1

Lecture February 14, 2022

1. Importance of Relationship in Negotiation (Ciadini, Voss)

We talked briefly last time about the importance of establishing a

relationship with your negotiation counterparty. As we will see, the
negotiation strategy you decide upon will depend on the perceived
importance of the on-going relationship between the negotiation parties
(how much do they need each other’s help and cooperation in the future
to achieve their goals) and the importance of the perceived conflict over
the stakes involved (to what degree are they competition over the same
limited resource: time, money, talent etc.)

In the article you read for today, “The Language of Persuasion”, Robert
Cialdini argues that a “relationship-raising” approach to negotiation is
more effective than either a coercive or purely rational approach.

Developing a relationship with your counterparty depends on several

factors. In his book Don’t Split the Difference, Chris Voss has focused on
the importance of collaborative negotiation, drawing on his experience in
FBI hostage negotiations.

First, active listening which involves making the other party aware that
you are listening. One technique for doing so is mirroring. This involves
repeating the key words your counterparty uses in a conversation. This
signals to the other party that you are listening to them and understand
their concerns.

Second, empathy is the ability to understand the feelings and mindset of

the other person. This is done by reflecting or labeling their feelings or

1
 2

underlying concerns. Voss refers to “tactical empathy” which means not

only that you understand them, but that they know you understand
them.

Voss uses a technique that he calls an accusations audit, which is an

inventory of the accusations, names, slanderous things the other side
might be thinking about me based on the circumstances, environment
etc. It is a way of getting unspoken assumptions and feelings out into the
open so you can deal with them.

Third, rapport is the process of building up trust in the relationship. As

we have noted, liking is one of the most powerful ways to build rapport.
“Ducks of feather, stick together”

We have said that one of the factor’s involved in influencing someone’s

behavior is liking. We tend to like people who are like us, who share
similar age, relation, politics, backgrounds etc. That’s why if we what to
establish a relationship with someone we explore those things we have
in common.

There is a saying in English that “you never get a second chance to

make a good first impression.” What does that mean? It means that first
impressions play an outsized role in determining how we judge another
person. In addition, in subsequent encounters we tend to look for
evidence that confirms our first impressions. This is known as
“confirmation bias” the tendency to search for, interpret and recall
information that supports or confirms our prior values or beliefs.

2
 3

Voss encourages negotiators to mirror the body language, posture,

mood and verbal style of their counterparties, based on the idea that
“like attracts like”.

This raises several questions: first, whether these techniques are

influential and second, if so, whether we ought to us them or not.

As for the first people, it seems clear that we are more likely to influence
or persuade someone who trusts us, who believes we are credible,
likeable, authoritative, either because of our formal authority or because
of our experience and expertise and attractiveness.

Notice that many of the factors involved in influence also plays a role in
building relationships: liking, reciprocity, authority, consistency and
commitment, social proof, and scarcity.

As you may have noticed, many of the ways we naturally establish a

relationship with others are also means of persuasion.

In my view, it is easy to tell when someone is simply using these

techniques to get information. I think the best advice in a negotiation is
to be yourself.

I. Negotiation Style Survey

For homework, I asked you complete the “negotiation style or bargaining

survey”

3
 4

You were instructed to select one statement from a list of statements

that you think most accurately describes your negotiation preferences.

After selecting a statement from every pair you were asked to total up
the number of As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Es you recorded. And put the totals in
the “Results” column.

Then you were asked to plot the results of the survey to make a simple
graph.

How many of you have NOT completed the bargain style survey? (If not,
have them do it in the break)

If so, then have them take a poll.

First, you are going to identify yourself with one of the five major
categories: accommodating, compromising, avoiding, collaborating,
competing.

Then we are going to distinguish between those that are strongly

disposed to these categories, where your scores were relatively high
(70th percentile) and those who were weakly disposed to a particular
negotiation style (30th percentile or lower). Will refer to “high
accommodator” and “low accommodator”

These styles are preferences we have when it comes to negotiation.

They are rooted in our backgrounds, upbringing, families, gender, and
culture. They tend to be relatively stable across our lifetimes.

4
 5

The advantage of knowing our negotiation style is that it may alert us to

our natural negotiation strengths and weaknesses.

We will distinguish between negotiation styles as our preference and as

a strategy. As a preference, these are natural dispositions we have in a
negotiation. As a strategy, these are conscious decisions we make to
negotiation in a particular way.

Accommodators:

Strong Accommodators: have a strong disposition to solving other

people’s problems.

Strengths: They often have good relationship skills and are relatively
sensitive to others’ emotional states, body language and verbal signals.
People this this style are sensitive to the (emotional) needs of the other
party and are concerned to preserve the relationship.

Weaknesses: may place more weight on the relationship than

warranted by the situation; vulnerable to competitive types and may feel
resentful, which may make them ineffective.

Weak Accommodators: Negotiators who are low accommodators may

hold out for the “right” answer to a negotiating problem. (Remember
reading They stay within their own frame of reference and see their
solution as objectively correct).

Determining Whose Right: Remember “Three Approaches to

Resolving Disputes” by Ury, Brett and Goldberg, one approach to

5
 6

reconciling differences in a dispute is “determining who is right”. Weak

accommodators might be suspectable to focusing on determining who is
right, rather than on the party’s interests.

Accommodation as a Strategy

Advantage: this is useful in negotiations where the relationship is

relatively important. This style is particularly useful when working in
teams, in resolving conflicts with friend or family or in a business
situation when handling complaints, in customer service etc.

Disadvantage: It is more difficult in negotiating situations where the

stakes are high and the relationship is perceived as secondary: such as
in a divorce or a one-time market transaction, like a house sale. Or in
business transactions like a partnership or joint venture. Accommodators
can be taken advantage of by aggressive or competitive negotiators.

Competitors:

Strong Competitors: Unlike the avoiders, competitive negotiators like to

negotiate because they see negotiation as a matter of winning and
losing and they like to win.

Strengths: strong competitors have strong instincts about leverage,

deadlines, how to anchor, how to close, offering ultimatums.

6
 7

Weakness: hard on relationships, others may feel coerced or abuse,

which may affect future dealings. Works well on single issue
negotiations but may overlook value creating opportunities.

Strongly competitive negotiators may resort to threats, insults,

exaggeration or lying (negative leverage).

Weak competitive: focus on treating each other fairly, avoiding

needless conflict, solving problems, or creating trusting relationships.
This is a strength when gaining trust is critical, but they will be at a
disadvantage when the stakes are high.

Competitive as a Strategy:

Advantage: People with this style tend to have strong instincts about
leverage, deadlines, opening, final offers and ultimate. They have
energy and motivation in transaction negotiations where the stakes are
high.

Disadvantage: Strongly competitive negotiators may be at a

disadvantage in situations where the relationship is as important as the
perceived stakes.

Avoiding Type:

High Avoiders: Avoiders generally don’t like negotiating. try to avoid the
confrontational aspects of a negotiation.

7
 8

Strengths: can be seen as tactful and diplomatic; they use conflict-

reducing strategies such as appeal to clear rules, standards, authority,
hierarchies, clear rules as a substitute to negotiation.

Weaknesses: could get more of what they want by asking. May result in
dissatisfaction with their situation.

In her book, Women Don’t Ask, Professor Linda Babcock discovered

that the differences in MBA graduate salaries between men and women
could be accounted for by the fact that 57% of the men asked for more
money after receiving an initial offer as compared to only 7% of the
women. Those who negotiated—men and women—received $4,053
more than those who didn’t.

In essence, the majority of women in these cases avoided negotiation

and as a result, failed to receive as much as they could have by simply
asking for it.

So the lesson here, Don’t forget to “ASK”

Avoidance as a Strategy:

Advantage: Works well when the transaction costs of the negotiation

are high (time, money, and relationship) and outweigh the benefits
(escalation of commitment).

Indirect Means of Negotiation: They tend to prefer indirect means of

communication like e-mails, memos, hired representatives, other
intermediaries that avoid face-to-face confrontation.

8
 9

You may remember that the story I told of the group of lawyers I was
training in Luxembourg. I was puzzled by the fact that many were
avoiders.

But given the context, this makes sense. They negotiated indirectly by
email; in cases of conflict, they appealed to objective standards or legal
precedents and in their case, the transaction costs of disputes were
high, so they had an interest in resolving the issues for their clients.

Disadvantage: In strongly competitive negotiations, win-lose the avoider

is at a distinguish disadvantage. They may attempt alternatives to
negotiation, like mediation.

Collaborators:

Strong Collaborators: Enjoy negotiation as a way of solving tough

problems in interactive ways. They are good at probing beneath surface
problems to discover basic interests, perceptions, and new solutions.

Strength: problem-solving abilities, ability to find the best solution for

everyone involved.

Weakness: needlessly create problems and make simple situation

needlessly complex.

Weak Collaborators: dislike bargaining as a process of brainstorming

for solutions. They prefer having clearly defined problems, sticking to an
agenda, and having preset goals.

9
 10

Collaborating as a Strategy:

Advantage: People with this style are good as using negotiations to

probe beyond the surface conflicts to discover basic interests,
perceptions and new solutions. Is useful in all negotiations.

Disadvantage: They can sometimes create problems by turning

relatively simple situations into more complex occasions to practice their
skills.

Compromising

Compromisers like to close the gap in negotiations, come to a deal as

quickly as possible. The person with the predominately compromising
style looks for a fair compromise or give-and-take. People with the
compromising negotiation style are concerned equally with asserting
their position and cooperating with the other side.

Strengths: Tend to be seen as reasonable.

Weakness: may rush the negotiation process and make concessions

too quickly.

Weak compromisers: Tend to principled. Tend to be passionate and

committed when matters of principle or precedent are at stake. May then
to “make an issue” of everything.

10
 11

Strategic:

Advantage: The compromising position can be useful in all negotiating

situations whether the perceived importance of the stakes or the
relationship is seen high or low.

Disadvantage: in strongly competitive “zero-sum” negotiations, (win-

lose), where the relationship is perceived as unimportant and the stakes
are perceived as high, the compromising negotiator may be too willing to
offer initial concessions, hoping the other side will reciprocate. The
compromiser may also accept the first offer that seems fair and thus
squander opportunities for higher gains.

When to employ as a strategy?

When does it make sense to adopt different negotiation styles as a

strategy rather than just a preference?

1. How important are the perceived stakes or outcome of a

negotiation?
2. How important is the relationship with the counterparty?

11