The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator

Seventh Edition, Global Edition

Session 10
Establishing Trust and
Building Relationships
 Part Two
Negotiation Skills
Money vs. Relationships (1 of 3)
A successful, win-win negotiation is not just about
maximizing money or economic value.
The true definition of a win-win agreement is one that
allows negotiators to fully maximize whatever
negotiators care about, which can include: (see Exhibit
7-1)

• Love • Goods
• Money • Status
• Services • Information
Money vs. Relationships (2 of 3)
Exhibit 7-1 Resources that May be Exchanged in a
Relationship

Source: Adapted from Foa, U., & Foa, E. (1975). Resource theory of social exchange.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Money vs. Relationships (3 of 3)
Each of these valued resources varies in terms of:
• Particularism – how much utility we derive depends on
the provider.
• Concreteness – the tangibility of the resource.

Subjective value inventory – assesses four major

concerns: (see Exhibit 7-2, page 156)
• Feelings about instrumental outcomes
• Feelings about themselves
• Feelings about the process
• Feelings about their relationships
Money vs. Relationships – Rapport
• Rapport refers to feelings of closeness, understanding,
and harmony among people in relationships.

• The Verbal Rapport Assessment scale assesses how

negotiators build rapport and focuses on 13 verbal
measures.

• In negotiation, the creation of rapport is primarily

influenced by the counterparty’s verbal behavior and the
interaction behaviors of both negotiators.
Money vs. Relationships – Sequential
Negotiations & Bargaining History
• It stands to reason that negotiators’ previous experience or
history with one another can strongly influence how they
behave in the future.

• In some situations, negotiators have an asymmetric

history, such that one party benefits at the expense of
another.
Trust & Temptation
• Trust is the willingness to make oneself vulnerable to
another person.

• The paradox is that most negotiations offer some incentive

for people to behave in an untrustworthy fashion.

• Trust propensity refers to a negotiator’s belief in others’

trustworthiness and can increase information exchange
and decrease distributive behaviors.
Trust & Temptation – Three Types of
Trust in Relationships (1 of 4)
There are three types of trust in relationships:
• Deterrence-based trust
• Knowledge-based trust
• Identification-based trust
Trust & Temptation – Three Types of
Trust in Relationships (2 of 4)
Deterrence-based trust:
• A type of trust that sustains behavioral consistency
through threats or promises of consequences that
will result if consistency is not maintained
ü Expensive to develop and maintain behavioral monitoring
systems
ü Backfiring effect (reactance theory – engage in the
opposite – argues that people do not like their freedom
taken away
• Based on fear of reprisal if trust is violated
• One violation or inconsistency can destroy the
relationship
Trust & Temptation – Three Types of
Trust in Relationships (3 of 4)
Knowledge-based trust:

• A type of trust grounded in behavioral

predictability, occurring when a person has
enough information about others to understand
them and accurately predict their behavior
ü Grounded in behavioral predictability
ü Increases dependence and commitment among
parties
ü Probable future behaviors can be accurately
estimated based on their past interactions
Trust & Temptation – Three Types of
Trust in Relationships (4 of 4)
Identification-based trust:
• Grounded in complete empathy with another
person’s desires, values and intentions

• Means other people have adopted your own

preferences

• Parties understand and endorse one another

• Can act for each other in interpersonal

transactions
Trust & Temptation – Building Trust
(1 of 4)

The two routes to building trust are:

• The cognitive route – based on rational and deliberate

thoughts and considerations

• The affective route – based on intuition and emotion

• See Exhibit 7-4 (page 162)

Trust & Temptation – Building Trust
(2 of 4)

How does a person build trust through cognitive means

of influence?

• Transform relationship conflict into task conflict

• Agree on a common goal or shared vision

• Capitalize on social network connections

• Find a shared problem or a common enemy

• Focus on the future

Trust & Temptation – Building Trust
(3 of 4)
What psychological (affective route) strategies can be used to
build trust between parties?
• Similarity-attraction effect
• Mere exposure effect (see Exhibit 7-5, page 165)
• Physical proximity
• Reciprocity principle
• Schmoozing
• Flattery
• Mimicry and mirroring
• Self-affirmation
Trust & Temptation – Distrust and
Suspicion
What situations lead to distrust?

• Trust breaches or defections

• High need for closure

• Dispositional attributions

• Focusing on the “bad apple”

Trust & Temptation – Repairing
Broken Trust
Six components of an effective apology : (see Exhibits
7-6, page 169 and 7-7, page 171)
• Expression of regret
• Explanation
• Acknowledgment of responsibility
• Declaration of repentance
• Offer of repair
• Request for forgiveness
Trust & Temptation – Building Trust
(4 of 4)
Exhibit 7-6 Key Components of Apology
blank Description Example
Expression of regret Negotiator expresses sorrow that “I am so sorry that my opening offer for
they offended the counterparty your house offended you”
Explanation Negotiator explains the reasons for “I was basing my offer on some
their actions comparables that I had downloaded on
the internet”
Acknowledgement of Negotiator assumes (some) “It is my fault that I did not consider the
responsibility responsibility for the offense updates you have made on your home”

Declaration of Negotiator vows to change their “In the future, I will make sure to explain
repentance future behavior my thinking and engage in a conversation”

Offer of repair Negotiator takes steps to rebuild trust “Is there a way we can move forward?”

Request for Negotiator asks to be forgiven “Please forgive my hasty email offer”
forgiveness

Based on Benoit, W. L. (2015). Accounts, excuses, apologies: Image repair theory and
research, 2nd edition. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; Schlenker, B. R., &
Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44(3), 271–278.
Relationships in Negotiation
• Relationships influence not only the process of how people
negotiate, but also their choice of interaction partners.

• Distributive spirals and incidental emotions from the past

influence trust.

• Negotiators who reach an impasse in a prior negotiation

are more likely to do the same in their next negotiation or
reach a low-value deal.
Relationships in Negotiation

Distributive spirals and incidental emotions from the

past influence trust

ü They interpret their performance as unsuccessful,

experience negative emotions, and develop negative
perceptions of their counterpart and the process
ü Future behavioral intentions, they are less willing to
work together in the future, plan to share less
information, plan to behave less cooperatively, and they
lose faith in negotiation as an effective means of
managing conflicts
Relationships in Negotiation:
Negotiating with Friends (1 of 5)
Interpersonal relationships influence negotiators’
expectations, and they expect more generous negotiation
offers from close others.
Studies examining negotiations among strangers or
friends found that one of three patterns emerged early
on:
• Opening up (complete, mutual honesty)
• Working together (cooperative problem solving)
• Haggling (competitive attempts to get the best deal)
Relationships in Negotiation:
Negotiating with Friends (2 of 5)
• Unmitigated communion refers to the fact that people
believe they should be responsive to others’ needs and not
assert their own.

• Relational accommodation occurs when people make

economic sacrifices to preserve relationships.

• Communal norms mandate that we should take care of

people we love, respond to their needs, and not “keep
track” of who has put in what.
Relationships in Negotiation:
Negotiating with Friends (3 of 5)
• The opposite of communal norms are exchange norms,
which mandate we should keep track of who has invested
in a relationship and be compensated based on their
inputs.

• Friends are less competitive with each other than they are
with strangers.

• Negotiators in a relationship are often unable to profitably

exploit opportunities to create value (see Exhibit 7-8).
 Relationships in Negotiation:
Negotiating with Friends (4 of 5)
Exhibit 7-8: Relational Self-Construals (RSC) Dynamics in
Negotiation

RSC – the ways that

people may define
themselves in terms of
close, dyadic rela9onships
Source: Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006)
Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of
Management, 31(2), 427–451.
Relationships in Negotiation:
Negotiating with Friends (5 of 5)
Friendship and the mismanagement of agreement:
• The Abilene Paradox

Compromise: If we as friends have to negotiate, we should

divide it down the middle
• Equality rule (equal shares for all parties) – friends
• Equity rule (merit-based rule) – strangers and business
associates
Relationships in Negotiation: Negotiating
in Exchange Relationships

In contrast to friendship negotiation, business people

are much more likely to use exchange norms:
• Market pricing
• We choose our friends, but not our coworkers
(see Exhibit 7-9, page 177)
• Status and rank
• Swift trust
• The myth of the one-shot business situation
Relationships in Negotiation:
Multiplex Relationships
When friends and family do business, the relationship is
more complex and is known as an embedded relationship

Pitfalls to embedded relationships include the following:

• Emotional potential is higher and interpersonal conflict can
result
• Often experience internal value conflicts
• May create myopia if people are reluctant to move beyond
their own networks or sticky ties

Embedded relationship: A relationship between parties that

is both personal (e.g., friends or family) and business related
Chapter Capstone
• Personal values are just as important as economic values:
establishing trust and building relationships are essential
for effective negotiation.
• Three types of trust are: deterrence-based, knowledge
based, and identification-based.
• Trust-building and trust-repairing strategies include:
transforming personal conflict into task conflict; agreeing
on a common goal; capitalizing on network connections;
recognizing a shared problem; and focusing on the future.
• Psychological strategies that engender trust are:
similarity, mere exposure, physical presence, reciprocity,
schmoozing, flattery, and mirroring.