[Negotiation] Chapter 9: Managing Difficult Negotiations: Individual Approaches

Essentials of Negotiation

Chapter 9

It is not uncommon for negotiations, especially distributive ones, to become contentious to the point of breakdown. In extreme cases, conflict escalates and interpersonal enmity increases. Negotiations are “difficult to resolve” to the extent that the process of conflict resolution is characterized by the following dynamics:

- The atmosphere is charged with anger, frustration, and resentment. Mistrust and hostility are directed at the opposing negotiator.
-Channels of communication, previously used to exchange information and supporting arguments for each party’s position, are now closed or constrained.
- The original issues at stake have become blurred and ill defined, and perhaps new issues have been added.
- The parties tend to perceive great differences in their respective positions. Conflict heightens the magnitude of these differences and minimizes areas of perceived commonality and agreement.
- As anger and tension increase, the parties become more locked in to their initial negotiating positions.
- If there is more than one person on a side, those on the same side tend to view each other favorably.

The five major conflict-reduction strategies that can be uses to resolve impasses:

- Reducing tension and synchronizing the de-escalation of hostility.
- Improving the accuracy of communication, particularly improving each party’s understanding of the other’s perspective.
- Controlling the number and size of issues in the discussion.
- Establishing a common ground on which the parties can find a basis for agreement.
- Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives that each party presents to the other.

Another major difficulty that inhibits parties from reaching agreement is that as conflict intensifies, the size and number of the issues expand. The problem for negotiators in escalated impasses, therefore, is to develop strategies to contain issue proliferation and reduce the negotiation to manageable proportions.

“Fractionating” is a method of issue control that involves dividing a large conflict into smaller parts. Fractionating can involve several actions: reducing the number of parties on each side; controlling the number of substantive issues involved; stating issues in concrete terms rather than as principles; restricting the precedents involved, both procedural and substantive; searching for ways to narrow the big issues; and depersonalizing issues, separating them from the parties advocating them.

Parties in escalated conflict tend to magnify perceived differences and to minimize perceived similarities. The parties tend to see themselves as further apart and having less in common than may actually be the case. Therefore, another action that parties can take to de-escalade conflict is to establish common ground and focus on common objectives. Several approaches are possible: establishing common goals, aligning against common enemies, agreeing to follow a common procedure, or establishing a common framework for approaching the negotiation problem.

The tools discussed are broad in function and in application, and they represent self-help for negotiators dealing with stalled or problematic exchanges. None of these methods and remedies is a panacea, and each should be chosen and applied with sensitivity to the needs and limitations of the situations and of the negotiators involved. A truly confrontational breakdown, especially one that involves agreements of great impact or importance, sometimes justifies the introduction of individuals or agencies who themselves are not party to the dispute.