Negotiation and Communication Setting
From MicroJustice
Contents |
[edit] The Problem
Once the parties are in contact with each other, they have to start interacting. Message: you always create a negotiation environment. The question is what type of environment. Does it encourage talking? Positional bargaining? Or integrative agreements? What are the tools to shape this environment?
[edit] Factors Shaping Negotiation Environments
[edit] Mediators and Other Neutrals
Mediators facilitate the discussion about the dispute. How? How do lawyers do this? A court?
[edit] Physical Setting
How does the physical setting (room, table) influence the negotiation environment?
[edit] Other Factors
Putnam and Wondolleck 2003, for instance, conclude that negotiations will become more intractable when the social system from which the parties come is ill defined, dispute resolution procedures are chaotic and uncertain, and there is an absence of clear governing authority.
[edit] Interaction Models
[edit] Supporting Integrative Negotiations
Integrative negotiations?
[edit] Supporting Legal Negotiations
This is a term that is often used. Is it really a model for negotiations?
[edit] Other Communication Models
Are there other models for communication about a dispute?
[edit] Supporting Integrative Negotiations
Integrative negotiation is also called principled negotiation. Explanation of the basic model? Reference to wikipedia?
[edit] Emotions
[edit] What are emotions?
Several theories about emotions exist.
- Physical reactions, expressions
- Internal and external signals
- Intuïtive signals of interests (wishes, needs, worries)
- Intuïtive signals about the quality of (possible) decisions/procedures/outcomes
The basic emotions Anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise (Ekman et al.)
[edit] Their impact on Dispute Resolution
- Emotions may be important cues for interests. What makes you … angry, happy, fear…?
- Negative emotions like fear, anger, disgust and sadness may be a problem because they make communication about interests and possible solutions more difficult.
- Negative emotions may also inhibit clear thinking
- Positive emotions may help, because they may stimulate creativity.
- They can also lead to problems, because they may cause overoptimism
Which emotions should a dispute resolution setting trigger according to Shapiro?
[edit] Communication
[edit] Communication Skills
Use communication skills (active listening, reframing, other mediator skills)
[edit] Direct Communication
Face to face communication has many advantages. The drawbacks are that communication can also result in misunderstanding (Putnam & Poole 1987, Wall == 1995), destructive criticism and blaming (Baron 1988a and b). Low level communication allows emotions to pass, slack for clear thinking and to back down without loss of face (Wall ===1995). If the parties are brought into a situation with more direct opportunities for interaction, these drawbacks will have to be controlled. If such conduct is uncontrollable, even after imposition of communication rules, indirect communication may be the only option. Sebenius 2003 stresses the importance of adding and substracting issues and parties, so dispute resolution systems should have mechanisms for this.
[edit] Indirect Communication
Face to face communication is sometimes costly. Video-conferencing, 3G mobile telephone contact and voice telephone can be alternatives. The more non-verbal clues the parties are able to monitor, the easier it is for them to build trust and to exchange information. Of course there are exceptions. Face to face meetings may be too painful for victims of crimes. They are too costly for many minor disputes. There must be some limit to the time someone can require another person to spend on a problem that is only perceived to be a problem by one side. It would not be sensible to give everybody access to the major of a city, or to a business leader, to put forward every thinkable grievance.
[edit] Uncovering Interests
[edit] Why do interests remain hidden?
See Moore, The Mediation Process, 2003:
- Parties do not know what their own genuine wishes, needs and fear are
- They do not listen good enough to the other party to understand and recognize their interests
- Hide interests because of fear
- Hide interests for strategic reasons
- Positions or allegations of rights may obscure interests
- May be unaware of the importance of interests for coping with disputes
- Are unaware of procedures for exploring interests
[edit] Tools for Uncovering Interests
Setting a positive climate: Knowing that interests are normal, important, valid, essential for a solution, can be traded, lead to multiple possible solutions, sometimes compatible Direct procedures:
- Directly asking and discussing interests
Examples of questioning:
- What are your motives, wishes?
- What do you need most?
- What is it you are worried about?
Indirect procedures: From other types of communication to communication about interests
- Active listening
- Restatement, paraphrasing, reframing
- Summarizing
- Generalization
Examples of indirect questions:
- You require that … , because you …?
- What makes you require …?
- What makes you so angry about … ?
- If you get what you ask, are you fully satisfied …?
[edit] Other Issues
[edit] Positive Effects of Integrative Agreements
Integrative agreements maximize joint gains. Associated with greater satisfaction, strengthening of relationships, decrease possibility of future conflicts. (Rubin, Pruitt & Kim 1994, De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon 2000; Beersma & De Dreu 2002 in the context of negotiations in groups).
[edit] Structure of Interests
Structural variables include the amount of conflict involved in the negotiation task (not manipulable), the amount of threat capacity the parties have (Rubin & Brown 1975), and the presence or absence of exit options (Giebels, De Dreu & Van der Vliert 2000).
[edit] Motivation to Cooperate
Motivation is an important factor (De Dreu & Carnevale 2003). Extensive body of research on situational mechanisms that bring about prosocial or egoistic motivations (Chen, Chen & Meindl 1998, How can cooperation be fostered?; De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon 2000). A cooperative environment, in which the parties are stimulated to work together to find a solution, is essential as well. Framing a conflict situation as a joint problem, in which finding a mutually satisfactory solution is a joint project, is important. Disputants can be induced to cooperate. Earlier research posited that cooperative or competitive behavior in disputes depended on the personal style of the disputants. Later research confirms that disputing behavior can be influenced fairly easily (Bazerman et al. 2000). Creation of a cooperative dispute resolution environment is therefore likely to help. Using labels that suggest cooperation (“partner” instead of “opponent” or “cooperation” “instead of “conflict resolution”) will increase the likelihood of integrative agreements (Deutsch 1973, Burnham, McCabe & Smith 2000, De Dreu et al. 2002). Setting cooperative goals has a similar effect (Tjosvold, Dann & Wong 1992). Instructions from superiors to behave cooperatively are also likely to help Anticipating future interactions is another way to strengthen the prosocial motives of the parties (De Dreu & Carnevale 2003, 252). Resistance to yielding is an interesting parameter. If it is high, prosocial motivation is also higher, and it leads to more integrative outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin 1996; De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon 2000). But it also makes distributive negotiations more difficult, increasing the odds of a stalemate. Another way to stimulate the parties to reach integrative negotiated outcomes is to trigger their epistemic motivation (De Dreu & Carnevale 2003). This is their need for cognition, the motivation underlying the desire for different kinds of lawyers. At one end of the scale, people have a strong need for cognitive closure. They solve problems, evaluate arguments or form impressions through quick and effortless processing of information, leaning on well-learned prior associations. In the context of conflicts this may lead to quick and dirty decision making about preferences of another person, reasonableness of proposals, or the likely outcome if a third party will have to decide an issue. At the other end, individuals engage in effortful, deliberate and systematic processing of information. In a conflict they may, for instance, assess the situation carefully, and be motivated to learn more about the other person. De Dreu & Carnevale 2003 review research that suggests that this type of motivation increases when:
- A task becomes more involving or demanding;
- There is process accountability, that is individuals expect to be observed by others,who for instance ask for reasons;
- An individual is dependent on another person, and therefore is motvated to investigate his needs or possible actions;
- Higher aspirations. People who set their goals high, have a stronger motivation to find ways to reach these goals;
- Mild time pressure; under great stress, people tend to fall back on simpler ways of reasoning
- Low noise and fatigue (Kruglanski & Webster 1996).
[edit] Remedying Cognitive Error
Cognitive processes: Bazerman et al. 2000, 283 mention nine common biases that negotiators suffer from. They ===: A dispute resolution system may decrease (or increase) these biases. Positive moods and emotions increase tendencies to use a cooperative strategy (Baron 1984, Allred, Mallozi, Matsui & Raia 1997, Forgas 1998). Take responsibility and avoid blaming others (Kotler 1994, Beyond blame, a new way of solving ==). Reduction of anger and other negative emotions has the opposite effect (Allred et al. 1997).
[edit] Culture
Psychologists have studied the behavior of disputants, and the effects on it of characteristics of the field in which the conflict is embedded are part of this (overview: Clark & Chrisman 1994; Wall & ===1995; Bazerman et al. 2000; De Dreu & Carnevale 2003). Factors that were researched are the organizational setting, the interdependence of the parties, the pay-off structure, the interpersonal networks, the culture of an organization or its conflict management style.
[edit] Perpective Taking
Letting the parties take each other’s perspective (Wall & Callister 1995.
[edit] Setting Example
Letting intervening third parties set an example, stimulating cooperative acts and discouraging competitive behavior are also methods to create such an environment. These methods can use the finding that disputants tend to reciprocate each other’s behavior: negatively, by forcing, but also positively: accommodation by one party induces accommodation by the other one (Cosier & Ruble 1981); social motivation and epistemic motivation tend to converge in the course of conflict interaction (De Dreu & Carnevale 2003, 273).
[edit] Preventing Escalation
Finally, a dispute resolution system can aim at preventing escalation. Common causes of escalation that may be managed are cultural differences, uncertainty (because it breeds optimism in evaluating the payoffs of escalation (O’Neill 1986)), insecure self-images (Pruitt & Rubin ), lack of experience with crises. An of course, a goal of escalation: wanting to (Brockner et al. 1984).
[edit] Mediation a Well Defined Process?
Mediation is often seen as a well-defined process. But in reality it is more a catch-all phrase for the use of many different techniques for conflict-management by a neutral who has no power to impose a solution (Wall & Lynn 1993; Wall 2000). See for a handbook with an overview of these techniques Moore 2003. can improve communication, reduce stress
[edit] Testing
There is ample literature on interventions that are thought to be productive in negotiation and mediation processes. The effects of these interventions are often not tested empirically (Wall & Callister 1995), but there is a remarkable consensus about their usefulness among practitioners.
[edit] Recommendations
What can be the recomendations here?
