Negotiation

Trust

"Your belief and/or evidence that the opposite's interactions with you are or will be genuine, sincere, and honest."

Settle

("Let's just split the difference and call it a day") Use this "compromising" strategy when there is little chance of getting everything you want but a solution is needed. This strategy minimally satisfies the task interests of both parties and begins with a "soft offer" in order to leave room for maneuvering toward a solution. The people orientation is moderate to low, as we expect the opposite to take care of their interests while we take care of ours. THIS is most useful where only one variable is at stake. It usually results in a quick negotiation which makes it an efficient strategy. However, use of this strategy rarely results in an optimal outcome. This strategy is neither antagonistic nor nurturing.

Cooperate

("Let's work together and come up with an even better idea") The strategy, known as the THIS Negotiation Strategy (CNS) depends heavily on each party's collaborative efforts and desire to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome (task orientation) while simultaneously managing a trusting relationship (people orientation). CNS focuses on the basic and perhaps common interests that drive each party's position. These interests are not always evident and may take time to uncover, but lead to common ground, generating options valued by both parties, and possibly a solution even better than what they could have created on their own.

Evade

("Not now, can you come back later?") Use this passive, unassertive, strategy to maintain the current situation. It is useful when: 1. the current situation favors any proposed solution; 2. the issue at hand is unimportant to one or both parties; 3. there are other, more pressing priorities; 4. the opposite is way too powerful or competitive.

insist

("Take it or Leave it") Use this assertive, winner-takes-all, task oriented strategy when obtaining your objective is paramount, regardless of the cost to the opposite's interests or to the relationship. The THIS strategy is usually used to resolve an emergency situation but is also associated with one's position whose authority and power affords him or her to command and demand compliance without compromise. Under this strategy, we may hoard information, damage relationships, and put long-term negotiating relationships in jeopardy. Although one of the most effective task oriented strategies, it is also one of the most misused...use it with caution.

Comply

("Yes, absolutely, let's do it your way!") Use this passive strategy when preserving the relationship between you and the other party is more important than the task. Under this strategy one party THIS with or gives in so the opposite (more assertive party) gets what they want. Use of this strategy tends to delegate responsibility to the other person or party.

Negotiation:

Although there are many definitions of THIS, for our purposes we define it as a process involving two or more people/groups where: 1. the parties have a degree of difference in positions, interests, goals, values or beliefs, and 2. the parties strive to reach agreement on issues or course of action.

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

Defined as "an alternative that, should negotiations fail, you are willing and able to execute without the other party's participation or permission." Understanding your THIS and the opposite's THIS will help you determine when or if you should walk away from the negotiation table. To formulate a practical THIS, you must have both the capability (resources) and the will to execute this alternative on your own without any assistance.3

Anchoring:

Defined as "an offer that is at (or slightly more aggressive) than the aspiration point."

Trust In A Person

Of the 2 trust in Process or trust in a Person, which is this: As mid-level supervisors, we build personal trust by taking into account how well we conduct ourselves, by completing assigned tasks, and by considering our reputation, status, and standing in society. For example, if we consistently commit untrustworthy acts, micromanage our people, and don't keep our word it will be difficult, if not impossible, for our opposite to personally trust us.

Trust In A Person

Of the 2 trust in Process or trust in a Person, which is this: THIS stands alone. It is not reliant on any institution or third party. At the most basic level, THIS is established between two people (i.e., supervisor and subordinate). As supervisors, we trust our subordinates to do their job, be respectful, and 'allow' us to lead them. As subordinates, we trust that our supervisors have our best interests in mind, will represent our interests, and are always willing to consider our ideas. In a negotiation, THIS helps improve options and ultimately the negotiation outcome.

Trust In A Process

Of the 2 trust in Process or trust in a Person, which is this: The Inspector General complaint system, Equal Opportunity policies and programs, Air Force instructions, and the core values are examples of THIS. Successful negotiations among military members, who do not know each other, depend on the belief that all parties will adhere to these institutional policies and values.

Trust In A Process

Of the 2 trust in Process or trust in a Person, which is this: exists when both parties have faith in a governing institution and believe that it supports their negotiations. You trust that these processes promote outcomes that are justified (fair and impartial), legal, ethically acceptable, and also satisfy the interests of both parties.

psychological

Of the 3 procedural, psychological and substantive, which is this: (sometimes called relationship interests) are concerned with how people feel, how they are perceived, and how they relate with others.

procedural

Of the 3 procedural, psychological and substantive, which is this: interests are those concerning how a process is conducted. Negotiators with procedural THIS are not as concerned with the actual details of the outcome as they are with how an outcome is determined.

substantive

Of the 3 procedural, psychological and substantive, which is this: interests, which are perhaps the most important, have to do with things such as schedules, prices, salaries, etc. These make up the bulk of most negotiations.

Referent

People respond to this power because they have a high identification with you, respect and admire you, or tend to follow and agree with you because they aspire to be like you. This power affords the opportunity to encourage, motivate, and inspire others.

Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA):

The "bargaining range" defined as the overlapping (common) area of each party's aspiration point and reservation point. No overlap, no THIS

Reservation point:

The 'bottom line'; the least favorable option or offer you will accept.

Aspiration point:

The best each party hopes to get out of a negotiated agreement.2

Options

The final part of the TIPO model uses the foundation of trust and the elements of information and power to develop THIS. THIS, also referred to as the possible solutions, choices, and alternatives, are just different ways of coming to a mutual agreement to solve a problem, resolve a dispute, reach a mutually satisfying outcome.

Information

The level of trust directly influences the amount of THIS shared between/among negotiating parties. When we trust our opposite, we believe the THIS they present is truthful and accurate. As a result, we feel more comfortable sharing THIS which can lead to better discussions, more effective brainstorming sessions, and a shared selection of options.

Trust

The more you do this the opposite's actions and interactions, the more you are willing to share and to be open about your actions and intentions. Usually, high in THIS is associated with positive outcomes, i.e., believing the opposites' information is accurate and they will act in a trustworthy manner.

TRUST INFORMATION POWER AND OPTIONS (TIPO) MODEL

The purpose of this model is twofold. First, it illustrates how trust influences your use of information and power, and how information and power influence the way you develop options to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, and find a solution. Second, understanding how trust, information, and power impact any negotiation session should motivate you to assess situations beforehand. A careful proactive assessment can give you a good idea of the strategy your opposite plans to use which allows you to select the most effective negotiation strategy.

procedural, psychological and substantive

There are three basic types of interests:

Trust In A Process and Trust In A Person.

There are two major categories of trust

Coercive and Reward:

These powers depend on one's belief that his or her opposite is willing and able to inflict punishment and/or offer incentives. Often used to pressure or force someone to do something, some examples of THIS power can be pursuing disciplinary (administrative) actions, taking away one's privileges, posing restrictions, and recommending non-judicial punishment. On the other hand, THIS power is used to positively influence another person's situation using incentives that the other party values like time-off, a promotion, public recognition, etc. Although both are valuable tools in negotiations, do not threaten or inflict undue punishments or promise rewards you cannot deliver. This will negatively affect trust, which will minimize available options, thus hindering negotiations.

Legitimate:

This is based on one's rank, position, or level of authority. Although you may be able to use this "Power Over" your opposite, consider the relationship and only use this power when your intentions are legal, ethical, and appropriate.6

Interest-Based Negotiations (IBN):

This is the practice of focusing on the interests, and not the positions of the two negotiating parties. It is the preferred style by the Air Force mediators because, in most instances, there will be a continuing relationship between the parties after mediation, and negotiations adjourn. In This, parties are more likely to come to a mutually satisfactory outcome when their respective interests are met. Typical negotiations concentrate on a tangible or intangible object (e.g. money, property, benefits, or obligations) and how to distribute it among the disputing parties. This placed on the interests of each party and how to satisfy them. The mediator's challenge is to guide these parties to focus on their interests instead of their positions.

Expert:

This power comes from one's THIS in a specific task, subject, or career field. Subject-matter THIS are valuable members of any organization. How you use and share this power base can improve or reduce trust and ultimately the outcome of your negotiations.7

Information:

This power comes from one's knowledge, use, and sharing of data or THIS that others may need or desire. Access to secure data systems, leadership meetings, briefings, even gossip, increases your THIS power base. Some tend to withhold THIS from others so they maintain the advantage and the THIS "higher hand." However, when you trust others and share THIS, you increase their THIS power as well as their trust in you.

Connection:

This power pertains to who you know or are affiliated with. This power depends on the other's belief you have powerful THIS with others who can support and strengthen your position.

STAGE 2, Parties' Opening Statement.

What stage in mediation is this: the disputing parties have an opportunity to offer their opening statements. Here, they are given adequate time to speak without interruption regarding the issue at hand and share their side of the issue. Each party should fully explain the issue, their interests, and positions as they see it so that all parties, including the mediator, understand. This may be the first time that each party hears the other party's view on the issues. Because of this, the mediator should allow both parties to fully explain their position even if they become emotional. Furthermore, venting by the parties can be the first step in putting the dispute behind them and moving toward a resolution. It is extremely important for the mediator to actively listen and take notes during these opening statements, paying careful attention to the issues as articulated by the parties. Many times the issues defined by the parties in these opening statements differ from those articulated or understood previously.

STAGE 2, Parties' Opening Statement

What stage in mediation is this? Mediators can learn a lot about the parties and the issue during this stage. During the parties' THIS, he or she may discover hidden concerns or interests, thus revealing the true source of the dispute. This type of information is invaluable later when getting the parties to focus on interests instead of positions. The mediator can also determine the severity of the differences that exist between the disputing parties and the challenges which may lie ahead of them as they attempt to reach a mutually satisfying resolution. This can also help the mediator determine who may need caucuses more often and how much they will need to assist them in understanding the other party's views on the issues. Always remember, for mediation to work, all parties should view it as a means of communicating to potentially reach a settlement, rather than a forum for evidence gathering and accusations. The mediator must recognize when parties are not able to effectively convey their issues and interests due to observed poor attitudes and emotional loss of control. For this, it is critical that the mediator makes the parties aware of the dangers of their words and actions especially when they are fueled by their uncontrolled emotions.

STAGE 3, Joint Discussion

What stage in mediation is this? mediation moves into a forum of joint discussion. This is the first opportunity for the parties and the mediator to interact with and assist the parties in focusing less on their positions and more on their interests. Here, the mediator facilitates a conversation between the disputing parties. Effective questioning (using open-ended and follow-up questions) are extremely useful here. The mediator should ask the parties questions that clarify the issues in controversy. As the communicative exchange develops between the parties, the mediator may find that he or she may only need to actively listen. It is in this stage where the mediator and disputing parties begin to consider possible options to resolve the situation. After they have brainstormed options, parties should agree on criteria for selecting the options that satisfy the interests of both parties. If joint discussion breaks down or issues arise that are sensitive or confidential, the mediator should suspend the joint discussion and move to caucus.

STAGE 4, Caucus.

What stage is this during mediation? Simply stated, the term caucus means "private meeting". This is an optional stage that can occur at any time during the mediation process but, when needed, usually occurs when joint discussions collapse. These are private, confidential one-on-one discussions between the mediator and each party. Maintaining confidentiality after the caucus is most important for promoting and providing a free and open environment. To avoid confusion, the mediator should verify, at the end of each private caucus, what information the party wishes to keep confidential and what information the mediator can disclose to the other party. Parties must understand they have the power to ask for an individual meeting with the mediator. The mediator may request one at any time as well.

STAGE 5, Closure.

Which stage is this during mediation? In most cases, the mediation session will usually conclude with some form of resolution. For mediations that do end in a mutually satisfying outcome, this stage could become quite lengthy, especially if there is legally binding documentation and administration involved. Appropriate follow up by the mediator may be necessary which requires the parties to return and assess how effective the selected resolution was, adjusting it as needed. Once a solution is proposed and the mediator works through the details of the proposal with both parties to see if it satisfies their interests, the mediator should document the selected option. The mediator will develop a document (i.e., memorandum for record) and advise the parties to review the resolution in writing prior to signing it. During the closure, the mediator should arrange a follow-up session to discuss the selected option's effectiveness in meeting the interests of both parties. Regardless of the outcome, the mediator should congratulate the parties for considering and participating in mediation and encourage (reassure) them by recounting any progress made during the session.

STAGE 5, Closure.

Which stage is this during mediation? This is the final stage of the mediation process; however, it must be clearly understood that not all mediations end in a mutually agreed upon resolution. When settlement no longer seems possible, and the parties and mediator have exhausted all available mediation tools and possibilities, or one or both parties have removed themselves from the mediation...the mediation should end. If a resolution is not reached, the closure stage may require the mediator reconvene a second mediation session, refer the parties to another mediator, or even recommend other resolution methods like litigation.

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement

Which stage is this during mediation? is the THIS introduction of themselves and explains the credentials and qualifications they possess that make them a suitable mediator. This not only includes the THIS identity, but also their qualifications to include that they were selected or duly appointed as a THIS and have the experience to mediate. Secondly, the THIS assures the disputing parties that they will maintain a neutral and impartial position throughout the session. He or she should also confirm the parties' consensual agreement to THIS, that their attendance is strictly voluntary, and that they are prepared to or at least attempt to resolve the dispute. This noted agreement can be referenced later in the process, especially when attempting to move beyond impasse. The third element of any successful opening statement is the establishment of ground rules for the THIS session. These guidelines will set the tone for the following stages, offer an opportunity for the mediator to establish some credibility among the disputing parties, and help to ensure the discussion remains positive and productive. For example, the THIS may require each person to: Take turns speaking and not interrupt one another, they must call each other by their first names instead of the impersonal "he" or "she", refrain from blaming or attacking one another, and ask questions for gaining understanding. Before moving to the next part of the opening statement, THIS should offer an opportunity for the parties involved to add any additional ground rules they feel are important. The fourth part of a sound opening statement is explaining the mediation process (the five stages) and reiterating the confidentiality of the process ensuring each party understands what can and cannot be held or withheld in confidence. Lastly, the THIS should congratulate the parties for being willing to attempt to settle their dispute through THIS and assert a note of confidence in the process of which they are about to undergo.

Information

While looking at a new car, you offer to purchase the vehicle for a price significantly less than the asking price. If the salesperson values the relationship, she may accept your offer, make a fair counter offer, or show you another vehicle within your price range. Her goal is to provide you with such a wonderful car-buying experience, that you cannot help but tell others about her trustworthy service.

Information

if the salesperson does not value the relationship or believes you are capable of paying much more than you are offering, she will reject your offer and pressure you into purchasing the car at or close to the asking price. In this case, her insistence may amplify your mistrust of her.

Demand:

is a statement of terms with no room for adjustment. It is positional and embodies the most precise use of a "take it or leave it" option.

Mediation

is an alternative form of dispute resolution where parties turn to (rely on) a neutral third party who uses interest-based problem-solving techniques to assist in resolving their dispute. The interest-based problem-solving approach to dispute resolution is characterized by focusing on interests, not positions, creating options for mutual gain, and using objective criteria to ensure legitimacy of any agreement. As mentioned earlier in the Negotiations section, positions are the pre-determined outcomes or demands that each party believes will resolve the dispute. However, it is the interests (those underlying needs, wants, and desires) that must be satisfied, not the positions. Therefore, the mediator must effectively facilitate negotiations between the two disputing parties, reveal the interests that exist, and reach a mutual agreement and/or resolution.

Interest:

is the reason behind your position. It is the "why" behind what you want. To help determine THIS, investigate your position through a series of critical thinking (CT) questions that begin with who, what, when, where, and why.

Cooperate

may be appropriate: Trust: When a great deal of trust exists. Although process trust may be evident, personal trust is also critical, because this strategy depends on the sharing of information and power. Trust building is a foundational tool of the CNS. Information: When trust between parties is strong, thus information is reliable and freely shared. With unconditional trust (primarily personal trust) full disclosure is possible. Power: When trust between parties is strong, defensive mechanisms are not as important and people feel less vulnerable to manipulation, thus all parties are willing to share power. Options: Strong trust leads to a free exchange of ideas and information, which in turn leads to multiple ways of solving the problem.

Divergent thinkers'

mental processes tend to be creative and spontaneous. They are comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer flexible plans with as many options as possible.

1) Evade, 2) Comply, 3) Insist, 4) Settle, and 5) Cooperate.

shows five negotiation strategies:

Comply

strategy may be appropriate: Trust: When there is a trusting relationship between the parties, and there is a desire to continue trust-building. Information: When we have information that we are willing to share and the opposite trusts our information and we trust their information. Power: When we have little or no power, our opposite perceives us as having no power, or we have no power, but have high trust. This strategy may also be appropriate when we have sufficient power to deal with the issue, but want to maintain the relationship. Options: When options favor our opposite. However, this does not always mean a bad outcome for us. THIS is useful for establishing rapport and building goodwill for future negotiations. On the other hand, we must carefully evaluate the potential impaction long-term relations when using the THIS strategy. If we THIS too quickly or too often, our opposite may see that as a sign of weakness, which can make future negotiations more difficult.

insist

strategy may be appropriate: Trust: When trust does not exist or is not needed or valued. Simply put, the THIS strategy is not IF we win, but HOW MUCH we win. Information: When our assessment reveals our opposite's information is suspect or, though truthful, is of little or no value to us. This strategy is also appropriate when we have all the information we need or the information is of sufficient quality for making clear decisions. Power: When we have overwhelming power during the negotiation process and the power to see the agreement through during the execution phase. Too often we use our power to dominate our opposite during negotiations, but then watch helplessly as the agreement falls apart because our opposite has more power than we do during the execution phase. Option: When we have no time to gather information, share power (even though we trust our opposite), or discuss options (i.e., crisis, emergency, short notice task). Often in a crisis, the THIS strategy dominates until the crisis subsides, then other negotiating strategies are more effective at developing more durable, long-term solutions. Under this strategy we may ignore, intentionally or unintentionally, the other party's interests.

Settle

strategy may be appropriate: Trust: When trust exists between the negotiating parties and there is a desire by both parties to reach a solution quickly.Information: When both parties are willing to share enough information that at least supports a short-term solution. Power: When we have as much power as the opposite or have less power than the opposite believes we have. Option: When options favor both parties' interests and a quick solution is necessary even if it is a short-term solution that enables more time to build trust, gather information, or gain power.

Evade

strategy may be appropriate: Trust: When trust is low and/or we believe our opposite is not willing to work with us or we believe they intend us ill will. Use of this strategy can buy time and with the passage of time, conditions may change in our favor. Information: When opposites provide little to no information to work the issue, we are not motivated to gain the needed information, or we don't trust the information provided. Sometimes our information discourages us from engaging in the issue, even though our opposite is interested in engaging. Power: When we have little or no power and/or our powers are being diverted to tackle other pressing issues. Options: When we have little or no control over the outcome of a selected option, and want to wait for conditions to change.

Convergent Thinkers

tend to be reliable, rational, and principle-based. They constantly work to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer thorough plans that fully address all contingencies.

Caucus.

the mediator has an opportunity to cultivate a relationship with each party. The mediator may call a THIS when: the parties need to cool off and refocus the mediator needs a break a meeting with a subject matter expert is necessary the mediator needs to discuss confidential information with the proper party the mediator and a particular party can explore options