 'good' one, whose 'reasonable' position can turn out to be fairly substantial after all. Especially, the last two tactics are not without risks. They can be seen as a kind of powerploys, and if fully exploited they are! So, these tactics must be used with care. If they give the impression that the situation is defined as a fighting situation, then the chance of 71 destructive escalation increases. All these tactics are to be used in proportion to the importance of the matter. You must know how to measure them. They are acceptable as a way of exploring the limits of what tangible results can be reached. A negotiator who makes too much use of them will get the reputation of being aggressive and may lose his credibility. Choosing a position In general it is good to start negotiating with an exchange of information on interests and priorities. Do not choose a position too early by presenting your proposal, solution or choice! We must distinguish between the tactic of a closed position and that of an open position. Closed position The tactic of the closed position has several variants: − 'take it or leave it' − the ultimatum − the fait accompli − final offer first. The last one is the toughest variant. It implies that one of the parties presents his proposals as final and as really the last word right away at the outset of the negotiations. Such a tactic has a few very clear advantages. One takes the initiative and forces the other on to the defensive. One places responsibility for a possible breakdown in the negotiations with the other party. Furthermore, immediately choosing a position creates a reputation of resolute seriousness and credibility. This can be very important for future negotiations. But it also involves considerable risk. It makes it very hard to go back without a serious loss of face, even if it later appears that some things have been overlooked. Particularly if the negotiating relationship is poor, the other party will feel it has no choice, and this in itself can arouse much resistance. This tactic has its best chance of succeeding when one knows precisely where the bottom line lies for the opponent. Then an extra concession can often be won, because the other party does not want to run the risk that negotiations are broken off over that single issue. 72 Open position Parties often enter into negotiations with an open position, perhaps making statements about their own interests and about their own view of what is to be done, but leaving maximum room for maneuver. Sometimes one opens with an extreme position while stating that one is prepared to be flexible. If the opening choices are very unrealistic, this tactic is also known as 'blue-sky bargaining'. Generally speaking, this is not very sensible because it can erode credibility, and is felt to be opportunistic. If a position really must be taken, it is generally best to start with 'the highest defensible claim'. This implies that the negotiator can substantiate his claims and that he has created room to maneuver. Gradually more information about the opponent's position is revealed and one's own choice of position can become firmer. The negotiators keep concessions in reserve so that, if the discussions reach a deadlock, they can be set in motion again with a small concession or by making an exchange at a certain point. Important advantages of this method are: − parties are not entirely dependent on advance information − an atmosphere of give and take is created; the relationship is not likely to deteriorate − the risk involved in leaving a position occupied earlier is not as great; the danger of pinning oneself down to an untenable position becomes smaller. A disadvantage is that, by continually making concessions, a party somewhat discredits each new choice of position in advance. Such a manner of negotiating can be rather frustrating for the participants, because they may feel they suffer a slight loss of face with each concession. Concessions Once various proposals have been presented, the usual course is to make small concessions and to make sure that you get something in return. Some negotiators are extremely adroit at referring in passing to a possible concession. As soon as they notice that they will not get what they expected in return, they immediately withdraw the 73 concession or even flatly deny that they ever considered making it. In order to obtain concessions, it is important to specify what you want of the other party. Questions like: 'Can't the other side meet us halfway?' or 'Is that all you can do?', rather than leading to concessions, only produce lengthy explanations of why this is, unfortunately, as far as they can go. It puts the other side on the defensive, just as the buyer of a second-hand car who asks whether the price can't be knocked down a little does. This question exerts less pressure than the statement: 'I want ¤ 500 off the price.' An example along the same lines is asking for concessions and indicating a top and bottom limit. Assertions such as: 'The price still has to come down by ¤ 3000 or ¤ 4000 or: 'Actually, we have in mind two or three per cent' immediately lead the other party to seize the more favorable figure and then go on negotiating, thus cashing in on the margin. In such matters, showing a certain firmness is part of the game. A lame attitude of continually putting water in the wine does little for a negotiator's credibility, not only in the eyes of the opponent, but also in the eyes of his constituency. So take care in formulating a 'final proposal'. If you have to yield on your 'final proposal' too often, you may loose your credibility. On the other hand, too great a fear of loss of face brings negotiations to a deadlock. Concessions are usually inevitable: negotiating is not the same as getting everything you can no matter what the price. There is another tactic related to concessions that we have not mentioned: allowing things to reach an impasse. Allowing an impasse to continue for a while is one way of making it clear that not many more concessions are to be expected. Conversely, impasses can be used to probe the other side's willingness to make concessions and thus to test its determination. Impasses may also help to get new information on the table. Also the conscious use of emotions can be of great importance. If you are really disappointed of if you really feel at the end of your possibilities why not disclose some of your feelings. This may convey a very important message to the other side. 74 In conclusion Negotiating is a process of information exchange that goes on until compromises advantageous to both parties begin to take shape. It is an art to get this process of information exchange going cautiously and step by step, so that the interests and the expectations of both sides gradually come into view. It is also an art to show the right firmness and assertiveness about your interests to raise the chances for good results and favorable deals. 4.2 Influencing the balance of power The course negotiations take is related to the power and dependency relations of the parties involved. Those parties may be unequally interdependent, but negotiating assumes a certain equality between sides. When there are clear power differences, different behavior occurs: manipulating and exploitative on one side and submissive and compliant on the other. A certain balance of power and an awareness that both parties need each other are necessary conditions for constructive negotiating. And yet parties do test each other's strengths and probe the precise balance of dependency. The dilemma here is that a stronger position can provide an advantage at the negotiating table, but an opponent does not like to see his own power position weakened and will do everything possible to prevent that happening. If it comes to a clash of strengths, little will emerge from the negotiations, which turn into a power struggle, shifting in the direction of fighting behavior. So a careful strategy is required: but again, not too careful, because an opponent may regard too little concern for one's own defense as a possibility to obtain the advantage; it invites him to exploit the situation. This dilemma is summarized and clarified with examples of tactics in figure 17. Although seeking fundamental changes in the balance of power will generally spark off a fighting situation, there is still a certain margin for shifts at the negotiating table. Participants are always tempted to try to influence this very important factor: if you manage to make your opponent more dependent or yourself more independent, it can 75 yield immediate advantage. There are various ways of strengthening one's own power position at the negotiating table, and these are summed up, and their effects discussed, below. Figure 17 The 'bending versus domineering' dilemma Bending 1 Domineering 2 3 4 5 Minimal resistance Preserving a certain balance Aggressive, trying to dominate Restrained use of 'favorable facts', pressure is avoided. Attempting to influence the balance by means of facts and restrained pressure. Influencing the balance by means of threats, manipulations, confusion and arrogance. Little resistance when challenged. When challenged, reacts in proportion. When challenged, attacks. No active interest in alternatives to the current relationship. Alert to alternatives for improving one's position within the current relationship. Pretending to have a great many alternatives to the current relationship which will be used at the least sign of trouble. Tactics for strengthening one's own power position Fighting These are tactics which are directly aimed at subjugating the opponent, for example: − ignoring the other party's information and arguments − feigning emotions such as anger and impatience − not listening, or only listening to 'weak points' − stating an absolute preference for one's own solution − leaving the other party no choice − sowing dissension among the other party. 76 These tactics generally lead to escalation: the other party will soon start to fight back. It is best to use them in small doses if at all. They should not be used as a manner of achieving dominance, but more as a means of obtaining information about how staunchly the other side will uphold its views. One might use them to show a healthy resistance to fighting behavior by the other side. The idea is that the pressure should be temporary and not such as gradually to set in motion a process of growing hostility on both sides. A short, direct and hard confrontation is preferable to a series of skirmishes. Manipulating It is sometimes possible to build up authority in the negotiations by using certain manipulations. This is a delicate strategy, and very dependent on the individual negotiator. It applies a special kind of pressure - special because it aims at a person's norms and values, his relationship with his constituency, his personal characteristics such as intelligence and integrity, and the way in which he conducts himself at the negotiating table. The risks of this strategy are not small. Indeed, to succeed one must manipulate in the true sense of the word, or subjugate the other without his realizing it. This may be possible with a naive opponent, but even then there is a strong chance that undirected resentment will build up in the other, which will obstruct future negotiations. The reason I treat it here is that it is often tried, despite the risks involved. It can be so casual and covert that the 'victim' cannot discover the reason for the tension or the resentment and irritation he feels. A quick recognition of what is happening can help a person to respond and thus put the negotiations on a sounder basis. Figure 18 Intimidating manipulations Manipulative behavior Intended effect on opponent Response Pointing out to the opponent possible criticism by his constituency or public opinion. To arouse a feeling of being threatened, uncertainty Show indignation, amazement that the other would stoop to such tactics. 77 Manipulative behavior Intended effect on opponent Response Demonstrating indomitability and invincible selfconfidence To force the other into a role in which he must ask a favor, because he sees that his use of power has no effect. Be sceptical of the position of the other, gradually show more self-confidence. Stating in so many words that the opponent's reasoning does not hold water. To arouse a feeling of powerlessness because the implication is that other arguments will also be punctured. Be sceptical of the position of the other, gradually show more self-confidence. Asking a rhetorical question about the opponent's behavior or reasoning. To arouse the tendency to answer the question in the hoped-for way or not to answer and thus feel powerless. Do not answer, but simply say that the other has stated the problem incorrectly. Being 'nice and mean' To arouse uncertainty, alternately being friendly do disorientate and and indignant. intimidate the other. Show a tepid reaction to both friendly and indignant behavior. Playing 'bluff poker', pretending that one's independence is greater that it actually is. Continue to ask critical questions, react with demonstrative tepidity. By a show of selfconfidence, to make the other unsure of himself, so that he cannot hold his ground. Figure 18 gives six examples of emotional manipulations, their intended effects on the opponent, and ways of defending oneself against them. These emotional manipulations are meant to intimidate for the opponent. Even more subtle and more difficult to counter are the manipulations that appeal to so-called social conventions (see figure 19). If the latter are performed with enough conviction, an opponent can hardly dodge them. Quite involuntarily, he may feel guilt or shame. He grows uncertain. He hesitates and starts to make mistakes. Such manipulations are actually 'fighting techniques'. By using them, a negotiator strikes out at his opponent, with the temporary advantage of strengthening his own position. This 78 ultimately increases the chance of escalation, because the effect on the other is irritation at his own powerless position. Figure 19 Manipulations based on 'decency' and 'fairness' Manipulative behavior Intended effect on opponent Response 'Being friendly', showing appreciation of opponent. To evoke, according to the rules of etiquette, a friendly (and thus cooperative) reaction. Either be friendly (not cooperative and yielding) or ignore it. 'Pathetic' requests for the understanding of one's own position. Inclination to grant 'generous' and disinterested favor. Rejection of responsibility. Semblance of incompetence to understand 'complicated' position of opponent. An awareness of a need Specific questions on to explain things, thereby what is not understood. disclosing too much information. Business-like orientation, treating problems as incidental questions. A feeling of 'old boys' who should not make it difficult for each other. Indicate firmly that there are still some obstacles. 'Rational-serious' attitude: statement of authority based on 'evidence' and 'constructive' ideas. Fear of seeming stupid, not serious or unconstructive. Assert that some important aspects have not yet been taken into account. Facts and expertise Expert knowledge, background information, having facts and figures at hand: all of these may strengthen one's position. The manner in which one tries to change power relations is important. A triumphant attitude, for example, can cause much ill feeling and may put the future relationship under serious pressure. Sometimes there are 'new facts' which have to do directly with power relations. Examples of 'new facts' are the formation of a 79 stronger coalition or the appearance of alternatives to the present dependency relations. The availability of alternatives carries a lot of weight. Within any organization, policy changes have consequences for the balances of power among the various units. Examples are: emphasizing a particular personnel and organizational policy, giving primacy to technological innovation, giving priority to commercial aspects. The changing balances of power which result from such developments will sooner or later have their effects in a different allocation of scarce resources such as personnel, budgets, investments, space in buildings and other facilities. Exploring This technique, which we will treat more extensively in 4.4 'Obtaining flexibility' can strengthen one's position in several ways. Exploring means taking the initiative: asking questions, presenting information, making proposals, creating a possible package deal. By taking more of these initiatives, one increases one's own strategic leeway. Exploring also implies taking account of the interests of the opponent, the attitude being: 'How do we find a solution to this together?' This legitimates a person's performance and lends him authority. Strengthening the relationship The relationship with the opponent can be strengthened by developing acceptance and trust (as described in 4.3 'Promoting a constructive climate'). Other means to this end are developing a stronger common interest and increasing the common ground. To do this means devising and carrying out solutions of interest to both parties in a larger number of areas. These techniques increase mutual dependence: one side cannot use them unilaterally to strengthen its own position. At best, for the one in the less powerful position, a substantial increase of mutual dependency makes the relationship somewhat more symmetrical. Power of persuasion Elements of effective persuasion are: − a clear, well-structured manner of explaining one's own opinion − a reasonably relaxed, but not nonchalant, attitude 80 − − variation in voice level, tempo, concrete examples and general lines of argument; use of visual aids a deliberate commitment to one's own view, as long as it does not become mere rhetoric. Of the tactics mentioned above manipulating and fighting can provide a temporary advantage, but contain the risk of escalation and irritated personal relations. The other tactics are more constructive. Strengthening your starting position Negotiators often try to develop their power before the negotiations take off. Important sources of power are: − Specialized knowledge in certain fields; preferably knowledge that is scarce and of vital importance. − Having a broad background. Do your homework, have a good overview of the situation, knowledge of what went before, knowledge of policy changes; have all important documents available. − Having alternatives: not only alternative solutions for the items on the agenda, but also different ways of reaching your own goals, perhaps with others. − 'Political' access and political intuition. Easy access to relevant centers of power is of crucial importance. − Status, which may be in terms of tangible success, informal authority, hierarchical position, personal trustworthiness, credibility - all contribute to it. − Support of others: having allies during the meeting, being able to obtain help and support from other groups not present; not operating in isolation. These are facts that will show their effectiveness at the negotiating table. It is also possible to strengthen one's starting position at the negotiating table beforehand in a more manipulative manner. Interesting in this connection are Korda's (1975) directions on how to gain the upper hand unobtrusively from the outset. His instructions for office furnishings, complete with lay-outs, are most entertaining: how to locate the furniture so that the space for the visitor is limited; chairs in which the visitor sinks so deep that he 81 must perform a series of acrobatics to get to the ashtray, which is naturally inaccessible from the chair. Korda often worked out his ideas in their most ludicrous consequences. He described offices that were only accessible along such a route that even the most hardened businessman had become as meek as a mouse before knocking on the door. The door of the office was often solid and bare, without a knob or even a keyhole. Only a buzzer on the desk of the owner or his secretary could open it. A female top manager in the publishing world has her office crammed with breakable things, rickety tables, flimsy chairs, etc. A visitor can hardly find room for his briefcase and papers. Other managers quickly feel like the proverbial bull in a china shop there. Their determination ebbs away, and they become "spineless', according to the owner of all this apparatus. Korda's typical proofs of power are amusing in their familiarity. − Powerful people never get wet or dirty. Even if it is pouring and everyone else comes in soaked, looking disheveled, powerful people turn up impeccable as if by magic. Moreover, they radiate health and vitality. And they are never troubled by perspiration. − Powerful people never wait, they let others wait. As if by nature, they are always surrounded by convenience and comfort; for a lunch appointment, for example, even in a packed restaurant, an excellent table is immediately available for them. − Powerful people never dial telephone numbers, they never make photocopies or even add up figures, they don't type or sharpen pencils. The first sign of power is often a creeping helplessness people who have been photocopying for years not only no longer want to, but even pretend that they cannot. − Powerful people often come and go unexpectedly. They enter calmly and resolutely. They take care of their affairs and suddenly they are gone. Somehow or other, doorkeepers, receptionists and secretaries have no hold over them. No one stops them; they stride in unannounced wherever they want. Do such tactics really work? I am not sure. Korda is undoubtedly exaggerating, but he is a keen observer of the power charge of simple everyday actions and appearances. However, this strong 82 point is also Korda's limitation. He presents a one-sided picture of power, as something that can be reduced to knacks and symbols. Conclusion All activities at the negotiating table are embedded in the nature of the mutual dependency - how strong, how one-sided, how permanent it is. Negotiations will only take place if there is a certain amount of interdependence: if the balance tips too much to one side, we see entirely different behavioral tendencies: 'requesting', ordering and exploiting versus more submissive and passive or aggressive behavior. Awareness of the continuity of the relationship tempers the impulses towards fighting behavior. All activities between parties are colored and modeled by the balance of power. No wonder negotiators are very sensitive to changes in the power and dependency balances. During a few negotiating sessions, an experiment of mine to trace and analyze the moments of clearly increasing tension in individual negotiators always brought to light changes in the balance of power. Sometimes open challenges were involved, but the case was more often one of covert attempts to alter the balance of power. Both becoming less powerful and becoming more powerful trigger off strong emotional impulses. It can be important to develop one's 'radar' in this field. Sometimes the causes of tensions at the negotiating table are very difficult to trace, and we tend to attribute them to coincidence or to purely personal phenomena. The following questions can help to trace the cause of a heightened emotional level: − Is my position in terms of power or influence now at stake in one way or another? − Am I now strengthening my position, or others theirs? − What is happening now with the prevailing balance of power among the people involved? − Am I perhaps being manipulated or more openly driven into a corner? − Am I, without being aware of it, manipulating or being more openly intimidating? How negotiating processes are influenced by distinct power differences will be dealt with in detail in 5.4 'Negotiating with a more powerful party'. 83 4.3 Promoting a constructive climate Good negotiators consider it important to promote a constructive climate and respectful personal relationships. An irritated or very formal atmosphere hampers effective negotiating. So they try to develop trust, acceptance and credibility. In this way they express their interdependence. Examples of tactics in this area are: − paying attention to each other's opinions − promoting informal and open contacts − avoiding loss of face − behaving predictably and seriously, not using ploys and stratagems or 'pulling a fast one' − distinguishing role behavior (e.g. a firm demand) from personal goodwill and mutual respect. The dilemma a negotiator must face here is that trusting the other without reservation means running the risk of seriously weakening his own position and of over compromising. What is needed is a kind of calculated trust, compatible with remaining fully aware of the exploitative possibilities of a very personal and confidential relationship. Trust and credibility are important. But at the same time, investing heavily in trust and personal relations may easily be seen either as overbearing, or as weak and inept. Figure 20 summarizes the possibilities: one should aim for the area in the middle. If one can combine this with a tenacious stance on substance, one has resolved a classic negotiating problem: how to promote one's own interests without starting power games or causing personal relations to deteriorate. We can classify the tactics for coping with this dilemma into three categories: − Separating the negotiator as a person from his behavior that is causing tensions. − Avoiding behavior which causes unnecessary tensions. − Using opportunities to reduce tension. 84 Figure 20 The 'jovial versus hostile' dilemma Jovial 1 Hostile 2 3 4 5 Jovial, confidential Credible, solid Hostile, irritated Reliance on personal charm, tendency to tell lots of jokes, likes to become very close. Promoting informal discussions, shows an interest in personal matters, moderate use of humor, consistent behavior. Keeping opponent at arm's length, formal behavior, sometimes sarcastic, shows irritation, seems unpredictable. Dependent: 'Your interest is my interest' Interdependent: 'What solution will we find?' Independent: 'What can I get out of it?' Separating person and behavior In the first place, a clear awareness is needed of everyone's tendency to play the person rather than the ball, particularly when the person shows firm resistance. The temptation to eliminate tension in this way is great. A way to avoid this is to regard a tough attitude on the part of the opponent as typical role behavior which a person in that position must inevitably exhibit. If you must take a hard stance yourself, there are some ways to help your opponent separate personal relations from negotiating behavior: − state explicitly that your comments are not personally intended − state in advance that what you are about to say may come across hard. Experienced negotiators have little difficulty making this separation. On the contrary, they show clear respect for a tenacious attitude (naturally, one supported by facts and arguments). It is very important to develop credibility and acceptance as a person in this context. One way of achieving this is by acquiring more knowledge and understanding of each other. This might take place in informal 85 conversations about more personal matters or about current news. It is important to show some openness about yourself, also to show a certain interest in others. Maintaining credibility sometimes demands great care; and integrity, consistency and predictability are important elements in a good personal relation. A negotiator who betrays the confidence in him, for example, by being caught lying, cannot get back on the right side. He has lost his credibility at a single blow. Credibility and trust are so important that there is something to be said for defining negotiating as gradually building up and consolidating sufficient trust to make an agreement possible. Avoiding unnecessary tension A good example of generating unnecessary irritation is emphasizing the term 'reasonable' in talking about one's own party or proposals. Such messages, that we are reasonable, constructive, open, frank, generous, positive, etc., have little persuasive power, but they do carry the implicit connotation that the opponent might very well be unreasonable and unconstructive. Their over-use should therefore be avoided. The use of questions is also important in this context. Questions can have a positive effect because they show you take an interest. A question can be an acceptable alternative to a flat rejection. There are more ways in which you can show tact. If you must reject a proposal from your opponent, it is better to state that you cannot agree to it rather than that you will not agree to it. 'We will not' contains an element of arbitrary choice that 'we cannot' does not have. Threats can also cause much unnecessary irritation and resistance. It is better to mention the consequences as factually as possible: 'Don't threaten with thunder and lightning, just predict the weather.' It can also be helpful to announce beforehand what you are about to do at the negotiating table: − 'I would like to ask another question' − 'I have a suggestion here …..' − 'Something is on my mind …..' 86 In general, anything that contributes to an orderly and predictable course of affairs can help to avoid unnecessary tension. I repeat 'unnecessary', because certain tensions are inherent in negotiations and some tension-producing behavior cannot be avoided. Examples are: impasses, sounding one another out, clearly stating where matters stand and showing some of your emotions. And of course, stubborn constituencies and all kinds of power games also can be part of the events. A point which negotiators should keep in mind in this context is causing a loss of face. Catching the opponent off guard, pulling a fast one, letting it be known quite subtly that you know exactly what the other party is after, making the most of the opponent's 'mistakes', are all examples of behavior that can easily damage the negotiating climate. Finally, a brief remark about non-verbal behavior. A slightly relaxed but alert attitude is the best. Try to emanate something of a 'wefeeling', in the sense of 'how can we find a solution together?' Sometimes a negotiator tends to take an exaggeratedly self-confident and independent attitude. Small incidents can then easily provoke reactions of testiness, impatience, hurt or irritation, with a resulting rapid deterioration in the climate. Reducing the tension In addition to a careful choice of words, every negotiating situation offers certain opportunities which, if used, can contribute to positive atmosphere. For example: − if any appreciation of the other party is possible, show it − try to take account of personal needs − listen to the other, respond to his remarks; show respect for his reasoning, even if you do not agree with it − show a sense of humor, be able to put your own behavior into perspective − talk informally when appropriate about more personal matters or about current news − refer to your mutual dependence; show that you have common interests. Very important in this connection are the moments just before the negotiations. Everyone is somewhat tense, especially if they expect 87 the meeting to be difficult. A few suggestions: − do not take your seat immediately, but put your briefcase where you want to sit and walk around − seek informal contact, preferably on a somewhat personal level; talk of outside interests, vacation plans, previous common experiences − keep moving, try to greet several of those present and to speak to them − be conscious of your posture; avoid a tense and stiff attitude − avoid standing in large groups; in a group of five or more people, it is extremely annoying if two hold a conversation while the others listen on the sidelines. A good motto for the beginning of negotiations is: share experiences, build up a positive climate. Once the actual negotiations have started, the next two points are important. 1. Show an interest. Try to find out 'the story behind the story'. Ask questions. Show that you have listened by remarks such as: 'If I understand you correctly, you mean. . . ' 'Your ideas primarily focus on . . .' 'The most important points in your proposal are . . .' Remember that this has nothing to do with being 'nice'. It is in your interest to know and to understand where your opponents stand. 2. Keep in touch with the undercurrent of feelings. Be attentive to emotional signals in yourself and in others. How tense are you? What sorts of signals are others sending: annoyance, fear, anger, confidence, confusion? Where do these feelings come from? Sometimes emotions can be made the topic of discussion. The key word here is 'dosage'; outbursts should be avoided. It is sometimes possible to speak rather matter-offactly about troublesome emotions and thus to eliminate them: 'Before we go any further, I want to get something off my chest. I was a bit annoyed by. . .; do you feel the same way?' Or: 'We on this side feel we are under extraordinary pressure; whether it is rational or not, our reaction tends toward mistrust and animosity. I think we should do something about this.' Even without reaching solutions, simply verbalizing what apparently is hampering can have a liberating effect and prevent escalation. Dealing with real emotions must be distinguished from feigning 88 emotions, which can be used to exert pressure - showing impatience, looking out of the window, slamming your briefcase shut. Feigned emotions can have some effects if used very sparingly. Most often they contribute to escalation. 4.4 Obtaining flexibility In 4.1, 'Obtaining substantial results' several tactics relating to information exchange, choice of position and making concessions were discussed. In addition to a factual choice of position, many of these tactics also imply a strategic choice: trying to give up nothing for as long as possible and to keep open as many options as possible. Chapter 4.1 focused on content. Here I want to go to into the procedures to explore possible solutions. This concerns the tactics to raise our flexibility during this search for solutions. However hard and unyielding one's interests may be, this can still be combined with great procedural flexibility in a search for solutions. Both groups of activities deal with interests. One group concentrates on persistence with regard to content, the other group on flexibility with regard to procedures. How do both kinds of activities fit together? The maxim 'Firm ánd flexible' expresses the kind of fit which involves a very important skill. Firm on goals, flexible in means; persistent on interests, creative in the search for a deal. A fundamental dimension of negotiating behavior is involved here. Both practitioners and researchers emphasize the central importance of an actively exploring attitude. Successful negotiators go on energetically seeking alternatives that are relatively satisfactory for both parties, without having to moderate their own demands. This is greatly facilitated by an intensive exchange of information, trying out possible solutions, making tentative proposals, thinking out loud, informally sounding out the other party. The integrative potential of the situation is thus fully utilized. Exploring is a search for overlapping interests: are there common premises, are relatively small concessions possible that mean a great deal to the opponent and vice versa, can a combination of mutual advantages be created in a package deal? The two poles of this range of behavior are shown in figure 21. 89 Figure 21 Procedural flexibility: exploring versus avoiding Exploring 1 Avoiding 2 3 4 5 Flexible, searching, active Calm, patient Staying on one track, passive Taking advantage of opportunities, impulsive. Taking time to weigh and analyze possibilities. Relying on fixed procedures. Coming up with new Trying to keep things ideas, ability to improvise. consistent. Sticking to original position, supplying more evidence that it is right. Creating alternatives. Repetitive, rigid. Open to alternatives. To understand this polarity, it is important to see that a person can be avoiding in an ostensibly active manner. Examples are: using the same arguments but formulating them differently, clinging tenaciously to 'matters of principle', ignoring new information, defending a particular solution through thick and thin, or turning it into a matter of principle. Such behavior may sometimes be tactically warranted, as long as you are aware that it is a rigid 'more of the same' and puts a stop, at least temporarily, to the search for integrative potential. Even though it looks very active and may be accompanied by much bravado, it is in fact an entrenchment, and can very easily begin to resemble fighting behavior. Negotiating phases Negotiations go through several phases. Depending on the phase, there are several opportunities for exploration. Tough negotiating can be characterized by a sequence of four phases: − preparation − verbal fireworks 90 − − psychological warfare crisis and finalization. These phases occur in negotiations in which substantial interests are at stake and problems with the constituency are a constant threat. This demands great skill and determination to explore. Many negotiations take a milder course, and the phases can be described in more neutral terms, such as: − preparation − initial choice of position − search phase − impasse and finalization. Exploration is easier in these situations. The point is that hard negotiating, despite all the problems it can cause, can be very well combined with exploring. It should be emphasized that exploring has nothing to do with being 'soft', friendly or yielding. What it is about is well expressed in the following rule of thumb: be firm but flexible. Each phase in the negotiating process offers opportunities to explore. We will see that a model of different phases can be used as a procedural technique to increase flexibility. The most important procedures will be worked out in the form of tactics in the second part of this chapter, 'tactics for exploring'. Preparation Experienced negotiators always emphasize the importance of this phase, in which people determine not only their interests and positions, but also their strategy. In a very elaborated form this comprises a scenario of steps to be taken and responses to all the alternatives you can possibly think of. Such a scenario can be tried out and adapted among yourselves by holding 'trial' negotiations. A thorough preparation generally means a tendency for positions to harden, thus diminishing the chances of an agreement. This can be overcome by exploring by means of informal consultations and developing alternatives. In informal consultations, the parties work toward an exchange of ideas on positions, common interests and background situations. 91 They probe reactions, sound out what might be attainable. Decisions are not made. The parties avoid taking inviolable positions. No minutes are made. The parties are getting a feeling for how much room there is to maneuver, while their priorities are taking shape. Informal consultation might take place in a joint study group, an agenda committee or preliminary meetings. If we can manage to concentrate on alternatives during the preparatory phase, we prevent people from sitting down at the negotiating table with more or less immutable positions. Brainstorming may be very helpful at this point: do not invest effort in the best standpoint, but in interesting options. The more alternatives, the better. One should avoid starting out on negotiations from an internal compromise obtained with great difficulty. An internal compromise is sometimes quickly outmoded, resulting in frustration and wasted energy. Initial choice of position The beginning of the actual negotiations sometimes starts before the parties sit down at the table. The more formal political or labor negotiations tend to strong public statements to influence public opinion. There is a tendency to present one's own position as final and entirely logical, often in the form of assertive statements. Spokesmen present their proposals, well supported by facts and arguments, as fair and reasonable. Simultaneously, the proposals of other parties may be criticized in harsh terms. Faced with this, outsiders often fear the worst. How can a compromise ever be reached? More experienced negotiators will shrug their shoulders. This phase serves two purposes: to show the constituency that you have their interests at heart, and to define the playing field while trying to reserve as much space as possible on it for yourself. The exploratory side of this phase could consist of being attentive to signals from the various parties about where the primary issues and interests lie. The more one concentrates one's initial choice of position on one's view of the situation - the interests behind it, bottlenecks one wants to eliminate, objectives, assumptions - and the less on specific positions in the form of particular demands, the better this works. The former creates leeway and more opportunities to see points in 92 common. In the latter case, a deadlock of claim against claim, position versus position, proposal and counterproposal will more readily arise, and the negotiation more quickly turns into barter without looking into the chances of a favorable package deal. People must allow each other this opportunity to clarify their own views, and must not give in to the temptation to 'set matters straight', for this will only lead to time-consuming arguing. Exploring here means asking questions to investigate and clarify the interests involved and the underlying assumptions. Search phase Discussions follow in which both sides try to find out how strongly the other side will defend its demands. People continue to present their own choice of position as a logical answer which is in the common interest. They look for flexibility, for openings. Broadly speaking, there are two ways of exploring in this phase. Their forms, however, are almost diametrically opposed. Exploring by means of pressure Bluffing, threatening, increasing time pressure, refuting the arguments of the other party, are examples of pressure tactics. It may look hard and fierce. There is a risk of escalation. And yet a great deal of information can be gathered during this phase. Reactions from the other side give indications of what is attainable. And the other side is entitled to know your priorities. So, extra pressure for concessions on these priorities can be perfectly all right. Exploring by means of a 'non-binding search' Asking questions, trying out ideas, thinking out loud, once again going over the consequences of a particular idea, working out a point 'for fun', formulating a tentative proposal, formulating 'unripe' ideas for a solution, brainstorming: these are all ways of searching for solutions. Sometimes these two ways are alternated. In this way, the parties test each other while sounding out the possibilities for combinations of wishes and interests. The negotiations can sometimes even take on the nature of a joint search in which all kinds of ideas and alternatives are actively combined and probed. Purposely created misunderstandings may even throw matters into confusion again. On 93 the face of it, everything is still shrouded in mist. Nothing important is finished, everything still seems open. Yet gradually the contours of a possible agreement become clear. So much happens during this phase that we can sometimes speak of three sub phases: first, vigorous detailed deliberations in which both sides may use strong pressure; then a maturation phase; finally a phase of cooperative seeking. These subphases may repeat themselves. Impasse and finalization Pressure and confusion may lead up to a crisis-like atmosphere. At a certain point - sometimes under the pressure of a time limit - it becomes clear that matters are not getting any further. An impasse may be needed to cause a compromise to crystallize. It is necessary as the final test of how strong the various interests and positions are. An impasse may appear in various forms: the matter has been deadlocked for some time. Various proposals are on the table, but no agreement has been reached. A repetition of positions goes on and on. It may be very hard for inexperienced negotiators to restrain themselves from fighting behavior at this point. More experienced negotiators have less difficulty with it, although this does not guarantee that things will turn out well. Impasses have two exploratory possibilities: they provide information about how strong positions are, and they can give an impetus to creativity. Impasses are a sort of test of how tenacious parties are; they force people to look for leeway once more. At the same time they impel people towards a search for new, more creative solutions. This demands a business-like attitude. One cannot give in to the tendency to rigidity and escalation, but must continue to search. These phases can crystallize into unwritten but very strict rules: negotiating becomes a sort of ritual. Some diplomatic talks are a good example of this. A ritualized form of negotiating tends to reduce tensions and uncertainties. Its course becomes fairly predictable. It greatly increases opportunities to control and regulate conflicts. A disadvantage is that such a process may take a good deal of time. 94 Tactics for exploring We will now elaborate the various tactics used in exploring. All negotiating partners have their own responsibility in this. By making the proper procedural proposals, a chairman can naturally facilitate exploring. How he can best do this is explained in chapter 5.2 'Chairing Negotiations'. Informal preliminary consultation Parties try to exchange ideas about each other's interests and background situations. Actual negotiation is taboo. Decisions are not made. Hard positions are not taken. No reports or minutes are made. Always begin the negotiations with an exploratory phase Particularly when there are already proposals on the table, this is easier said than done. There is a strong tendency to react to one another's proposals. Do not confuse argumentation with exploration! In debating, people defend their own proposals and try to weaken those of the other party. In the long run, so much energy is invested in their own detailed positions that margins may become almost nil. Negotiators cannot even consider anything else without a serious loss of face. Ask questions What do people want to achieve? What is the objective behind it? What possibilities have been considered? How did they arrive at their proposals? Show a good example Give information about goals, about other possibilities that have been discussed, about the interests you hope to achieve. Try to find common criteria Are there guidelines and values that appeal to both parties? Are there policy statements which commit the parties? There is a risk inherent in this: parties may start negotiating at length about principles to be applied on a solution. Parties sometimes hope to gain concrete advantages by elevating certain criteria to the level of principles. If care is not taken, the result may be very lengthy 95 negotiations about high-flown ideals. For parties will refuse to endorse criteria and principles unfavorable to them unless they are formulated in such complex or abstract terms that they can be interpreted to their advantage in the 'real' negotiations. In that case, a hard round of negotiations will have been completed, the value of which is slight. This is a serious risk, as parties are often superbly capable of linking their wants to higher principles. This can give rise to bombastic prose that has nothing to do with negotiating. If no clear, workable criteria can be found, there are three other options: 1. focusing on common interests 2. having parties present alternative proposals 3. working with a 'platform proposal'. These options are covered below. Try to find common interests Parties are interdependent, they need each other. What binds them is the overlap in interests. What will benefit both parties? Is there anything common to their interests? Be clear about your interests. Concrete details, specific information, consequences, etc., bring your interests to life; they help legitimate them, in the eyes of your opponent as well. Even if you do not agree with them, try to view the interests of the other side at least as part of the problem. Listen closely, repeat them if necessary in your own words. By asking questions, check whether you have understood them correctly. Try to get as many alternatives on the table as possible − − − − Do not commit yourself to a solution in the preparatory phase. Discuss in what direction a solution should be sought. Discuss possible solutions. Create room to maneuver. Try to have informal or 'preliminary deliberations' with the other parties. Probe each other's ideas and avoid choosing a pronounced position. At most, try to line up a few alternatives without anyone having to commit himself. Informal contacts during the negotiations can be used to drum up possible alternatives. Try to get as many alternatives as possible on the table in the negotiations themselves. Hold a stocktaking/inventory phase. Suggestions are welcome; do not pass judgement on them or argue against them too quickly. 96 − − − Increase the negotiating leeway. Discussing several topics over a longer period of time may increase the chance of a package deal which is relatively favorable to both parties. Use the expertise of professionals and other disciplines. Divide the negotiating leeway over different sorts of issues. If an all-embracing solution is not possible, it still leaves open the possibility of a partial one. If agreement cannot be reached on the substance, then perhaps it can on the procedure. A tentative agreement may not be as good as a definitive one, but it is something. Even though they may be but a tiny fraction of the whole, there are always issues for which solutions can be found. An agreement 'without obligation' is a small gain compared to a binding one, but it is often better than nothing. Make a 'platform proposal' A procedural step which can work very well is making a proposal and then amending it with other parties. Instead of defending your own proposal through thick and thin, you simply ask under what conditions it would be acceptable to the other. If they show reservations or criticize the proposal ask them with what amendments the proposal would become acceptable, what alterations the other party would like. It also gives you an opportunity to come up with suggestions of your own in a next round. A proposal can be amended in this way until an acceptable compromise has been reached. This method can work very well, especially if the issues are complex and several parties are involved. A broad proposal is made. This outline is specified and elaborated in several rounds of talks. Allow each other to score An important integrative potential often lies here. The more agenda items and issues, the greater is the chance of interesting combinations. It would be quite a coincidence if the issues that are of primary importance to one party were to have precisely the same priority for the other party. A relatively modest concession by one party sometimes means considerable profit for the other. Try to find these points: what can the other gain which will cost you relatively little? Knowledge of the priorities of the constituencies can be of help here. 97 Progress by means of new proposals If an impasse continues, a new proposal may be a good tactic. Alternatives developed at an earlier stage can prove their usefulness here. A good technique is sometimes to incorporate the least objectionable elements of the last proposal of the opponents in your own proposal. Progress by means of a study group Sometimes it is possible to end threatened impasses and fruitless debates by creating a study group. Parties meet in a somewhat different composition to set down alternatives and to develop an initiative for a next step or a possible compromise. No report is made, no-one writes anything down. An agenda committee can be used for the same purpose. Exploring during impasses Impasses can freeze personal relations as well as positions. To keep matters moving, the following tactics may be used. Note that none of these tactics is a concession. They involve behavior that promotes change rather than behavior with a cooling and rigidifying effect. − Look for more and different information instead of correcting information and assessing it negatively. − Look for the problems that lie at the root of the impasse instead of convincing and threatening. − Be more spontaneous rather than more formal; more creative rather than more repetitive. − Emphasize equality and mutual dependency (for instance, by exploring the negative consequences of a lasting impasse) rather than acting superior or withdrawing. − Show your disillusionment instead of acting as if it does not matter. − Adjourn and seek informal contact rather than sitting out the meeting. If you find that your attempts to explore get no response and if you want to apply some pressure, 'cultivating an impasse' is sometimes a good tactic. Be approachable but undertake little: silence, long pauses, strolling around, looking out of the window, drinking coffee, talking with colleagues about other matters are ways of doing this. 98 In summary, the tactics discussed in this chapter can be combined into three strategic groups. 1. Treat several issues simultaneously. Do not deal with them one by one, but 'juggle' several issues at the same time in search of an optimal package deal. Go through the agenda in breadth rather than digging in depth on points where it is not easy to reach agreement. A simple procedural technique to facilitate this is the stipulation that nothing will be finalized until everything has been worked through. 2. Furnish an agreement from the 'helicopter' point of view. This means working towards solutions and compromises after reaching a diagnosis that is as complete as possible of the interests and mutual dependencies behind them. Scanning possible options and alternatives is also a part of this. Often, an effective procedural step is to make a broad platform proposal and use it as an outline for further amendment and elaboration until a compromise has been reached. 3. Creativity. Brainstorming, thinking out loud, continuing to search for slightly different combinations, formulating inventively, keeping procedural ideas at hand to keep things moving in impasses, being able to step outside of the initially delineated field. This demands creative energy and the power of imagination. Less creative minds will sometimes call this opportunism. They forget that tenaciously held self-interest is usually behind this flexibility Explorative abilities are emotional abilities Thompson (1998, pp. 178-182) states that positive emotions are important for effective negotiating. "Happy negotiators achieve better outcomes." They propose more alternatives, make more requests for their opponent's reactions to their suggestions and propose more package deals. Furthermore, negotiators in a good mood engage in more information exchange, they are more likely to recognize integrative solutions and are more creative. However, following Thompson, negative emotions are still part of the game. The absence of negative affect may be viewed by an opponent as an indication that the negotiator does not care much about the issue, or is willing to acquiesce. So, negotiators should also act tough to make their opponent understand their priorities. "Negative emotions, 99 which seem to occur quite automatically in some situations, may actually serve us well. The paradox, then, is that effective negotiation outcomes are best achieved by maintaining positive mood during the negotiation, but we must act tough and get angry and upset to show we are serious." The anxiety and tension that negotiators display, results from 'leakage' - negative emotion is not a tactic but is genuinely felt. "The display of negative emotion in circumstances where the stakes are high, therefore, might promote effective negotiation outcomes by allowing negotiators to communicate their priorities, while motivating them to avoid suboptimal outcomes on the issues that are most important. In this sense the effective negotiator is a bipolar negotiator, fluctuating between good moods to instigate creative thinking and occasional anger to communicate resolve." (Thompson, 1998, p. 182) I would say the effective negotiator is a mixed negotiator: Lively and creative in exploring, firm and even angry when his interests are really at stake. This agility to manage moods and tempers presupposes a relatively complicated control of affects. The concept of controlled decontrolling applies perfectly well to this agility. Conclusion We have discussed a very important dimension of negotiating behavior: the exploring-avoiding dimension. Exploring has proved to be a way of linking cooperation to competition, interdependence to more private interests. The rule of thumb 'be firm but flexible' expresses something of this. Starting from mutual but divergent interests, utilize the integrative space. This demands creativity and flexibility, linked with an attitude of 'how do we find a way out together'. Basically, this presupposes a specific pattern of emotion management as described in the section just above 'Explorative abilities are emotional abilities'. But also the do's and don'ts on p. 97 'Exploring during impasses' are all a matter of emotion management. The ability to explore means a moving away from the more primary drives as shown in figure 3 on page 12. In essence this in an emotional ability. Some negotiators very consciously work on fostering a certain informality and on reducing tensions to foster the conditions for explorative activities. Part of this is being sensitive to emotional signals and finding ways to deal with them. Some 100 examples are: − slow down the tempo, adjourn − recognize tension in your own attitude, try to relax − keep your sense of humor, see matters in perspective − express tensions and emotions with measure. Acting as if indifferent to the outcome or becoming more formal has often counterproductive effects, especially in situations of ongoing interdependence. 4.5 Final remark In this chapter four kinds of negotiating activities have been clarified. Each of these activities needs attention. The challenge is to become more supple and skilful on these four areas. Another challenge is the ability to differentiate among these activities and corresponding emotions. This differentiation is expressed in figure 14 'The mixed approach' on page 64. It is also possible to express this differentiation in tactics like: − aim high but never lie − voice your demands with consideration for the interests of others − be friendly without giving in − design creative solutions while holding on to your interests − be assertive without forcing your way − combine tenacity with tact − do not confuse standing up for yourself with dominance on forcing your views − be flexible ànd tough − separate the issue form the person − exploring alternative posibilities has nothing to do with giving in − be tough without behaving aggressively. These do's and dont's provide indications how to deal with mixed affects and conflicting impulses more effectively. These tactics presuppose a specific emotional style. The underlying emotional ability to deal with contrasting impulses has not always been fostered yet. Learning to negotiate is something more than knowing the right do's and don'ts 101 5 SPECIAL SITUATIONS 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Preparing negotiations Chairing negotiations Influencing the constituency Negotiating with a more powerful party From fighting to negotiating Emotional manipulations 5.1 Preparing negotiations In preparing negotiations, the following five areas need attention: Your interests and goals, the balance of power, the climate, procedural flexibility and the relation with your constituency. The various areas of preparation are presented here in the form of a checklist. This is not a list which must be followed to the letter; its object is to help the negotiator quickly enumerate possible points to be prepared, depending on the circumstances. Interests and goals − Do we know enough about the matters to be discussed? − Do we have the relevant documents and files? − Where do our interests and goals lie, where those of our opponents? − Do certain premises / principles / policy statements have any bearing on these negotiations? Balance of power − In what are we dependent on them, and in what are they dependent on us? 102 − − If no agreement is reached, what are the consequences for both sides? Do we expect certain manipulations or other 'power plays'? Climate − What sort of atmosphere do we want at the negotiating table? − What will be our style, how much control of emotions? − What sort of people are we dealing with? What is their negotiating style, what is the 'story behind the story', what are they interested in personally? Procedural flexibility − Do we have enough background information? − Are we able to express the results for which we are aiming in several alternatives? Have we succeeded in creating several options? − How open is our opening move? Do we pin ourselves down immediately on a firm position, or do we primarily give information about our underlying interests? Constituency − Do we deal with people who are authorized to take decisions? − With what sort of things that cost us relatively little can our negotiating partners score with their constituency (and vice versa)? There are indications that experienced and successful negotiators spend their preparation time differently from less experienced and/or less successful negotiators. The most striking difference is the difference in the amount of preparation time spent on developing alternatives: successful negotiators spend three times as long on it as inexperienced negotiators. A few other differences: less experienced negotiators spend substantial more time on a precise definition of their goals and their arguments. Experienced negotiators show a tendency to invest more time in gathering background information about the situation and the interests at stake (Dupont, 1982 p. 62). These differences can be explained by differences in emotion management. Emotions may drive negotiators again and again in the direction of the first area of interests and goals. And within this area 103 they focus on the narrow track of arguments and ‘our position’ or ‘our solution’. They tend to prepare statements for every occasion to defend or promote this position. Gathering background information, playing around with alternatives, promoting a constructive climate, influencing the balance of power, all these elements get no attention during the preparation There is this overriding need to have all the arguments ready. Successful negotiators limit themselves to an arsenal of opening moves; they want to remain more flexible. Furthermore they tend to give the other elements more attention. In workshops on negotiating skills participants easily recognize these elements. Moreover they agree on the importance of giving them attention while preparing. But a moment later rational choice is pushed aside by this craving of ‘what do we want and how are we to defend our position’. This happens already in the relatively calm atmosphere of preparing for the negotiation. You can imagine how this dynamic is stirred up even more during the negotiation. And this while we are still in the serene atmosphere of the workshop. So, what will be the effect in real life situations? Back-up Checklist If you are in need of some more support for your preparation, go over the next list of items. It may give you more useful clues. Interests and goals − Do we have sufficient expertise on our side? − What is the history of the issues at the table? − What results do we want to obtain? − What is the very least we will be satisfied with? − Is it possible and is it necessary to set down a dividing line between solutions that are just barely acceptable and solutions that are unacceptable? 104 Balance of power − How will we deal with expected manipulations or other 'power ploys'? − Where will they feel we are 'throwing our weight around'? Do we want them to? − Are negotiating partners strongly interdependent? Do partners both have alternatives for an agreement with each other? Climate • Can we work comfortably with the location and the arrangements? • How informal do we want the climate to be? Points of attention are: − Are behavior and clothing to be formal or informal? − Are first names to be used? − Will humor be prominent? − What opportunities will be taken to get to know one another somewhat better before the meeting, mixing informally? − Will there be informal conversation during coffee breaks? − Will lunch or dinner be taken jointly? − At the negotiating table, will the delegations be mixed around the table or will they be seated on opposite sides? − In the opening stages, should there be special attention to positive experiences shared, the continuity of the relationship, etc? − Might controversial members of the delegation be omitted or replaced? Procedural flexibility • Are we going to use informal contacts to exchange ideas and information? • Will we try to increase flexibility at the negotiating table by preparing ourselves for procedures such as: − brainstorming, thinking out loud together, formulating tentative proposals − enumerating, making inventories − holding informal study groups − adjourning − cutting out discussions of who is right 105 • − allowing tentative proposals to come on the table? How does our BATNA look (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)? Constituency • Will we manage to exert enough influence on our constituency? Points of attention are: − Is the location 'secluded' enough? − Is there sufficient time for preparatory contacts with constituency? − Will both sides spare each other a loss of face? − Will both sides allow each other moments of 'drama' which are well accounted for in the minutes? − Will both sides give up 20 per cent to allow the other side to score 80 per cent on certain points? Strategic notions There are three strategic notions useful to remember during the preparations. ‘Strategic’ because they cover the whole process of negotiating. These notions are helpful as elements of a general strategic plan. − phases of negotiations − personal styles and emotion management − scripts versus scenarios. Phases of negotiations: a general notion which can offer some strategic grasp is that of the phases of negotiations: − initial choice of position, opening moves − exploratory phase − impasse and finalization. Actions will need a fit to these phases. If they are not, negotiators make life unnecessarily difficult for themselves. For example by waiting too long with information about their own position, or by making a compromise proposal at too early a stage. On the pages 8993 and 108-114 these phases are explained more elaborately. 106 Personal styles and emotion management: reflection about your negotiating style and the way you want to express your interests. For example, do we want to be: − directly confrontational − cooperative, friendly − avoiding, wait and see − explorative. Moods and tempers are important. What mood will we express? Remember: personal styles, moods and tempers are always part of the negotiation also when we do not give it any thought at all. Remember also that the agility of negotiators to manage more consciously styles, moods and tempers is limited. However if you give it no attention at all you still will be judged by the style and the mood you express. So, it is better to stay in contact with your feelings and to try to act upon it more consciously. Intuitively some negotiators make use of emotions to influence the balance of power. Section 5.6 on emotional manipulations provides many examples. The conscious use of emotions to develop flexibility or to influence the negotiating climate has been discussed in 5.3 'Influencing the constituency' explains the possible role of emotions in the relation with the constituency. Scanning these sections once more may raise your awareness off the emotional dynamics in these areas. It may sharpen your antenna for the feelings participants are hiding. Also, these sections will provide you with some practical clues how to act upon your own feelings. Negotiators sometimes use the available range of personal styles more consciously in the division of roles among the members of a delegation. An ancient ploy is to have a very tough negotiator and a more reasonable person in the delegation. A firm stand of the reasonable negotiator will look lenient compared to the aggressive behavior of the tough guy. Scripts versus scenarios: a strategic instrument with which we can increase our room to manoeuvre is thinking in scenarios rather than scripts. Figure 22 shows the script and the scenario side by side for easy comparison. 107 Figure 22 Script versus scenario Scripts: one line of reasoning; rigid Scenario: several lines of action depending on the reactions; flexible We start by explaining our position. We start by providing our view on the interests at stake. If they come with their position ….. we will counter with statement ….. Next, we will try some exploration of the situation; we want a clear view on the priorities of the parties involved. Along the way we also bring in …. Our action will depend on the course of the discussions; we see a few possible options. And only after they have admitted … we bring up our proposal. If unexpected events happen we will play it by ear with a clear view on our interests. Until we have them at the point where we will bring up our definite proposal We might recess to discuss new information or to develop new proposals. etc. etc. In both approaches different ways of emotion management are involved. The 'script' way is emotionally tempting because it provides the idea that one is well prepared by knowing exactly what to do. Experienced negotiators often perceive this idea as an illusion because it makes less creative sometimes even rigid. They have the experience this type of preparation will stimulate dynamics of ongoing arguing and debate because participants have prepared themselves very well along these lines. These experiences may stimulate another pattern of emotion management closer to explorative behavior with a focus on constructive relations combined with assertiveness about one's interests. This pattern can best be expressed by the maxim 'Firm and flexible'. 108 Conclusion The checklists above contain many points. The art is to keep things simple. For example: quickly scan this chapter to pick out a few items that appeal to you. With each of them mark down a few terms that cover your points. For the rest, rely on your ability to improvise; otherwise you simply will propose a recess or delay the talks. Negotiators sometimes have little time to prepare. When time is very limited, the following suggestion may help: − Limit yourself to developing an opening in which you tell something about your interests and then play it by ear. When time pressure is greatest and when you simply have to or want to arrive at a solution immediately: − Make a proposal which is as advantageous as possible but still well defensible, − Then barter until a reasonable compromise has been reached. 5.2 Chairing negotiations Often negotiations are chaired. At organizational meetings of a negotiating character, the chairman may be someone from a higher echelon; in other cases it may be an independent outsider. Sometimes the chair falls to one of the parties involved. The chairman may face a difficult task, particularly when the claims of the parties show great contrast, or in situations of competition for very scarce resources. This section provides a complete procedure for chairing meetings at which participants negotiate. The same procedure can be used in very diverse kinds of negotiations. We assume that a chairman has two aims: he wants to reach a compromise; and he wants to reach it without impairing mutual relations. In order to achieve this dual purpose, he must both understand the phases in the negotiating process and develop procedural tactics to increase the chance of success. These two areas will be explored below. 109 The phases of the negotiating process Knowledge of the phases of negotiating processes can serve a chairman to steer the process. It will enable him to understand better what is taking place and to prepare himself better for what will come. Events become more predictable because he has a guiding principle. The four major phases, as discussed in earlier chapters are: 1. preparation 2. verbal fireworks 3. psychological warfare 4. crises and finalization. In many types of negotiations, these phases take the much milder form: − preparation − initial choice of position − search phase − impasse and finalization. More information about the phases of negotiations can be found in 4.4 'Obtaining flexibility'. Here we will briefly discuss these four phases, and the role of the chairman in each of them will be pointed out. Preparation In discussion among themselves, the parties determine their standpoints and the strategy to be adopted. The chairman is often not involved in these internal deliberations. If he is, he should try to keep both parties from committing themselves to one particular solution, asking about underlying interests and ultimate goals and encouraging each side to formulate several alternatives. Initial choice of position Negotiations generally begin with statements in which the parties present their respective wishes and interests. On the basis of facts, arguments and principles (e.g. 'the company's objectives', 'the common interest') they try to give their position some force. As chairman, it is important to give them the opportunity to do so without being interrupted by the other participants. 110 Search phase The parties test each other out. How reasonable are their claims? They also probe the interests and ideas in the background. The chairman must be alert to possible combinations of wishes and interests. Parties try to create as much leeway for themselves as possible in three ways: 1. They try to keep open as many options as possible for themselves while giving up nothing. 2. They test the tenacity of the other party. 3. They look for possible combinations of interests. In this phase proposals, sometimes still tentative, are put on the table. These proposals often imply concessions. A chairman can play a very important role here. He can encourage the parties to probe the 'integrative space' by having them present their underlying interests and assumptions. Even more important, he can prevent endless arguing by focusing the negotiations on concrete proposals. Finally, he can put a stop to vitriolic discussions. Impasse and finalization Various proposals and counterproposals are on the table now. There is no agreement: all parties claim they have done their utmost. Time starts to press; tensions rises. This creates more and more pressure to make decisions, to finalize matters. A few last concessions on both sides, sometimes combined in a clever package deal, can provide a way out at the last minute. By wielding his authority, a chairman can sometimes settle certain points in this phase and thus facilitate a compromise. In this phase too, a chairman can sometimes put a stop to 'fighting' behavior, when people who are not particularly well equipped to deal with impasses become excessively rigid in their attitude and make excessive use of pressure. More experienced negotiators, however, see impasses as inevitable and sometimes even desirable, making mild test of the other's tenacity. An impasse also may stimulate the exploration of package deals closer to the interests at stake. 111 Checklist The following checklist provides a series of procedural suggestions for chairing the negotiations. 1. Start with a brief explanation of: − the object of the meeting − constraints (available time, consequences of failure to reach a decision) − manner of decision-making (by consensus, by simple majority or by higher up) − procedure (see the following points). 2. Give everyone the opportunity to clarify their wishes and interests: − the magnitude of wishes − precisely what those wishes imply − the why and wherefore: arguments, objectives, interests. Do not allow any discussion yet – at most, a few questions to clarify matters. In particular, try to create leeway for clarification of the objectives and underlying interests; you may even ask about them yourself. 3. Briefly summarize wishes and interests. 4. Explore the 'integrative space' via common principles. − Investigate with the participants whether common premises and criteria can be found. − Try to chart common interests or objectives. The search for common premises may cause problems. Often they prove to be too abstract to provide any sound footing. If this is the case, a better procedural step is the following: 5. Explore the 'integrative space' via proposals. − Make particular proposals, such as: allow only the highest priorities to be discussed; leave the situation as it is; lower all claims by 20 per cent; combine a and b; temporize all claims by 20 per cent; defer claims x and y. 112 − − − − − Make a brainstorming inventory of as many alternative proposals and solutions as possible. Turn participants' reactions into proposals for a solution. Investigate whether proposals can be integrated by combining claims. Take a proposal as a basis for further negotiating: avoid discussion of this proposal, ask for suggestions to improve it or for conditions on the basis of which one could agree to it. Help participants to formulate amendments and conditions if necessary. Exploring in this manner assumes a minimum of willingness to find a way out jointly. If it is successful, then it becomes clear via the proposals where everyone's primary interests lie. This often leads to a better result than does the system of bartering, item by item. The fifth of these points deserves special emphasis: taking a proposal as a basis for further negotiating can be a very fortunate intervention by the chairman. Depending on the type of negotiations, this can vary from a draft text of a treaty to the tentative allocation of a budget. (This makes it theoretically possible to reduce the number of phases of the negotiation to two: a first 'start-up' phase, in which parties exchange information on the basis of which a tentative and broad but non-binding agreement is formulated, and a second phase in which the negotiations about the concrete substance move forward on the basis of that outline.) Then focus negotiations on this tentative proposal. This means: Restrict arguments and discussion. Ask instead for amendments or conditions which would make the proposal acceptable. This simple tactic gives the chairman a powerful tool with which to organize the negotiations more constructively and to speed them up. Of all the procedural suggestions, this one is the most important! 6. Let the parties 'bicker' now and then. Some bickering is inevitable and, to a certain degree, it is necessary to convince participants it is useless to go on debating and arguing. 7. Let time pressure and rising tension do their work. At a certain point, although some concessions have been made, the matter is 113 deadlocked. Time passes; the consequence of not reaching a decision loom large. The debating leads nowhere. The time is ripe to finalize the matter. 8. Carve out a decision: make a proposal for a compromise and give a brief but clear explanation. A good compromise satisfies the following conditions: − It gives some advantage to parties that have succeeded in linking their claims to generally acknowledged interests and goals. − It gives expression to the current power and dependency relations. − It exploits the integrative possibilities (for instance, a combination of interests in a creative package deal). − It leaves non of the parties behind in an isolated position or in the role of 'the big loser'. Three final remarks 1. 2. It is important for a chairman to stop any tendency towards escalation. The following are helpful: − Cut off personal attacks and reprimand the assailant. People must keep the person and the issue separate. 'Don't blame the other for your own problems'. − Keep the parties in some sort of balance. Do not allow one party to be entirely thrust aside because of inexperience or a lack of coalition partners. − Avoid discussions of principle. An appeal to higher values − or generally shared interests can quickly lead to highflown rhetoric and extensive debate. This has a rigidifying and polarizing effect, unless the principles are concretely applicable and the interests are truly common. Do not expect the impossible! Especially when people and interests are mutually exclusive, in situations where all parties are going to have to give up something, it is impossible to expect that all parties can be fully satisfied. A smoothly running meeting is impossible. Harmony and consensus cannot be expected. To a certain extent, personal frustration and friction between participants is inevitable. But: to a certain 114 3. extent only! For a chairman can definitely prevent escalation. A chairman has succeeded when parties can look back and see that they were given a fair chance: that they were in a position to come up tenaciously for their interests, and that continued discussions would not have led to a better outcome, but simply to time-consuming and fruitless bickering. At such meetings, the biggest problem can be protracted arguing and debating. This yields no profit: people simply repeat the same arguments over and over. They feel called upon to 'explain matters once more' or to 'set misunderstandings straight', etc. The value of all these efforts is but slight; the effect is a rapid deterioration in the atmosphere towards the point where the participants start flea-picking, scoring points, etc. Sometimes negotiators are not well aware of this. They really believe that there is still something to be explained or set straight; and they stop listening to their opponent, and merely rehearse their own argument for the next round! The chairman can put a stop to this by keeping the discussion focused on proposals; what does one side want, what does the other side want; what allocation is proposed; on what conditions might the other side agree to it; what sort of compromise is conceivable? Only new arguments are still important at this point. The 'old familiar tales' only take time and arouse irritation. Summary We have described briefly the phases through which negotiations pass and have set out a checklist giving eight procedural suggestions aimed at facilitating the task of the chairman at meetings where participants negotiate with one another. In this context three phases were distinguished as requiring particular kinds of intervention from the chair. 1. Initial choice of position, when the wishes and interests of the participants are presented; here suggestions 1, 2 and 3 are appropriate. 115 2. 3. Search phase, when the parties explore the integrative space and test the tenacity of each other's positions; suggestions 4, 5 and 6 are useful here. Impasse and finalization, when the matter seems to be deadlocked but a compromise proposal at the right moment shows a way out; suggestions 7 and 8 can be put into practice here. 5.3 Influencing your constituency The relationship with the constituency is important to negotiators. Much of the behavior at the negotiating table in fact cannot be explained without reference to this dimension. Often there is even a sort of 'gentlemen's agreement' between negotiators on such points as: − one does not make a fool of the other in front of his constituency − one allows the other a substantial 'show' now and then − one does not make concessions too quickly, in order not to arouse unrealistic expectations among the constituency of the other party. The most essential characteristic of the relationship with the constituency is its negotiating nature. Naive negotiators are not sufficiently aware of this. We could even go so far as to say that the core of successful negotiating must be sought in being able to negotiate with the constituency. The negotiations with the opponents come in second place. This may sound a little exaggerated. Still, the pitfalls and limitations attached to the relationship with the constituency may hamper and even block the negotiating among the representatives. The five most important pitfalls are: 1. We do not see it as a negotiating relation, so we good-naturedly go along with what the constituency asks of us. 2. We are incapable of negotiating with the constituency because we have to deal with persons who are more powerful in a hierarchical or formal sense. 116 3. 4. 5. We are incapable of negotiating with the constituency because we got into the position of negotiator by making large promises to the constituency. We are incapable of negotiating with the constituency because we allowed ourselves to be pinned down to a precisely-worded mandate in preliminary talks with the constituency. We have allowed ourselves to be provoked by the constituency. This not only applies to the factual stand taken, which is seldom tempered by a constituency. On the contrary! This pitfall also applies to the climate and the balance of power. Constituencies often tend to an oversimplified and stereotyped image of the opponent, an image in which the negative aspects gain more and more dominance. Parallel to this negative image, a tendency often arises to deal firmly with the opponent. This implies escalation to a situation in which the constituency aims to subjugate the opponent. Negotiators may have a difficult time resisting such pressure from the constituency, mainly because, if they go along with it, their own position relative to the constituency is strengthened: their leadership is less disputed and their credibility increases. The dilemma in these five points is that while it may be very tempting to go along with the constituency for these reasons, to do so actually reduces the chances of obtaining results with the opponent. Figure 23 shows this dilemma, with examples of related tactics. Negotiating in front of the constituency diminishes the chances of an agreement by which one's own party, in view of the mutual dependency, stands to gain. Negotiators who do not feel particularly bound by their constituency generally turn out to obtain the best results for them. On the other hand, a casual relationship with the constituency means that a negotiator loses his credibility for his opponents: 'On whose behalf is he really here?' 'Does he have enough influence to carry his constituency?' A good relationship with the constituency involves knowing what is on their minds and being seen by them as their representative, while at the same time having sufficient authority to make compromises which very often fall short of the constituency's demands. It often happens that negotiators, in order to ensure success, have to negotiate at least as firmly with their constituency as with their opponents. In fact, everything that is said in this book 117 about negotiating with opponents is in principle applicable to negotiations with the constituency as well. Figure 23 The 'uncommitted versus overcommitted' dilemma Uncommitted 1 Overcommitted 2 3 4 5 Heedless of one's constituency Represents one's constituency and manages to obtain freedom of action Only comes to carry out his instructions Takes freedom of action, but risks lack of support from one's constituency. Avoids a narrow mandate, Asks for precise mandate but actively influences the and carries it out to the formal and informal letter. circuits. Independent opinion, but is remote to the constituency and 'is not one of us'. Avoids stereotyping, moderates expectations. Takes part in stereotyping, strengthens expectations. Negotiating is often full of tension and stress. It may be tempting to vent off these tensions with your colleagues and with the rank and file. It may be even more tempting to demonstrate a tough stand and to raise expectations about the outcome. Your constituency will strongly support and even applaud this reaction. They will confirm you in your conviction that you are reasonable and constructive while the other side is unreasonable. You may not be aware of it but you are becoming more and more cornered and locked into a position without any flexibility. Unintentionally, you are stirring up strong emotions with your rank and file and in your own emotional make-up. In this respect the dilemma shown in figure 23 is often more a matter of emotion management then of rational choice. There are several tactics which are of special help in negotiating with the constituency. The most important are: 118 − − − − − Avoid a strict mandate or a precisely formulated task by making the preparatory time short or by keeping the matter confused. Moderate the demands of the constituency by giving tactical information about what is attainable. Keep people whose expectations are too high outside the actual negotiations, for instance, by keeping the negotiating team small or by appointing them in subcommittees. Keep the results of the negotiations vague or more complicated, so that criticism has little basis. Exaggerate concessions by the opponent. If this does not help, the negotiator can still employ his personal power and prestige. In the most extreme case, he may resort to putting his own position at stake. 5.4 Negotiating with a more powerful party Power differences between parties affect behavior. They can set in motion dynamics of their own which have an escalating effect; for example, when the less powerful party is driven further and further into a corner, and adopts either an aggressive or an apathetic attitude. This section will first describe the tendencies in negotiations between more and less powerful parties. Figure 24 shows: − The problems that each side often faces with respect to the other. − The behavioral and emotional tendencies on both sides which lead to serious escalation. − The images that parties gradually develop of each other. − The tactics which parties tend to adopt in order to maintain their own position. These tendencies can result, if unchecked, in lasting impasses or unmanageable confrontations. The second half of the section will go into an effective negotiating strategy for the less powerful party. 119 Figure 24 Outline of the tendencies in 'more versus less powerful' situations High power level Low power level Central problems How can we keep things under control? How do we get across what has to be done? How can we prove it is fair? How do we deal with resistance? How do we avoid being taken in, committing ourselves to things we do not want? Can you really speak your mind freely? Won't they get back at you later? Behavioral tendencies Little willingness to take new developments into consideration. 'We have done all we can.' Overestimate the rationality of the other party. Often find it very difficult to offer good opposition. Frequently exhibit long-lasting internal division. Emotional tendencies Superior attitude: 'Why so React to contacts with the much distrust, we are aware of arrogant establishment with our responsibilities.' indignation and aggression. Image of the other Tendency to derision, rigidifying into grimness. 'This is simply going too far, they ought to be put in their place.' Close ranks. Tendency to provocation and to militant action. Tunnel vision: 'We have their interest at heart, but there is no way to get through to them. If they don't want to listen, they'll just have to find out the hard way.' Tunnel vision: 'We can only make things any better by fighting. The whole system is rotten.' Inflexible suspicious. Unreliable, aggressive: 'Nothing will come of it.' Think only of their own interests. Manipulating, calculating: 'They'll have it their own way after all.' 'They know more than they tell you.' 'They always think of themselves first.' 120 Examples of strategies High power level Low power level Persuading. Setting down consultation procedures. Refusing to take active part, withholding information. Influencing opinion leaders. Coercion: 'You can't please them all.' Letting complaints or proposals from lower echelons bog down in red tape. Stigmatizing and isolating resistance. Keeping agreements purposely vague. Passive resistance: Let matters drag on, constant criticism of details. Ask for more information. Act injured, turn it into a matter of principles. Evade control, mobilize active resistance. Strategic tips for the less powerful party In general First, do not allow yourself to be bullied by your constituency. Study figure 23 to see how this danger may arise, by raising expectations, a precise mandate and stereotyping the opponent. Try also to be aware of the possible dynamics and pitfalls in the relation according to figure 24. Specific points for the negotiation − − − Prepare clear and specific proposals. Show a certain interest in the difficulties and the costs that the more powerful party will face. Show explicit willingness to tackle these problems with the more powerful party and to keep the costs as low as possible for them. From an emotional point of view, this tactic can be very unsatisfying, because 'we are right in the final analysis' or 'what the other side wants is just plain crazy'. It is much more gratifying to nag, to appeal to principles, to go along with your constituency, etc. But this only further impairs your negotiating position! The question is: Do you want to fight or to negotiate? 121 Important points • • • Be careful about setting a bottom line to your own wishes if you cannot substantiate it. A bottom line has a restrictive effect: it forms an obstacle to exploring the negotiating leeway. Try to develop an alternative for not reaching a compromise. − What happens if no compromise is reached? − What can we do if no compromise is reached? − Specify the most promising ideas and make them feasible. However difficult this may be, it is the only way to bring your own position more into balance. As long as there is no alternative, you are still in the position of underdog or victim. Remember: good alternatives seldom grow on trees. They must sometimes be developed with great effort. Try, too, to imagine the alternative for the other party of not reaching a compromise. The greater the power difference, the wiser it is to set down as many as possible common criteria and to negotiate from them. The more common norms, premises, criteria, etc., that can play a role in the negotiations, the better. So again: explore! What do we have in common, where are the underlying interests? 5.5 From fighting to negotiating It's all or nothing. The best defense is attack. It's a win-or-lose situation. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If they don't want to listen, they'll just have to find out the hard way. The first blow is half the battle. How can we induce an opponent who uses a fighting strategy to negotiate? After a brief analysis of fighting behavior, we will point out in this section several ways of dealing with it. 122 Fighting behavior A fighting strategy is concerned with achieving dominance and reducing the opponent to submission. In all possible ways, one party tries to gain ascendancy over the other in order to win. Examples of fighting behavior are: − causing damage, loss and inconvenience by action such as demonstrations, boycotts, strikes and sit-ins − emphasizing negative aspects in one's image of the opponent − sowing dissen − not listening, nagging, steamrollering − casting doubt on the competence and motives of the opponent and ridiculing him − flouting procedures, rules, norms and agreements − employing shock effects, personal attacks, threats, humiliation, flattery, angry outbursts until the opponent starts to make mistakes − trying to isolate the opponent, lobbying to find support everywhere for your own viewpoint and to invoke public disapproval of the opponent − purposely spreading false information − creating as much confusion, uncertainty and inclarity as possible − rushing or endlessly dragging out decision-making − working the opponent into an inferior position by barking rudely at him, disagreeing with him before he even opens his mouth, only hearing things which you can use against him, etc. Advantages A fighting strategy has a highly mobilizing and activating effect on one's own party; it can also be very satisfying emotionally. − If a party is not very dependent on his opponent, he often stands to gain more by fighting than by negotiating. − Internal differences are settled, the ranks close, the leaders are attributed larger powers. − If one party clearly has superior power, it can be a quick way of settling a conflict. − For a party which has not yet gained recognition, fighting for a while can be a manner of being taken seriously at the negotiating table. 123 Disadvantages − − − − Distortions in the perception of the opponent; the 'bad' side is accentuated more and more heavily, while the 'good' elements are squeezed out of the picture. A continual negative effect on trust; the loser is constantly bent on revenge; subsequent sharp conflicts are likely. The less skilful or the less aggressive 'fighters' leave the scene, which can mean the loss of an important potential of energy and creativity. In the heat of the battle, people tend to lose sight of what the conflict is all about, as well as the consequences. Emotions like distrust, fear and revenge drive towards more aggressive behavior. Everything, sometimes even one's own interests, has to give way to 'win' from the opponent. It is extremely difficult to induce an opponent who uses a fighting strategy to adopt another strategy. Even worse, faced with a fighter, people tend to switch to a fighting strategy themselves, so that further escalation is to be expected: 'The opponent is playing hard, so we will play hard too'. It is doubtful whether self-interest is served in this way. In order not to slip unintentionally into fighting, it is important to have alternatives. However, confronted with an opponent who is emotionally geared up to fighting and simply proves unable and unwilling to negotiate a firm stand has to be recommended. Intransigence, threats and resorting to aggressive actions are still for many people the normal way to get what they want. Friendly and explorative behavior will only encourage them because they experience this as weak. Possible ways of dealing with fighting behavior One thing the next tactics all have in common is that they stand a chance only if you prepare yourself well for them. Preparation is a first requirement. In the second place, it is always important to be aware that you will feel emotional tendencies in yourself, and probably strong pressure from your constituency, to play it tough. The best way to remain in control of these emotional pressures is to have clear goals of your own. In a confrontation, if you have your 124 own interests clearly in mind, if you know what it is you want to achieve, you can gauge any action you might want to take against this. It also makes it somewhat easier to compare the costs of a continuing fight with the costs of a negotiating situation. The following tactics can be used: − Try to find out what is behind the fighting behavior of the opponent. − Side step the fight. It takes two to quarrel; if one ignores the matter, it all stops. − Maintain your position as imperturbably as possible. This often leads to an impasse. For the opponent, this may be a reason to start tackling matters differently. − Announce that you do not wish to negotiate in this way. Indicate the rules and conditions under which you wish to deal with the other. The first of these tactics involves three steps. All three aim at a better exploration of the situation: 1. Become acquainted with the why and wherefore of the behavior of the other party; not only the more substantial business-like side - underlying problems and interests - but also any possible socio-emotional irritations the other party may feel. 2. Investigate your own role in the cause of the problems under (1). The following things may come to light. − The opponent is following the 'party line', and you are being used as a test case. − The opponent has several concrete wishes, but is afraid that they will not be achieved through discussion and negotiation. 'There's no point in talking to a stone wall.' − The opponent is simply 'showing off' for his constituency. − The opponent thinks he is dealing with a party that thinks in terms of 'win or lose', one that is looking for a fight. − The opponent fights to gain recognition as a serious negotiating partner. − The opponent feels slighted, manipulated, unjustly dealt with, etc., by the treatment of the other side. 3. Steps (1) and (2) often lead to a more precise identification of the interests at stake The steps may also be helpful in dealing 125 with the power balance and promoting a more constructive climate. 5.6 Emotional manipulations Negotiations are always about something substantial: personnel, budgets, division of authority, tasks. In addition to this substance, there is also the aspect of the personal relationship between the participants. Negotiators conduct themselves towards each other in various ways: they show more or less openness, friendliness, malice, arrogance, humor. In this way they influence the climate. During negotiations, participants make all kinds of remarks and comments, sometimes spontaneous and intuitive, sometimes purposeful and calculating, which evoke certain feelings and incite responses from their opponent. Negotiators do not need to indicate openly what their true intentions are with such statements. Sometimes such remarks are intended to influence the balance of power on a hidden way. Negative and positive manipulations A party may let it be known to his opponent that the latter's views and behavior simply do not come up to the mark, that they deserve even some moral disapproval. The opponent is given to understand that his opinion is in fact somewhat short-sighted, that his reasoning is not logical, that he would do well to adopt a more constructive attitude, that his ideas and premises no longer work in these modern times, that his argument is devoid of principles. But negotiators may also observe that their opponents have formulated a thorough and innovative report, that they are well known for their progressive thinking, that their premises should be the basis of further discussion, and that their contribution can be viewed as highly constructive. These negative and positive remarks often do not express the negotiators' true opinions; they may even express precisely the opposite! I call them manipulations. 126 Why do negotiators use manipulations? The object is to evoke certain feelings in the opponent, feelings that will lead to a strengthening of the manipulator's own position in the negotiations. In the case of negative manipulations, the aim is to evoke feelings of inferiority, of a sense of guilt, of being publicly disapproved of. Take, for example, an accountant who tells his client that a modern businessman cannot avail himself of this sort of financial misrepresentation. Or a manager who announces to his employee that his form of reporting is not compatible with the awareness of responsibility that prevails in the company. Or a union negotiator who lets the employers know that their attitude still has some characteristics of old-fashioned capitalism. A person who uses negative manipulations hopes that his opponent will start to waver, become uncertain, yield. If a person uses positive manipulations, he is buttering up his opponent in an effort to induce him to take a more compliant attitude. The accountant above might say to the businessman that his small fiscal irregularities would cast an unnecessary slur on his refreshingly progressive and innovative company policy. And the manager could tell his employee that his report was a clear improvement on the previous one. And the union negotiator might say that the attitude of the employers would lead to improved understanding on both sides. Are emotional manipulations effective? Do negotiators achieve what they want to achieve with their manipulations? Do they make the other party more yielding and more compliant? An experienced negotiator will take little notice of manipulations. He will see through them and know that they are part of the game. If his opponent uses exaggerated positive manipulations, they are sometimes taken as humorous, and humor has a relaxing effect in negotiating discussions. However, if his opponent frequently uses negative manipulations, they are likely to arouse a feeling of irritation. Not so much because one takes the accusations to heart, but in annoyance at the negotiating style of the opponent. The behavior of 127 the manipulating negotiator will turn against him: instead of creating compliance, he creates irritation, resentment and intractability. An inexperienced negotiator is more likely to allow himself to be influenced by manipulations in the talks. If his opponent has such a positive opinion of them, surely he will offer something for it in return? He feels flattered and above all wants to make sure that progress in the negotiations is not impeded. That is, until he gets back to his constituency, where he hears that the concessions he has made are unacceptable and that he must try to retract those concessions. It is then that it begins to dawn on him that he has allowed himself to be taken in by sweet talk. The feeling of flattery turns into rancor and antipathy. It is even more difficult for an inexperienced negotiator to deal with negative manipulations. He gets the feeling that, if he is judged negatively on the basis of generally recognized standards of decency, there must be something wrong. So he starts to feel uncertain, to hesitate, to doubt. And perhaps to give in. Feelings of irritation crop up below the surface. How can a person defend himself? Figures 25 and 26 show the intended and unintended effects of emotional manipulations: they are of a wide variety. In the end, emotional manipulations usually defeat themselves. Instead of compliance, they bring about intractability. 128 Figure 25 Negative emotional manipulations OBJECT Getting the other to yield EFFECT Is that, in the future, the person is more alert and will stand firm So that the victim begins to feel antipathy for the manipulator, along with feelings of powerlessness By censuring and disapproval Which leads to feelings of uncertainty and decreasing selfconfidence As a result vague notions dawn that something is wrong and the person becomes resentful Opposition to manipulations Emotional manipulations do not work, at least not in the long run. One might, perhaps, gain short-term success by using them on less experienced negotiators; in the end, however, the climate is damaged and the atmosphere is impaired. Often negotiating talks are rooted in 129 wider-reaching and more complex transactions in which it is desirable or even necessary to keep relations between the parties positive. Figure 26 Positive emotional manipulations OBJECT Getting the other to yield EFFECT In that, in the future, the person is more alert and will stand firm So that the victim begins to feel antipathy for the manipulator By praising him and complimenting the other How, then, is one to deal with a manipulating opponent? Responding with manipulations, especially negative ones, only leads to Which leads to further polarization. What more constructive reactions cantheone need to do something make? in return As a result The person later regrets this and becomes suspicious 130 Recognizing manipulations, having a clear view of the actual intentions of the opponent and the manner in which he tries to achieve them, is already a very important point. Then you can take the behavior of the other for what it is and simply not engage with it. Even simply labeling a word, a sentence or an argument, an emotional manipulation' for yourself can be of help. If the other party insists and forces you to reply to the manipulation, you can restate your own interests and goals in a friendly tone. Reactions that impair the climate of the talks are: producing proofs that the other is wrong, indignantly rejecting the insinuation, ridiculing his opinions. The most fundamental defense against emotional manipulations is becoming aware of your own feelings of being threatened, of aggression and inferiority. I once met a negotiator who became quite enraged at allusions by his opponent to his appearance (opponent: 'And then those spruce gentlemen from that company come in, and that's what I have to do business with. . .'). After a little searching, it appeared that the irritation of this man sprang from the fact that his family had been poor in his youth, and that his manner of presenting himself was still a reaction to that period of poverty. Manipulations by his opponent were successful when they alluded to this. Here we are almost into the field of depth psychology - but who doesn't have weak points arising from the past? Investigating what sort of manipulations make us feel most upset can be a help. Because we have learned over the years to control and to hide our emotions we do not always have an easy access to our feelings. This is one of the reasons why emotional manipulations can be so effective. Most often we are not very agile in this area. We even distrust our feelings. This makes it all the more difficult to act upon our emotions in an acceptable way. 131 6 STATE OF THE ART 6.1 Recent developments 6.2 Summary and conclusions 6.1 Recent developments Negotiating is not a static skill. The development of our behavioral repertoire can be summarized by means of the next two trends: 1. More discipline: Less 'hot-tempered', increasing control of physical and emotional impulses, more polished behavior according to more elaborate codes and standards. 2. Informalization: More flexible, more spontaneous, more direct, more 'loose' and 'natural', controlled decontrolling. At present the trend towards informalization attracts most attention. Things have to be more spontaneous, easier and more direct. People tend to dislike stiff communication and tight behavior. Appreciation of informal and loose behavior is growing. There is more room for emotion, dress codes are less strict, there is more acceptance of individualistic and assertive behavior. Management magazines have drawn attention to this shift. Let me present an example from Intermagazine (May, 1991), "Lunch Rules", in which dyed-in-thewool businessmen and restaurateurs give some tips about how to behave: − order sober, light meals − an 'easygoing' manner − neutral behavior reflects a beginner's attitude − the more personality, the stronger the power position. These last three suggestions refer to natural and direct behavior. 'Ease' and 'naturalness' are seen as better ways to express one's 132 personality then 'restraint' and 'reserve'. These are more and more experienced as stiff and phony. So all kinds of rules hang in the balance: "We conscientiously go over the lists of dos and don'ts in my handbook. He dismisses most of them saying 'ridiculous - we're all human, aren't we?'. As far as he's concerned, it is perfectly o.k. to pick up cutlery that has fallen from the table - it would be outrageous to leave that for the waitress, he smokes without asking permission - if the other person objects he should say so. A visit to the bathroom 'during'? Well, of course it's 'not done', but if nature calls... It is better to break a minor rule than to sit there feeling totally uncomfortable and unnatural. Only if you yourself are comfortable can you put the other person at ease, and that's what it is all about." (Intermagazine, May, 1991) Does this mean we will let everything turn into an undisciplined mess? Of course not: also discipline and formalization are still getting stronger. Perhaps that development is less obvious. But take for example the business lunch referred to earlier: 'sober, light meals'. Right, and take it easy on the alcohol! You can be sure they are watching you! Remember this development goes on. In many social situations not smoking at all even if you would like to is already self-understood. Even 'asking permission ' may become rude and undisciplined behavior. 'Informal and direct, be yourself!' Pay attention: − Never, ever walk into a room puffing and panting. It is better to be ten minutes late and walk in cool and collected, than to be on time and out of breath. Panting means: this person is not in command. − Don't take too many notes. Writing al lot means: this person is afraid he will forget things. Or: this man has no mandate, he has to report back in detail. − Watch the man whose eyes stray to an attractive secretary during important meetings: he is vulnerable." Says Jan Kuitenbrouwer in his column about the dos and don'ts of business (Intermagazine, November, 1988). 133 Discipline, control, restraint are not getting less. On the contrary. Discipline in the shape of all kinds of codes and implicit behavioral rules is still very much alive. The business lunch of just now knows don'ts such as: − don't study the wine list, the 'wine act' is history − no complicated performance with credit cards A detailed, quite sharp behavioral code, and at the same time easy and relaxed: can they go together? Apparently! What we see here is the social constraint to less self-constraint, with all kinds of 'little' trials of strength between people (in a different way than in the past) to show that they understand this controlled decontrolling. We see ever more refined codes emerging for meetings, eating habits, dress standards. These codes allow more variation and therefore more leeway and freedom. But at the same time rules develop about the way in which this new freedom must be filled. So, paradoxically, the new 'ease' and increased freedom make higher demands on our self-control and on our ability to intuit these more 'casual' behavioral codes. This presupposes such a degree of control that less inhibited behavior becomes possible without the risk of getting carried away or claming up. What does this mean in the context of negotiating? It means that we are learning to cope more smoothly with apparently conflicting elements in our negotiating relationships: flexible ànd persistent, informal relations ànd standing up for oneself, room for emotions ànd discipline, holding on to one's interests ànd wanting to reach a solution together. This type of negotiating fits with relational patterns of continuous mutual dependency. It also suits dense networks, in which maintaining many contacts and creating many possibilities for combinations and smooth deals, is advantageous. In such situations the ability to create confidence and check for reliability quickly is important. Continuity in the relationship, the importance of a solid reputation and credibility push in the direction of reliable behavior. The final litmus test then becomes: what makes a person tick, does he pull stunts, are there hidden meanings, are games being played, do I feel at ease. 134 Informal, direct and relaxed behavior will quickly provide answers to these questions. Formal, controlled, correct, aloof, dominant or merely friendly behavior becomes a handicap. At the very least it provides food for thought. Emotion management as a power resource. This brings us to an intriguing observation. More and more people are forced to negotiate because of changing power and dependency relationships in the networks they are a part of. The most recent stage in this development is that we are forced to adopt a flexible and informal negotiating style, which style goes with relational patterns of intensive mutual dependencies. Compared to a more cautious and formal style, such an informal style quickly brings advantages and a stronger position. Variation and a mixed behavior outmaneuver a cautious and stiff attitude. So this style, which is not aimed at gaining dominance, can then function as a very strong power instrument. How to handle this? For instance, when confronted with cultural differences in negotiating styles, we need to be aware of the potentially adverse effects of a flexible mixed style. If it is not understood, people will perceive it as smooth and suave behavior and resent it. Because they are not able to counter it equally flexibly, they may feel clumsy and awkward, in some way even inferior. It may also become difficult for them to believe in the sincerity of the other side. Another misunderstanding may arise because, to competitive negotiators, the mixed style may appear as soft and weak. This encourages an exploitative and adverse attitude. A brief, direct and firm reaction to the first signs of exploitative behavior is the right response. Negotiating: a matter of personality? To describe the psychological essence of skilful negotiating, we use rules-of-thumb like 'tenacious and tactful, disciplined and informal'. This may seem simple, as simple as 'distinguish the person from the issue'. Or, as the saying goes: 'Play the ball, not the man'. This saying hasn't lost any of its relevance to negotiating. We understand its message very well, but we can't always manage it emotionally. It is a very normal emotion to resent someone who keeps putting up different opinions and different interests. 135 These rules-of-thumb require a particular emotional attitude, which obviously still gives us a lot of trouble. What are the chances of success? Isn't it all a question of character? You either have it in you or you don't! Can people change? Read this quotation: 'It is a good thing to interrupt the meal from time to time with varied conversation. Some people will eat and drink without stopping, not because they are hungry or thirsty, but because they are self-conscious and don't know what to do with themselves. They can't help scratching their heads or picking their teeth or waving their arms about; or they play with their knives, or they cough and snort and spit." This was written by Erasmus in the early 16th century in a book for young men who wanted to get ahead in society. The book also records rules like: − It is no disgrace to vomit during the meal, as long as you don't soil others. − Do not spit on the table, but beside you on the floor. Erasmus' booklet on etiquette ('Goede manierlijcke seden) was distributed all over Europe. More than 100 editions were published. It addressed behavior that people found very hard to get under control. Hence the wide interest. Perhaps in those days people also had discussions like: "You either have it in you or you don't!" "It is a matter of character; some people will never learn!" In our society the behavior described by Erasmus no longer presents any problems. When they are infants people begin to get it under control. At one time these problems were almost unsolvable. Primary reactions and emotional impulses overran good intentions time and time again. Will a similar change process also overtake the problems we are struggling with now? And will we also look back in amused amazement, because most people have mastered them at an early age? 136 6.2 Summary and conclusions We have described the development of negotiating skills starting with the concept of fight, flight and submission. People are not born as skilled negotiators. History shows it proved pretty difficult to overcome the more direct and natural reactions of fight, flight and submission. This development has been summarized in figure 4 on page 40. Over the years we have become more pliant and agile in our reactions. It becomes possible to mould our primary drives and to become more pliable in our behavior-repertoire. The frameworks in figure 27 are expressing this development which has been described in great detail in chapter 2. Figure 27 The development of negotiating practice and theory 1 The triangle of primary drives Fighting Aggressive Cooperative Lenient Restraint Avoiding 2 Escape from the triangle by means of explorative behavior Fighting Exploring Avoiding 3 Development of 'mixed' negotiating styles Cooperating Exploring The jovial style The aggressive style Cooperating Fighting The ethical style The analytical style Avoiding 137 In this conceptual development figure 27.2 provides ample opportunity to express the win-win and creative aspect of negotiating by stressing the relevance of explorative behavior. Figure 27.3 contains already an attempt to express the realities of mixed negotiating. These concepts only partly solve the problem that many negotiations have a mixed character. It concerns a tangled combination of claiming value and creating value. To express the differentiation of behaviors and feelings that go with this development a further differentiation of the concepts in figure 27 is needed. What concepts and what behavior make it possible to get a clear grasp of mixed negotiating? Let me summarize the essentials in the next six points. 1. You have developed an awareness of the core negotiating activities. And you are developing your agility on these four activities. − realizing your interests − influencing the balance of power − promoting a constructive climate − obtaining procedural flexibility. 2. You have the ability of mixed negotiating as expressed in figure 28. 3. You are able to mix your actions and emotions by practicing the following do's and don'ts: − combine tenacity with tact − be flexible and tough − separate the matter from the person − be assertive without forcing your way − develop a good relation without giving in. 4. You develop a line of action which involves always some exploration. 5. Your are steadily developing your own persuasive powers together with your emotional style. 138 − − − know your style recognize manipulations try to express yourself wellmannered, lively and assertively be interested in feedback on your negotiating style. − Figure 28 Mixed negotiating as the ability to differentiate emotions and activities. PROFILES OF NEGOTIATING Interests lenient hard Power bending subdued trying to dominate jovial personal hostile formal Climate Flexibility exploring 6. repetitive Keep in touch with you feelings and the feelings of your partners. Be keen on verbalizing your annoyances and on expressing your feelings on the issues that really matter to you. Skill training and emotion management These six points are easy enough to understand on the cognitive level. However, learning to practice them is often blocked by 139 emotional patterns. Training in negotiating neglects the importance of emotional patterns. Patterns become ingrained in one's personality. People identify with their modes and manners. This impedes learning and change. Feedback may undermine selfrespect. Personal suggestions may appear threatening to one's sense of identity. This is especially true because to trainers who are used to the mixed pattern these recommendations seem rather simple and self-evident. They definitely are not. I have shown they concern a painstaking struggle. People, not already pretty close to this mixed behavior will feel treated disrespectfully. They will resent the simplicity of the advice. They may even feel humiliated if they are unable to incorporate these nice devices in their behavior. And even if they would be able to, they would still be very much aware of the fact that their constituencies might have great difficulty understanding the more refined and mixed behavior of their representatives. To maintain their self-esteem and identity people may be tempted to stereotype the mixed style as superficial and slick, a kind of shallow ritual with no relation to real interests and strong emotions. Or they may see it as an effort to lure them into a game defined by established groups which will put them at a disadvantage. This may be one element in the explanation of the resistance which is sometimes encountered in negotiating training. (Friedman, 1992). Another cause of resistance may result from the fact that a lot of training in negotiating is based on win-win models. Sometimes participants have great difficulty perceiving their negotiations as a win-win situation. Win-win models contribute to this difficulty because they neglect the central importance of power. Also phenomena like deadlock and stubborn constituencies are often neglected. Negotiating remains a precarious skill. In global perspective it concerns a scarce ability. Many social networks do not foster this skill. From a historical point of view it even can be seen as an odd aberration! As Norbert Elias (1984) once mentioned: "We are still living in the late Middle-Ages." 140 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Toughness dilemma in negotiating Flexibility dilemma in negotiating Force field of primary impulses The development of negotiating skills The handling of the cooperating-fighting dilemma's Exploring versus avoiding The negotiating grid Two dimensions and four styles Four negotiating styles Three types of activities on the cooperatingfighting dilemma Negotiating as four types of activities The tough approach The cooperative approach The mixed approach Main elements of the negotiating model The 'conceding versus stubborn' dilemma The 'bending versus domineering' dilemma Intimidating manipulations Manipulations based on 'decency' and 'fairness' The 'jovial versus hostile' dilemma Procedural flexibility: exploring versus avoiding Script versus scenario The 'uncommitted versus overcommitted' dilemma Outline of the tendencies in 'more versus less powerful' situations Negative emotional manipulations Positive emotional manipulations The development of negotiating practice and theory Mixed negotiating as the ability to differentiate emotions and activities 10 11 12 40 53 55 56 58 58 60 61 63 64 65 66 68 75 76 78 84 89 107 117 119 128 129 136 138 141 REFERENCES Barrington Moore. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston, Beacon Press. Bendix, R. (1964). Nation-Building and Citizenship. Studies of Our Changing Social Order. New York, Wiley. Blake, R, Mouton, J. (1969) Building a dynamic corporation through grid organizational development. Reading, Addison-Wesley. Bloch, M (1961). Feudal Society. (2 vols). Translated by: L.A. Manyon, London, Routledge. Bruyère, La. (1922). Caractères, De la Cour. Paris, Hachette. Calero, H.H. (1979). Winning the negotiation. New York, Hawthorn books. Callières, F. de. (1716). De la manière de négocier avec les souvereins. M. Brunet, Paris. Available in english: On the manner of Negotiating with Princes. Translated by A.F. Whyte.(1963). University of Notre Dame Press. Also: The art of diplomacy. (1983) Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. (ed.) Leicester University Press. Cohen, M. (1980). You can negotiate anything. New York, Lyle Stuart Inc. Dupont C. (1982) La négotiation: conduite, théorie, application. Dalloz. Elias, N. (1939). Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Basel, Haus zum Falken. Translated as: Elias, N. (1978). The Civilizing Process. New York, Pantheon Books. Elias, N. (1969). Die höfische Geschellschaft. Luchterhand. Translated as; Elias N., (1983). The court society. Oxford, Blackwell. Elias, N. (1984) Interview by Aafke Steenhuis. In: De Groene Amsterdammer, 16-5-1984, pp. 10-11. Translated by Robert van Krieken "We have not learned to control nature and ourselves enough: an interview with Norbert Elias," Available on internet: www.usyd.edu.au/su/social/elias/intervie.html. Elias, N. (1994). Zivilisationstheorie in der Bilanz. Beiträge zum 100. Geburtstag von Norbert Elias (2000). Opladen, Leske und Budrich. Erasmus, D. (1530) De civilitate morum puerilium libellus. Basel. Félice, F.B. de. (1778). Des Négotiations, ou de l'Art de Négocier In: Dictionnaire de justice naturelle et civile: code de l'Humanité, ou la Législation universelle, naturelle, civile et politique comprise par une société de gens de lettres et mise en ordre alphabétique par Félice. (Yverdun). Universities of Naples and of Berne. Translated as 'Negotiations, or the art of Negotiating' in: Zartman, W. (ed.) (1976). The 50% solution. New York, Anchor Press. Friedman, R.A. (1992). From theory to practice: Critical choices for "Mutual Gains" training. Negotiation Journal, volume 8, no. 2, pp. 91-99. Fisher, R, Ury, W.L. (1981) Getting to yes. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Goudsblom, J. (1992). Fire and Civilisation. London, Allen Lane. 142 Gracián, J.B. (1647) Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia. Dutch translation: J. Kars (1991). Handorakel en de kunst der voorzichtigheid. Amsterdam, Polak & Van Gennep. Hoock, J. and P. Jeannin (1993) Ars mercatoria. Manuels et traités à l'usage des marchands. 1470-1820. Paderborn, Schöning. Horney, K., (1945). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York, W.W. Norton. Huizinga, J. (1924). The waning of the middle ages. London, Edward Arnold & Co. Karras, L.L. (1974) Give & Take. The complete guide to negotiating strategies and tactics. New York, Thomas Crowell. Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. (1983) Diplomatic theory in the Ancien Regime. In: Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. (ed.) The art of Diplomacy. Leicester University Press. Korda, M. (1975). Macht, hoe komt u eraan, wat doet u ermee. Regels van het spel om de macht. Baarn, Meulenhoff. Lax, D.A. and J.K. Sebenius (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York, Free Press. Machiavelli, N. (1961) The Prince. English translation: G. Bul, Penguin Books. Machiavelli, N., (1989) The chief works and others. Volume one. English translation: A. Gilbert, London, Duke University Press. Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (1989). Negotiate. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (1991). The development of negotiating skills. In: Kremenyuk, V.A. (ed). International Negotiating. San Francisco, JosseyBass. Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (1992) Verhandeln: Strategie, Taktik, Technik. Wiesbaden, Frankfurter Allgemeine/Gabler Verlag. Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (2000). Negotiating as a Civilizing Process. In: Treibel, A. (ed.). Zivilisationtheorie in der Bilanz. Beiträge zum 100. Geburtstag von Norbert Elias. Opladen, Leske und Budrich, pp. 165-183. Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (2000). Negotiating as Emotion Management. In: Featherstone, M. (ed.). Theory, Culture and Society. Explorations in Critical Social Science. Sage Publications, August, Volume 16 number 4, pp. 49-73. Mattingly, G. (1988) Renaissance Diplomacy. New York, Dover. (Unabridged and unaltered republication of the work first published by the Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston in 1955). McNeill, W.H. (1991). The rise of the West. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Mennell, S. (1990). Decivilising processes: Theoretical significance and some lines of research. International Sociology. Volume 5, no. 2, pp. 205-223. 143 Meuvret, J. (1971). Mauels et traités à l'usage des négociants aux première époque de l'age moderne. Etudes d'histoire économique: Cahiers des Annales 32: 23150. Nicolson, H. (1977). The evolution of diplomatic method, being the Chichele lectures delivered at the University of Oxford in November 1953. Westport, Greenwood Press. (Reprint of the 1954 ed. published by Constable, London) Powelson, J.P. (1994). Centuries of Economic Endeavor. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Pruitt, D.G. (1986). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27: 167-194. Pruitt, D.G. (1991). Strategy in Negotiation. In: Kremenyuk, V.A. (ed). International Negotiating. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Ringer, J.J. (1973). Winning through intimidation. Los Angeles, Los Angeles Book Publishers. Rosergio, B de. (1905). 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus', in: Vladimir E. Hrabar, De Legatis et Legationibus Tractatus Varii: Bernardi de Rosergio Ambaxiatorum brevilogus, Hermolai Barbari De officio Legati, Martini Garrati Laudensis De Legatix maxime principum, Ex aliis excerpta qui eadem de re usque ad annum MDCXXV scripserunt, pp. 1-28. Juriev University Library Dorpati Livinorum. Savary, J. (1675). Le parfait Négociant. Paris, Louis Billaine. Scheider, R. (1987). Mittelalterliche Verträge auf Brücken und Flüssen. In: Heinemeyer, W., Jordan, K. (red.). Archiv für Diplomatik: Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde. Köln, Böhlau Verlag. Schoonmaker, A.N. (1989). Negotiate to win. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall. Scott, W.P. (1981). The skills of negotiating. Hampshire, Gower. Susskind, L., Crinkshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse. New York, Basic Books. Swaan, A, de. (1990). The Management of Normality. London, Routledge. Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In: Dunette, D. (ed). Handbook of industrial an organizational psychology. Chicago, Rand McNally. Thompson, L. (1998) The mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Prentice Hall. Voss, J. (1987). Herrschertreffen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Köln, Böhlau Verlag. Vree, W. van ( 1999). Meetings, Manners and Civilization. London, Leicester University Press. Walton, R.E., McKersie, A.B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New York, McGraw-Hill. Walton R.E. (1972). Interorganizational decision making and identity conflict. In: Tuite, M., R. Chisholm, M. Radnor (eds). Interorganizational decision making. Chicago, Aldine. Wicquefort, A. de. (1730) L'ambassadeur et ses Fonctions. Amsterdam. Wouters, C. (1990). Social stratification and informalization in global perspective. Theory, Culture & Society. 7, 69-90. 144 Zartman, W., Berman, M.R. (1982). The practical negotiator. New Haven, Yale University Press. 145 COLOFON Publisher: Marcella Tieman, Holland Business Publications Desk research and layout: Désirée Nuij-Kempes Cover: Robert Sterk Printing Office Krips BV, Meppel 146