Negotiations Strategies and Tactics

Cooperative vs conflictual
When individuals or parties enter into a negotiation process to resolve conflict, they will bring a certain
orientation to the table in their effort to settle the conflict. The two most basic orientations people
adhere to when entering into negotiations are cooperative or competitive. A cooperative approach
aligns with the process of interest-based or integrative bargaining, which leads parties to seek win-win
solutions. Disputants that work cooperatively to negotiate a solution are more likely to develop a
relationship of trust and come up with mutually beneficial options for settlement. The mutual gains
approach is considered a constructive resolution process.
Options for a negotiated settlement are limited in some cases by a fixed pie (a set amount of rewards)
that must be divided one way or the other. Such situations leave no alternative for mutual gains and
therefore parties must utilize competitive negotiation tactics to pursue their goal(s). Competitive
approaches align with the process of distributive bargaining, which result in win-lose outcomes. A
competitive approach to conflict tends to increase animosity and distrust between parties and is
generally considered destructive.
Game theory and negotiation
Game Theory Assumptions
1. Players or parties are fully rational (Players attempt to maximize their utility/outcome; Players will
accept the highest payoffs; Players will only accept solutions that are at or greater than their security
levels (resistance points); Players know the "rules of the game."; Players assume other parties to be
fully rational.)
2. The number of players is fixed and known to all parties.
3. Each party recognizes a set of available options and develops tangible preferences among those
options. Preferences remain constant throughout the conflict/negotiation interaction.
4. Each party knows or can estimate well the options and preferences of the other parties.
5. Communication is limited, highly controlled, or not relevant to the conflict/negotiation interaction.
6. A decision must be possible that is maximally efficient, i.e., intersects with the solution set at a point
that maximizes each party's own interests.
Persuasion tactics
Persuasion, sometimes considered manipulation, is not evil. Those who misuse or abuse it are. Whether
we are dealing with a spouse, child, boss, employee, peer, ally, school mate, date, teacher, banker or car
salesman, we are simply trying to reach an accord. Aggressive persuasive techniques such as bullying
can be persuasive but are often caustic to a relationship.
Positive Persuasion Techiques
1.Positive Reinforcement (The Pavlovian cause and effect relationship model relies on the consistent
response, positive or negative, to condition the other person to react in a specific way.)
2.Respect (A negotiator can motivate another to help by outwardly deferring to the other's expertise,
experience and power.)
3.Avarice and Greed (If you know the other person is driven predominantly by money or wealth
accumulation then you know he or she will be willing to agree if the price is right.)
4.Recognition (Often in a public or important corporate negotiation one side will offer the other the
opportunity to claim the responsibility for reaching an agreement in exchange for a major concession.)

5.Success (A traditional persuasion technique is to feign submission while garnering the final
concessions.)
Negative Persuasion Techniques
6.Avarice and Greed (Threatening to deprive someone of a deal or the proceeds from a deal can be a
powerful persuasion technique or tactic.)
7.Failure (When you enter a negotiation you must set aside your fear of losing in order to negotiate
with a clear mind.)
8.Fear (The best way to thwart fear being used as a persuasion technique against you is to develop
options. Threats are only compelling when you have run out of options.)
9.Rejection (Anger, frustration and petulance is no way to encourage another person to do something
they are reluctant to do. )
Manipulation in negotiation
Manipulation has a bad connotation of trickery or deceit. In fact, when managing the negotiating
process you are seeking to maneuver the other person into agreeing to your terms. How you do this
determines if people think you are manipulative or simply an effective negotiator.
Mediators are masters of manipulation. They must get warring parties to set aside their differences and
reach an accord. Most people are used to being told what is right to do. A mediator is unable to make
the decision for the group. He must enable each of the parties to make their own settlement decisions.
Often manipulation of the parties is required to get over their initial animosity.
Being able to lead others, convincing them to hear what is being said, and to consider options is a mark
of a good leader. Tricking others into doing your will is not.
Calinet-Petre Antonia
Grupa 942