BSCOM 450 UP Negotiation Mediation and Diplomacy Discussion

BSCOM/450: Negotiation, Mediation, And Diplomacy
Week 3 Discussion – Advanced Negotiations
Materials
Textbook
Kim, R. (2023). Negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. MyEducator.
Course Tools
MyEducator
This week’s textbook reading covers more advanced topics in negotiation, including the
RADPAC model, diplomatic negotiation techniques, and other negotiation contexts, including
multi-issue and multi-party negotiation.
Consolidate all that you have learned about the theory and practice of negotiation so far.
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
•
•
Discuss what you would do differently if you were negotiating for your own personal
interests versus those of an organization or company you work for.
Conclude what makes these two situations different. Do they reflect something about
the nature of negotiation, or about your instincts as a negotiator?
To help expand your response, you may want to consider:
•
•
•
•
The differences in your speech in work settings compared to your personal interactions
The role of your emotions in how strongly you feel about the interests you are
negotiating
Your likeliness to use psychological negotiation tactics for yourself or for a company
The rhetorical strengths that come more naturally to you
Chapter 6: The Standard Model of Diplomatic Negotiation
6.1Introduction
Topic 6 Introduction Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a nuanced understanding of corporate negotiation and its various forms in organizational settings.
2. Identify key examples of corporate negotiation types and the skills which are appropriate for each type and scenario.
3. Understand and identify the six steps of the RADPAC management model.
Until now, our discussion of negotiation has primarily covered the fundamentals of the art of negotiation as it pertains to
any generalized purpose. We have seen a wide range of examples from both personal and professional instances of
negotiation in order to get a clear sense of what a highly applicable skill and common practice negotiation is. However,
for most people who are taking this course, your main purpose in studying negotiation—as well as mediation and
diplomacy—is to be able to use these techniques within a corporate setting or for a corporate purpose. Therefore, in this
topic, we are going to shift our focus to the more specific practice of corporate negotiation—including what it is, how to
practice it most successfully, and what various forms it can take in the corporate world.
6.2Corporate Negotiation
For many of us, the word corporation conjures to mind the idea of a massive company with high-rise offices, dozens of
suit-clad employees that trade on the New York Stock Exchange, or perhaps a globally recognized brand that engages
in commerce in practically every country across the planet. Indeed, it’s not without reason that we think of corporations
this way. Our understanding of what a corporation is has been heavily influenced by portrayals of corporations in film,
television, and the media. This is the image and idea that has been most projected and popularized.
Figure 6.1: The principles of negotiation apply in a corporate setting too.
Image by Pixabay via Pexels.
However, at its core, a corporation is simply an entity that is considered legally separate from its owners. 1 Through this
definition, as it has been established in our legal system, a corporation is able to lend and borrow money, it can sue and
be sued, it can hire and fire employees, it can enter into contracts, it can possess assets, and it can pay taxes—just as
an individual person can.
Perhaps you have done business with a certain company and received an invoice that indicates the company’s name
followed by the letters LLC. If you purchase an item from a retail store, take a closer look at the packaging and you will
probably find the manufacturer’s name followed by LLC. The acronym stands for Limited Liability Company. As official
as that may sound, any individual in this country can create and register an LLC in a matter of minutes—thereby forming
a legal entity that enjoys all of the legal privileges of a corporation. And with just a little more paperwork, they can turn
their LLC into a corporation.2
In this course, when we think of corporate negotiation, we are still taking a rather broad approach and considering any
negotiation that takes place within a corporation, with a corporation, or related to a corporation. Considering that many
of us will at some point in our lives work for a corporation, the information presented here will still be highly applicable to
a wide variety of circumstances you may encounter in your life. Furthermore, if we partake in any form of commerce—
whether as a customer or as a seller—then we are already being drawn into interactions and relationships with
corporations. While there are a variety of forms that corporate negotiation can take, they will generally fall into one of
these broader categories:
•
You work as an employee of a company, and you have to engage in a negotiation with another employee who
belongs to that same company.
•
You work as an employee of a company, and you have to engage in a negotiation with your manager, HR, or
another superior within that corporate structure.
•
You work as an employee of a company, and you have to engage in a negotiation on behalf of the company
with another individual or a representative of another company.
•
You as an individual have to engage in a negotiation with a representative of a company based on a product or
service you have either purchased or sold.
When considering negotiation in a corporate context, all of the principles or fundamentals that we have covered still
apply—such as the importance of diplomatic communication practices and understanding the nuances of personality
and conflict styles. All we have to do is learn how to strategically apply these broader principles and fundamentals to the
more specific needs and contexts one will encounter in corporate negotiations. As we move forward, recall the
knowledge you have developed through Weeks 1 and 2 about communication, diplomacy, and negotiation. This section
will help you synthesize these various strands of information into a skill you will feel confident bringing to any corporate
context.
In the following section, we will take a closer look at the characteristics of the main types of corporate negotiation you
may encounter throughout your professional career, strategies and best practices for how to navigate them, and
examples to illustrate how they can play out in real-life situations.
6.3Examples of Corporate Negotiation
As we covered in the previous section, there is a wide range of highly specific cases that fall under the broader umbrella
of corporate negotiation. However, all of these specific cases can be categorized according to certain commonalities. In
this section, we are going to take a look at four different types of corporate negotiations as well as examples for each
type.
Negotiations between Colleagues
Though we tend to not want to associate the workplace with conflicts that must be resolved, the fact of the matter is that in
the normal operations of any company, big or small, there will be matters that must be ironed out—even if informally—to
ensure the smooth running of operations. This might include scheduling work calls and meetings, delegating a task
among team members, or coordinating a project between yourself and another employee (or between a team you belong
to and another team within the company). It could even encompass more day-to-day matters: coordinating breaks and
lunches, keeping track of sick days and leaves of absence, and dealing with any of the minor personality differences and
disagreements that can take place in the ordinary course of doing business with others. 1
In these instances, the fundamental principles of negotiation will serve you best—particularly integrative negotiation with a
focus on being empathetic, building relationships rather than chasing victories, and working toward common benefits. The
workplace depends on harmony, teamwork, and cooperation. However, because you still have your own needs as an
individual, don’t shy away from negotiating matters—for instance if someone at work requests a schedule change or asks
you to take on an additional task. But approach negotiations with integrative fundamentals in mind.
Some matters you will be able to take care of with a simple conversation—for example, if someone requests to trade a
shift with you or if perhaps someone is bringing a lunch to the office that contains an ingredient you are highly allergic to.
In these instances, you are well within your right as a colleague to understand your needs and interests, consider the
other person’s needs and interests, and ask to have a chat with them. You can discuss your respective needs and
interests and how you can establish a common ground between them in order to build a solution that works for the both of
you.
Other matters may require more than a simple conversation. For instance, perhaps you are on a marketing team, and
there is one member of the team who routinely fails to pull his own weight. That means his responsibilities usually wind up
on your plate. If this is a pattern of behavior, it may represent a problem that is more serious and cannot be dealt with on
an individual level. Most companies and corporations have a human resources department for this very reason.2 It will be
a resource you can turn to for help in arranging a more formal setting to negotiate the situation. Discussing it with that
team member, or with the entire team as a whole, can ensure that you are not being made solely responsible for one
person’s failures and are being given a reasonable share of the team’s work.
Negotiations between Employee and Superior
Most people find negotiating with their superior far more daunting than negotiating with a colleague. However, despite
what some bosses and managers may convey, being an employee still involves a contract and should be a give-and-take.
Both an employee and their superior are entitled to certain privileges and expectations and have the right to negotiate if
they feel they are not receiving their full end of the bargain.3
If you are the employee, it is your responsibility to ensure that the tasks you are assigned adhere to the terms of the
contract you signed when you were hired.4 This includes the nature of the tasks, the quantity, and the amount of time they
are taking. If there is something you are not comfortable with or that you feel violates the terms of your contract, it is up to
you to bring that to your superior’s attention, using the principles of negotiation as we have learned them. You should
carefully figure out your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and enter the conversation fully conscious
of your interests, needs, and options. This way, you can do your best to establish common ground with your superior and
negotiate for fairer treatment. If you find your superior is unwilling to concede on points that are most important to you, you
will not feel you have to accept their terms just because of the power dynamic that exists between you.
On the other hand, if you are the superior, then you run the risk of allowing the power dynamic between you and your
employee to cause you to negotiate in too much of a distributive fashion. 5 Many employers may fall into the trap of seeing
their employees as entirely beholden to the company’s interests and wishes due to the fact that the employer is the one
paying their employees a salary. But it’s important to recall that a salary is not a gift, but a negotiation itself. It is a trade in
exchange for someone’s time, labor, and skillset. Negotiating without keeping this in mind could lead to alienating the very
people who are supposed to help you achieve the goals that you and your company have.
For example, let’s take a situation in which an employer, Sandra, has asked her employee, Juan, to compile a report on
branding and marketing strategies. Juan is a bit put off by the request, as Sandra hired him as a social media manager.
He feels that this report should not be his responsibility. Juan’s perspective is that this request is not covered by the terms
of his contract and salary, so he feels that he has every right to inform Sandra of the fact that he is not required to agree
to take on this task. Sandra’s perspective is that the people she would ordinarily assign this kind of task to are already
behind in their own projects, and Juan is an employee she can trust to work independently and produce a great result.
Therefore, if she can recognize that she is making a request, not a command, then she can rely on her integrative
negotiating skills to figure out ways to meet Juan halfway and demonstrate the value he can gain from performing this
task. This way, the chances are far greater that Sandra and Juan will be able to see eye to eye on this matter.
Commercial Negotiations
Within the corporate context, a commercial negotiation is any negotiation that concerns some form of commerce. 6 It
typically takes the form of a company negotiating with either an individual or another company and signing the terms
agreed upon into writing with a contract. The purpose of a commercial negotiation is to establish an agreement as to how
the two parties are going to conduct their business together in a fashion that is beneficial to both parties. In these
instances, what is being negotiated is the exchange of some resource, service, or other form of value for either another
resource, service, or direct payment of some kind.
For example, let’s say that Barney represents the administrative department of an advertising startup, and the CFO has
tasked him with bulk-purchasing computers for the entire office. Barney shops around with several different vendors and
settles on the one he believes will give him the best price. At this point, Barney and Crystal, the vendor representative,
negotiate the exact terms of the purchase. This will represent a commercial agreement between the advertising startup
and the computer vendor. During the due course of negotiations, Barney and Crystal talk prices, quantity, warranty
details, delivery dates, payment dates, and other important terms and conditions. When they are finally in complete
agreement about these terms, they agree to put them in writing. Because of the nature of any commercial negotiation, it is
general practice to have an external party handle drafting the contract to ensure neutrality.
This is a rather straightforward example of commercial negotiation, since there were few obstacles to attaining a win-win
outcome for Barney and Crystal—Barney was able to secure computers at a price his CFO approved, and Crystal was
able to make a large sale. However, there are many other instances of commercial negotiation which might not reach
such a cooperative solution. For instance, a band might be served with a lawsuit by an artist who alleges the band has
stolen their work. The two parties will be forced into a negotiation over the royalties earned from the alleged stolen work.
Or say that after Barney and Crystal have signed the papers, the computer vendor fails to uphold her end of the bargain
and delivers a lesser quantity of computers at a date that is later than the one agreed to in the contract. The advertising
startup would have to enter another commercial negotiation with the computer vendor in order to recoup the contractually
guaranteed value he did not receive. In a corporate context, commercial negotiation covers any and all matters
encompassed under the category of commerce and can be quite broad.
Legal Negotiations
Finally, the last set of corporate negotiations we must be mindful of are legal negotiations. These can take place between
either a corporation or an individual and the legal system. While we tend to think of the law as absolute, since it is codified
in writing, it is still up to individuals and offices to facilitate the practice and enforcement of the law. Wherever there is
human interaction, there is room for negotiation. Have you ever heard the phrase “negotiated a plea deal”? While
individuals and corporations have a responsibility to adhere to the rules laid out by the legal system, the legal system has
to take into consideration the particular needs and circumstances of individuals and corporations in determining how best
to exercise the codes of the legal system.7
Figure 6.2: Legal negotiations take place between a corporation or an individual and the legal system.
6.4The RADPAC Management Model
RADPAC Model Transcript
Download Material
Now that we have covered the different kinds of corporate negotiation, we are going to shift gears and familiarize
ourselves with the most popular negotiation model among companies and corporations known as the RADPAC
management model. The RADPAC management model is a proven negotiating method and framework that companies
around the world practice to maximize the benefits they reap—in terms of both relationship-building and value—when they
have to engage in negotiations with other companies and parties.1 RADPAC itself is an acronym in which each word
corresponds to a method that must be deployed at specific points in any negotiation process:
•
R – Rapport
•
A – Analysis
•
D – Debate
•
P – Propose
•
A – Agreement
•
C – Close
It’s crucial for corporations and companies to have a consistent framework for negotiations. Since they are entities
composed of individuals who are each responsible for representing the company or corporation, they must have a method
that every individual can adhere to and follow successfully. With that said, the RADPAC model does not only work for
companies and corporations.2 Any individual can just as easily follow the steps outlined by RADPAC and find themselves
becoming a more confident, capable negotiator. Indeed, you will encounter familiar concepts from previous lessons
embodied in the RADPAC model that are organized and streamlined for anyone to be able to follow.
Now we are going to break down each step of RADPAC to better understand how these individual steps play out. We will
also see how they work toward the greater aim of the RADPAC management model of facilitating successful negotiations.
Step 1: Rapport
As we covered back in Topic 2, rapport is any sort of personal connection you might experience with another person.
Most often, rapport is that feeling of friendly harmony and understanding you will feel when you are having a good
conversation with someone. Building rapport is then the process of establishing rapport several times in order to lay the
groundwork for a deeper relationship.
There is a good reason why rapport is the first step of the RADPAC model, as it was designed with the same
fundamentals of negotiation that you have learned—the importance of building relationships and establishing common
ground.3 These are tested and proven methods for negotiating more successfully. In a corporate setting where
relationships can be the deciding factor in a certain deal, sale, trade, or promotion, every negotiation process must begin
with rapport.
You probably won’t negotiate as cooperatively with someone you don’t have positive feelings toward. If you are
negotiating on behalf of a company or corporation, the impression you leave will reflect not only on yourself but on the
entire organization. When you enter a negotiation, take the time to get to know the other people sitting at the table, share
some information about yourself, and ask some harmless questions in order to lay the foundation for building a
relationship throughout the negotiation process. Doing this in a friendly way will set the tone for the rest of the
conversation. It will make everyone involved in the process feel more open to share their thoughts, ask questions of
others, and work toward finding a common solution together.
Step 2: Analysis
If you have performed Step 1 (Rapport) properly, then the conversation ought to flow naturally and easily into this next
step—Analysis. Analysis denotes the part of the conversation during which the parties might move beyond friendly small
talk to an overview of the pertinent matters at hand without actually arguing over terms and conditions yet. As the name
suggests, the Analysis phase of negotiation is all about each party developing as clear an understanding of the other party
as possible. Hopefully, you’ll have built enough rapport during Step 1 to be able to ask questions and share answers with
the other party openly and freely.
The purpose of having these kinds of discussions during the Analysis phase of negotiations is to help you and the other
party understand each other’s positions more intimately so that you can come up with more creative solutions that
succeed at meeting your respective interests and needs. Here are some of the matters you will want to make sure to
cover during the Analysis phase:4
•
Clearly stating your own needs and interests
•
Asking the other party about their needs and interests
•
Developing your understanding of the ways in which your respective needs and interests are compatible and
incompatible
•
Uncovering, sharing, and discussing assumptions you and the other party may be making
•
Expressing your opinions and feelings in a judicious manner
By making sure to cover these topics during the Analysis phase of negotiations, you ensure that you have done the work
to bring much of the matters being negotiated out in the open. This will help you and the other party get on the same
page. Otherwise, if all of the above matters remain undiscussed, then both you and the other party would be going into
the actual process of negotiating with many uncertainties, mysteries, and assumptions—all of which could serve to derail
the discussions. Analysis is as much about learning about the other party as it is about developing the trust you began to
build during the Rapport phase. Whereas the Rapport phase does not explicitly address the matters being negotiated, the
Analysis phase seeks to bring the goodwill established during the Rapport phase to the more contentious topics that need
to be discussed. If you manage the Analysis phase correctly, you and the other party will be in a great place to approach
negotiation as a process of coming together rather than dividing things apart.
Step 3: Debate
After you have completed the Analysis phase, you and the other party are ready to engage with each other on the matters
being negotiated—also known as the Debate phase. This is the aspect of negotiation we typically think of first when we
hear the word negotiation—the back-and-forth arguing over specific terms, demands, and compromises.5 As you can
imagine, this is where all of the groundwork you laid during Step 1 and Step 2 are going to come in handy. If you have
performed them properly, then you will have established a collaborative relationship with the other party, and you will
know exactly what matters are to be discussed and how to best discuss them. Without having performed Step 1 and Step
2 properly, the Debate phase is where negotiations can become ugly and go from a debate to an argument.
Figure 6.3: The Debate phase is where the parties come up with potential solutions.
Image by Radoan_tanvir via Pixabay.
During the Debate phase, all of your communication fundamentals still apply. 6 You must still practice active listening,
demonstrating empathy, asking probing questions, being mindful of your nonverbal communications and cues, and
managing and addressing any strong emotions that may come up during the course of conversation. Furthermore, this is
the time to engage in some of the techniques we discussed during Week 2—being creative in your approach to finding
sources of value which can be negotiated, designing and presenting multiple options to the other party, being open about
your alternatives to a negotiated agreement, developing your understanding of the other party’s alternatives, and getting
commitments from both yourself and the other party as you settle on terms throughout the process of negotiating.
By the end of the Debate phase, you and the other party should have established a set of potential solutions, while also
taking the time and care to summarize and clarify each other’s positions. Even if at some point it may feel like overkill to
continue discussing each other’s needs and interests, the fact of the matter is, because negotiation is a human process
many people are not rigid in their sense of what they need or want. In fact, people’s wants and needs are highly subject to
change depending on what information is revealed and what matters are covered during the course of the Debate phase.
Everyone’s perspectives can always shift as a result of the nature of the conversations during the Debate phase, so it is
always important to err on the side of caution and clarify and summarize each other’s positions. This way, if someone has
had a change of heart or is seeing the matters being negotiated in a new light, everyone has an opportunity to take that
change into account and adjust the potential solutions you have come up with together.
Step 4: Propose
Having concluded the Debate phase, now comes the Propose phase. This is the phase during which everyone at the
negotiating table is given the opportunity to share their thoughts on the potential solutions devised during the Debate
phase—such as which solutions sound most feasible, appealing, or fair.7 The Propose phase is a great time to practice
your active listening and rapport-building skills, as the degree of attentiveness and respect you can demonstrate as you
hear out the other party’s propositions will directly correlate to the degree to which they are willing to hear you out and
meet you halfway.
If you are negotiating with just one other person, then this phase will be rather quick. Frequently when RADPAC is
implemented in a corporate setting, there will be several members on each team sitting at the negotiating table. This is a
valuable time for everyone to be able to feel their opinions and thoughts have been heard and incorporated in the
negotiation process.
Depending on the degree to which you and the other party are in agreement about some of the proposed solutions, you
may both have to return to the Debate phase and rediscuss some of the matters brought up during the Propose
phase.8 You may need to go back and forth until you have reached enough common ground to move forward. However,
don’t be discouraged if you find that the Propose phase is more drawn out than you think it should be. There’s no real
course a negotiation should take, other than following the rough steps outlined by the RADPAC model. Further debate
following the Propose phase is actually a healthy sign when it comes to negotiation, as it shows that you and the other
side are both willing to engage each other on the finer points of discussion and come together to reach a solution that
works for both of you.
The Propose phase will also encompass some degree of bargaining. As you and the other side have had your turns to
propose the best ideas that have come from the conversation, you will both have opportunities to share your opinions
about those ideas—what about them works and what about them doesn’t. This is the time to think about the BATNAs for
both you and the other party. Decide what concessions are worth making if the value lost by the concession can
contribute to a longer-term partnership and relationship. Remember that everyone loses if you can’t reach any agreement
whatsoever, so this is the time to figure out how everyone can capture value and leave the conversation satisfied.
Step 5: Agreement
After you and the other party have completed the Propose phase, you have now reached the penultimate step of the
RADPAC model, the Agreement phase.9 As the name suggests, this is the time for you and the other party to attempt to
reach a final agreement on a solution to the negotiated terms. If you are negotiating one-on-one with the other party, the
Agreement phase will go by quickly. If you are both in agreement, then you can move on from there. If you are both in
disagreement, then you can both turn to your BATNAs and leave the negotiating table. If one of you is in disagreement
with the proposed solution, then you have to return to the Debate phase and try to establish more common ground again.
However, if you are negotiating in a larger group, then the Agreement phase is a perfect time to incorporate a vote into the
process of reaching consensus. Each person around the table can show which proposed idea or solution they find most
suitable. The option which receives the most votes can be carried forward as the terms of agreement. Depending on how
many people you have at the table, you and the other party may have to agree on how to tally votes, whether to accept a
simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or even a plurality as being enough to be considered decisive. 10 Obviously, by the
sound of it, establishing voting rules seems like it will require further debate, propositions, and agreement. Once you can
get these rules down, you will have a much easier time determining which solution is going to be set in writing after the
Agreement phase is over.
Step 6: Close
Finally, once you and the other party have reached consensus and passed the Agreement phase, you have come to the
conclusion of the negotiation—the Close phase. Even though you have completed the hard work of reaching an
agreement with the other party, there are still several matters that need to be taken care of before the negotiation process
can be considered fully wrapped up.
The Close phase is the time to do some final summarizing and clarifying. The last thing you want is for someone to leave
the negotiation with one impression, only to find out they had misunderstood some important aspect of the conversation
and no longer want to adhere to the terms of the negotiated agreement.
This is why a comprehensive debriefing is a crucial part of the Close phase. During this debriefing, everyone should be
given a last opportunity to share any parting thoughts about how the negotiations went and what the next steps are in
implementing the agreement that was negotiated. Furthermore, all of the terms to which you both have agreed upon
should be put in writing as commitments in the form of a contract. This ensures that both of you can have confidence that
you will each do your part to uphold the terms of the agreement. In this way, you can both continue building trust in your
relationship even after the negotiation has concluded. The more detailed you can be in devising a strategy of
implementation with the other party, the more faith you will both have in the negotiated agreement, and the more valuable
it will be for both of you.
6.5Summary
We began this topic by focusing our attention on the more specific practice of corporate negotiation, including what it is,
how to practice it most successfully, and what various forms it can take in the corporate world. After defining corporate
negotiation, we looked at some of the various contexts it can be used in: negotiations between colleagues, negotiations
between employee and superior, commercial negotiations, and legal negotiations.
Following our exploration of corporate negotiations, we recognized that all of the principles or fundamentals that we have
covered—such as the importance of diplomatic communication practices and understanding the nuances of personality
and conflict styles—still apply to corporate negotiations. All we have to do is learn how to strategically apply these broader
principles and fundamentals to the more specific contexts one will encounter in corporate negotiations. This then served
as our transition to studying the RADPAC management model.
As you can see, the RADPAC model synthesizes many of the techniques we have learned throughout this course into one
cohesive framework. It shows you how you should approach each step of the negotiation process and what skills and
theories you can incorporate at each step to ensure the best chance of successful negotiation by the end. Different
scenarios will require you to creatively adapt the characteristic elements of each of these steps in different ways.
However, the general structure of any negotiation will always follow this pattern, particularly any form of corporate
negotiation or negotiation in the workplace.
Chapter 7: Diplomatic Negotiation Techniques
7.1Introduction
Topic 7 Introduction Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Identify the role of rhetoric in negotiation, the three main forms of rhetoric, and how each operates in communications.
2. Learn the dangers of logical fallacies, common types of logical fallacies, and how to spot them.
3. Identify useful psychological negotiation tactics and their pitfalls.
4. Understand the role of ethics in negotiation.
5. Develop a deeper understanding of questions in negotiations, including different useful question types and their purposes.
In the last topic, we looked at the RADPAC management model and how it can serve as an invaluable framework for
approaching the process of negotiation, particularly in a corporate setting. Now we are going to shift gears slightly and
return to the topic of diplomatic skills and best practices to take a closer look at rhetoric—what it is, how it applies to
being diplomatic, and how we can use it to our advantage during negotiations.
7.2Rhetoric in Negotiation
What Is Rhetoric?
As always, a great definition of rhetoric is going to help us to approach the topic. For our purposes, we can think
of rhetoric as the art of persuasive language, whether spoken or written. The study of rhetoric concerns a speaker or
writer’s ability to use language in order to convey information, persuade his or her audience, and motivate them to take a
certain action or hold a particular opinion.1 At a deeper level, rhetoric investigates the ways in which language organizes
and maintains social groups, builds meaning and identity, increases knowledge, and influences behavior.
Almost every public speaker you have ever listened to has used the fundamental techniques of rhetoric in order to
develop a platform that people will pay attention to. People frequently associate rhetoric only with public speaking, but
rhetoric plays a role in any act of communication. Since negotiation itself can be considered an act of public speaking, it is
a crucial skill for negotiators to develop. As an ancient discipline, modern rhetoric is only an adaptation of the rhetorical
theories and ideas developed by the Ancient Greeks. In the following section, we are going to look at the history of
rhetoric and some of the discipline’s most seminal thinkers in order to get a better sense of how we can become more
persuasive speakers in our negotiations with others.
The History of Rhetoric
The Ancient Greeks established rhetoric as a discipline roughly 2,500 years ago as they began to develop theories about
the nature of communication, how it is practiced, and the role it plays in private and public lives and in political and legal
contexts.2 Since their time, the study of rhetoric has attracted many brilliant thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and
Isocrates, to name a few. Over the course of centuries, they developed rhetoric into a discipline rich with texts, research,
and theories. Let’s turn now to some of these thinkers’ own words to get a better sense of what rhetoric is and what it
means for us:
Plato:
“Socrates asks, ‘Must not the art of rhetoric, taken as a whole, be a kind of influencing of the mind by means of words, not
only in courts of law and other public gatherings, but in private places also? And must it not be the same art that is
concerned with great issues and small, its right employment commanding no more respect when dealing with important
matters than with unimportant?’” [Phaedrus, 261a–261b]3
Isocrates:
“But since we have the ability to persuade one another and to make dear to ourselves what we want, not only do we avoid
living like animals, but we have come together, built cities, made laws, and invented arts. Speech is responsible for nearly
all our inventions. It legislated in matters of justice and injustice and beauty and baseness, and without these laws, we
could not live with one another. By it we refute the bad and praise the good; through it, we educate the ignorant and
recognize the intelligent. We regard speaking well to be the clearest sign of a good mind, which it requires, and truthful,
lawful, and just speech we consider the image of a good and faithful soul. With speech we fight over contentious matters,
and we investigate the unknown. We use the same arguments by which we persuade others in our own deliberations; we
call those able to speak in a crowd ‘rhetorical;’ we regard as sound advisers those who debate with themselves most
skillfully about public affairs. If one must summarize the power of discourse, we will discover that nothing done prudently
occurs without speech, that speech is the leader of all thoughts and actions, and that the most intelligent people use it
most of all.”4
Aristotle:
“Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion. This is the
function of no other art; for each of the others is instructive and persuasive about its own subject: for example, medicine
about health and disease and geometry about the properties of magnitudes and arithmetic about numbers and similarly in
the case of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric seems to be able to observe the persuasive about ‘the given,’ so to
speak. That, too, is why we say it does not include technical knowledge of any particular, defined genus [of subjects].” 5
Of the above thinkers, it was perhaps the last, Aristotle, who had the most profound impact on the development of rhetoric
as a study and discipline. His ideas and theories continue to be taught in schools and universities around the world to this
day.
In the fourth century BCE, Aristotle produced a treatise simply titled Rhetoric which is regarded by most contemporary
rhetoricians and scholars of discourse to be the most important single work on persuasion ever written. Plato, Aristotle’s
teacher, had once considered rhetoric to be an immoral and dangerous field of study unworthy of serious
scholarship.6 However, by the time Aristotle was Plato’s student, Plato’s view of rhetoric had softened to a more moderate
one. He considered rhetoric to be a useful tool in the hands of a true philosopher, but a dangerous weapon in the hands of
politicians and demagogues.
Having been exposed to Plato’s more moderate change of heart, Aristotle saw greater possibilities in the field of rhetoric
and sought to systematize the field into a rigorous, theoretical discipline. It’s worth mentioning that Rhetoric was not a text
Aristotle intended to publish as a book, but rather, as a collection of transcripts of his lectures and notes he took about his
students’ responses to those lectures. And yet, in spite of this, Aristotle managed to outline a theory and system of
rhetoric which has outlived him by over two millennia now.
In the following section, we are going to dive deeper into Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric, what the various forms of speech he
identified are, and how we can use these different forms to our advantage when we are negotiating.
Aristotle’s Theory of Rhetoric
According to Aristotle, rhetoric is the skill of being able to see in any given circumstance what means are available to
oneself in order to be persuasive to others. Therefore, a rhetorician is someone who is able to practice this skill
masterfully—someone who can always find a means to persuade others with his or her language.
Figure 7.1: A bust of Aristotle.
Image by Lysippos via Wikimedia Commons.
Like Plato, he understood that rhetoric was a powerful tool, and that like any tool, it could be used both positively and
negatively. However, he felt that this was no reason to shy away from truly understanding the way rhetoric and persuasion
work—how we can practice techniques and develop theories to become more persuasive in our communications with
others.
In his study of rhetoric, he identified three key forms of persuasion in communication, which he named the three types of
rhetoric: logos, ethos, and pathos.7 In the sections that follow, we will take a closer look at each of these types of rhetoric,
how they function individually, and how they work together to form truly persuasive speech.
Logos
Logos is an appeal to logic, reason, or proof.8 Think of a time you have listened to a presentation and the presenter has
quoted percentages or figures as a way of convincing you of their argument. Advertisements do the same thing when they
reference studies and data as a means of convincing you of the benefit of one product over another. Any argument that
attempts to persuade you of a point in this fashion can be considered an example of logos.
Aristotle actually wished that all rhetoric could be strictly limited to logos, as he believed this would result in less
misinformation and illogical beliefs in society. However, he eventually resigned himself to accepting that human nature
itself made this impossible and necessitated the use of the other two forms of rhetoric: ethos and pathos.
Examples of logos:
•
“Our baby food is formulated with 30 percent less sugar than the other leading brands!”
•
“All women are mortal, and Oprah is a woman. Therefore, Oprah is mortal.”
Ethos
Ethos is an appeal to one’s own authority, credibility, or expertise.9 Think of a time when you heard a person’s opinion, as
well as their level of education, such as PhD or MD. We tend to instinctively believe that people who have accrued certain
credentials or certificates are inherently more trustworthy, as we feel they may be in a better position to make a definitive
statement given their knowledge or experience.
For Aristotle, authority did not only come from one’s status or level of education. He believed that conveying ethos
required not only knowledge about a subject matter, but also benevolence, or goodwill of character. For example, a
popular figure known for their talent or creativity will lose all credibility once unsavory details about their personal life
emerge. Persuading people through ethos is about more than just presenting oneself as an expert.
Examples of ethos:
•
“Nine out of 10 dentists recommend our brand of toothpaste!”
•
“As someone who’s spent over three decades in the auto industry, I can tell you a thing or two about cars.”
Pathos
Pathos is an appeal to the sentiments and emotions.10 Think of a time you have seen a video produced by a charitable
organization showing starving children in impoverished conditions, and you will know exactly what it feels like to be moved
by pathos. Though we like to think of ourselves as capable of reasoning our way to the right conclusions (as we have
covered extensively during Week 2), we as humans are emotional beings. Because of that speakers can appeal to our
emotions to sway our opinions and persuade us of their arguments.
One can imagine why Aristotle lamented the power of pathos as a rhetorical tool when as a thinker he was so concerned
with the observable, measurable, and rational. However, of the three forms of rhetoric, it is pathos which gives us a sense
of what a psychological art rhetoric is and how we need to be attuned to the emotions of others to most effectively
persuade them of our opinion.
Examples of pathos:
•
“There are American children who are going hungry because they can’t afford lunch.”
•
“If you don’t come home for Christmas, it will break your mother’s heart.”
Examples of Rhetoric in Negotiation
Now that we have looked at the three forms of rhetoric and some general examples of each, we are going to take a closer
look at some more negotiation-specific examples of these rhetorical forms. We will get a clearer sense of how they play
out in the contexts that are relevant to us and this course.
For instance, if you find out that other employees at your office are being paid more than you are, you will likely feel
dissatisfied with your salary.
Using pathos, you might say the following:
“I feel like I should get paid the same amount as everybody else. I work really hard, just as hard as everybody else in the
office. But for some reason, my best is never enough. I mean, how do you think it feels to know you’re being paid the least
out of all the employees? Wouldn’t you be upset too if you knew the company was lowballing you because they don’t
value you as an employee?”
Many of us will recognize this as a classic example of playing the pity card, which is an emotion that pathos often tries to
appeal to. But will it really work if your aim is to get paid a better salary? Sure, you might get some people to feel sorry for
you, but unfortunately, pay raises are not handed out based on sympathy. In fact, some people who hear you speak like
this might feel embarrassed for you, which could lead to further alienation. The problem with this argument is that it’s
completely devoid of ethos or logos, both of which would be better suited for a salary negotiation.
Take a look at this next example of ethos and see the difference:
“I think I’m being underpaid, considering the fact that everyone in this department recognizes the value I bring to this
company. I have over five years of experience in the industry working for both large corporations and private clients. I’ve
been recognized for my accomplishments in the accounting department each year, so clearly I’m doing something right.
Moreover, I’ve delivered roundtable talks at the Arizona Accounting Conference, where I’m invited to attend every
summer. I think that makes me accomplished enough to be compensated more fairly.”
As you can see, this example leans heavily on ethos, or one’s credibility or reputation. While this is still a more convincing
argument compared to the pathos example, it rests entirely on the idea that someone will look at your accomplishments
and stature and agree with you that somehow that logically leads to higher pay. Sometimes it may work, but sometimes it
may not.
Let’s look at an example that relies on logos to make its point:
“Anderson makes $60,000 a year, whereas my salary is only $50,000 a year. We both have bachelor’s degrees and
attended universities of a similar caliber. Not to mention I have two more years of industry-relevant experience compared
to him. Furthermore, I looked on Glassdoor, and found that it looks like both of us are being underpaid. The average
salary for an accountant in our city at a midsize company is actually between $70,000 to $80,000 per year—at least
according to the 5,000 reports I looked at and plotted on a spreadsheet. I guess I’d like to know what factors justify both of
us being paid so much less than others working the same job for very similar companies.”
Here, we see the entire argument has been devoted to using numbers, figures, and reasoning to make your point. In
some instances, presenting it this way is the only way to persuade people. However, your argument has not
communicated pathos, so people may develop an uncharitable attitude toward you since they cannot emotionally identify
with you. They are only being told in black-and-white terms why you are right and they are wrong for underpaying you.
Let’s look at an example that blends pathos, ethos, and logos into one unified argument:
“I’ve been working as an accountant for this company for over two years now, and on top of that, I have five years of
relevant industry experience. Not only do I love my colleagues and the work that I do, but I strive for excellence in all
areas of my job—as evidenced by the fact that each year the company awards me the Accountant of the Year accolade. I
don’t think anyone can question my dedication or ability to work hard for this company. Unfortunately, it becomes a
detriment to my ability to dedicate myself when I learn that Anderson’s salary is $10,000 more than mine, even though
he’s got two years less experience than I have. Last year, I asked the company for a raise and was turned down. I still
stayed with the company in this same position, but at this point, it feels like an added insult to injury. Furthermore, I feel
like both Anderson and I are being underpaid considering the fact that Glassdoor shows the average accountant’s salary
in this city falls in the $70,000–$80,000 range. I really do value working here, but given all of this, wouldn’t you agree I
deserve the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of my contract for a raise commensurate to my experience, dedication,
and expertise?”
The real question is, who could argue with that?
Use Rhetoric Wisely
As we saw in the last example from the previous section, when you can skillfully appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos in the
appropriate doses for the context in which you are negotiating, you can be most persuasive and influence people to see
and understand your point of view.11
If you focus too much on any one form of rhetoric, you run the risk of failing to reach your listener on the level they need to
be reached. You could focus too much on pathos and leave your listener feeling as though you don’t really have a logical
point to make. Or you could focus too much on logos and come across as impersonal and unrelatable.
Each kind of rhetoric has its own merits, but it’s rare to see someone be completely persuasive relying entirely on one
technique alone. This is why the strongest approach is to intelligently and creatively synthesize all three kinds of rhetoric
to persuade your audience most effectively. It’s no wonder Aristotle considered rhetoric to be a kind of art form!
Now that we are more familiar with the art and practice of rhetoric, we can take a closer look at logical fallacies and how
they present a challenge to our attempts at communication, and more specifically, negotiation.
Previous
7.3Logical Fallacies—A Pitfall of Negotiation
In communications, a logical fallacy is an instance of faulty reasoning that may sound correct, but actually does nothing to
prove a point or solidify an argument. Sometimes people use them unknowingly. But many times, people use them
deliberately during debates, speeches, and arguments in order to persuade others when the point they are making is not
entirely logically sound. For this reason, regardless of whether the person you are communicating with knows they are
engaging in logical fallacies or not, it is important for you to be able to identify them. Know what logical fallacies there are
and what forms they can take in order to avoid falling for them and using them in your own communications.
While there are hundreds of different kinds of logical fallacies, they can all be classified in one of two categories:
Formal fallacies: These are logical fallacies in which the content of what someone says is correct, but the way in which
they are saying it ends up rendering their argument illogical.
Informal fallacies: These are logical fallacies in which the content of what someone says is incorrect, but they express it in
such a way that leads you to believe their argument is sound.
It is of the utmost importance during a negotiation to remain alert to any logical fallacies or inconsistencies the other party
may be engaging in, deliberately or not, to persuade you of their perspective. Despite your best efforts at practicing
successful communication and negotiation skills, unchecked logical fallacies can derail an entire conversation, sway
opinions, or distract from the points being made at the negotiation table. 1 It is a highly useful skill to be able to detect and
dismantle logical fallacies as you encounter them. Now we are going to take a closer look at the types of logical fallacies
you may encounter in a negotiation process.
Types of Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem Argument
An ad hominem argument is a personal attack (whether that be on someone’s character, personality, intelligence,
reputation, or appearance) as opposed to a legitimate counterpoint to an argument. 2 It is typically employed when
someone cannot effectively counter an argument, so they instead resort to trying to delegitimize the person. It relies solely
on pathos and ethos to persuade others. While an ad hominem approach may be based on some facts, it does not
constitute a logical response to a party’s stance. Many consider it unethical in a rhetorical sense, since it diverts attention
from the actual matters at hand and uses pathos and ethos to manipulate others into ignoring logos when evaluating the
other party’s argument.
Examples of ad hominem arguments:
•
“My opponent has not donated to a single charity in the last ten years, so how can we trust a thing he has to say
about helping the needy?”
•
“I know for a fact that she flunked out of two classes in college, so I have a hard time taking any argument from
her seriously.”
Straw Man Argument
A straw man argument is an attack on an opinion or position that the opposing party does not actually hold. 3 A person
may choose to make a straw man attack as a misrepresentation of the other party’s argument if they cannot refute that
party’s original argument. It is a simple means to make oneself appear more dominant in an argument when one does not
actually have a logical basis to stand on. Like the ad hominem approach, many consider the straw man argument
rhetorically unethical if done intentionally. This is because the person seeks to mischaracterize an adversary’s position,
thereby deceiving others, in order to bolster their own position. With that said, however, not all straw man arguments are
performed intentionally. Many times, people can fall into the trap of making a straw man argument if they do not have a
good grasp on their adversary’s position or if they have only understood a narrow or skewed version of it.
Examples of straw man arguments:
•
“The mayor of London thinks we can solve climate change if everyone just drove a Tesla. Do you think he even
knows how much a Tesla costs?”
•
“She basically believes that women should have no rights at all.”
Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is a claim that one’s argument is valid because an authority also believes so. It does not
demonstrate the logic or provide any data that proves one’s argument. This relates to the influence of ethos in rhetoric, as
people instinctively rely on markers of authority in discerning whose argument to listen to and who to find most
persuasive. Some also call this an abuse of authority, as those who use this method seek to abuse people’s deference to
authority in order to make logically unsound claims.4 Though some authorities have authority for good reasons, not all do.
Regardless, any claim ought to be backed by reason or evidence rather than just by an endorsement by a well-known
figure or organization. Furthermore, not all authorities are created equal. Those who seek to use the appeal to authority to
bolster an otherwise baseless claim may turn to weak, irrelevant, or false authorities in order to persuade an audience.
Examples of appeals to authority:
•
“I know for a fact that Jeff Bezos prefers Windows over Mac, and he’s the richest man in the world.”
•
“My doctor agrees with me that too much broccoli can be a bad thing, so what does that tell you about broccoli?”
Appeal to Ignorance
An appeal to ignorance is a claim that the lack of evidence disproving one’s argument means that one’s argument is valid.
This one is even more absurd than the appeal to authority because at least appeal to authority tries to rely on ethos—
albeit a false one—to persuade.5 An appeal to ignorance instead seeks to manipulate people’s sense of not knowing
enough about the world in order to convince them that anything that hasn’t been definitively disproved could easily be
true. In fact, just because something has not yet been disproved does not have any bearing on the degree to which it is
true or false. Therefore, the appeal to ignorance is an especially unethical logical fallacy in the rhetorical sense, as its only
aim is to manipulate people’s ignorance to persuade them.
Examples of appeals to ignorance:
•
“There’s no evidence that shows eating a little sand is bad for you.”
•
“Have you ever been around the entire world yourself? Then how else would you really be able to know if it’s
round or not?”
False Dilemma
A false dilemma is a false or inaccurate presentation of only two options despite there being many others. 6 Those who
use false dilemmas typically do so in order to inflate their perspective by demonizing the possibility of thinking otherwise
through a madeup binary. A false dilemma operates on the principles of polarizing an audience. You often see this kind of
logical fallacy employed in political discourse, in which one side seeks to distort the range of options for people into just
two: them or the other guy. False dilemmas are especially harmful as they are by definition reductionist in their approach
to discourse. They often flatten productive conversations into unrealistic binaries that only contribute to divisiveness and
partisanship.
Examples of false dilemmas:
•
“If you don’t support us drilling here, then you might as well go join forces with the people who want to eliminate
our entire industry!”
•
“If you don’t donate to UNICEF, you must be a monster that supports human rights abuses.”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
A slippery slope fallacy is a statement that takes an argument and baselessly projects it forward into the future as a
means of frightening others from considering the argument itself.7 Typically, the slippery slope fallacy takes the form of an
“if” statement. It begins with the argument being made and then, without any evidence whatsoever, attempts to convey the
awful ramifications that argument will have in the future. The slippery slope fallacy relies heavily on appealing to pathos,
since the goal is to scare an audience with events that have not occurred and may not occur.
Examples of slippery slope fallacies:
•
“If they allow this sort of brainwashing on social media, next thing you know we’ll have a whole generation of
degenerate youth who drop out of school and wind up jobless, homeless, and a burden on our entire system.
Who knows what could happen then—we might even have a civil war!”
•
“When they start putting vegetables in your chicken nuggets, there’s no telling where they’ll stop. Maybe they’ll
start making your steak out of celery or take away your mayonnaise and replace it with corn.”
Circular Argument
A circular argument is an argument that relies solely on the other person’s points or arguments as evidence. Like a circle,
the argument does not go anywhere, but rather only feeds back into itself. It cannot be verified by any other logic or
reasoning. If the circle is very small, then it’s typically rather simple to detect. Circular arguments become more dangerous
when that circle is expanded to involve many small discrete steps that are ultimately still only a closed system without any
reliance on other reasoning, evidence, or logic.
Examples of circular arguments:
•
“My dad thinks I’m brilliant, and my dad is a brilliant person. So that means I really must be brilliant.”
•
“You, the people, nominated me as your governor. I believe switching to wind energy is the right decision for our
state, so you must all be in favor of wind energy too!”
Bandwagon Fallacy
A bandwagon fallacy, as the name suggests, is an argument that falsely claims itself to be correct or good based only on
the fact that many other people agree with it.8 Like the appeal to authority, the bandwagon fallacy seeks to manipulate
ethos to persuade people, but this time substituting authority figures and organizations for “the general public.” However,
many people do not have a great sense of scale when it comes to how many people constitute “the general public.”
Furthermore, many now-disproved beliefs once enjoyed widespread popularity: the idea that the Sun revolves around the
Earth or that the Earth is flat. Therefore, without logos, public opinion itself can be a false authority that people can use
through the bandwagon fallacy to make an erroneous claim.
Examples of bandwagon fallacies:
•
“Everyone else I know likes french fries, so they must be good for you!”
•
“So you think the 90,000 other people who work for this multilevel marketing company are all stupid?”
Red Herring Fallacy
A red herring fallacy is an argument that has no relation to the matters being discussed and only serves as a clever
distraction from the real issue.9 Someone will engage in a red herring fallacy when they want to move the argument away
from the direction it is currently taking. Usually, it is because they do not feel they have the ground to stand on. A red
herring fallacy will typically bear some semblance to the matters at hand, but not in a way that actually addresses the
arguments being made. This is where using clarifying questions will come in handy as a means of dismantling any red
herring fallacies and getting the negotiation back on track.
Example of red herring fallacy:
•
Employee: We’re always running out of supplies in our office. Can we order them more frequently?
Manager: You should count yourself lucky that we even have office supplies at all.
•
Employee: You said that our performance last quarter would mean we could invest more in the office. Are you
going back on that promise?
Manager: We’re investing plenty in the office. Our office has actually been nominated for a local award because
of our green initiative.
Hasty Generalization
As the name suggests, a hasty generalization is a statement made to quickly generalize or summarize the other side’s
argument in order to mischaracterize it, thereby making it simpler to refute. It may take the form of an exaggeration,
overstatement, or stereotype. Often, people commit hasty generalizations unintentionally when they are more focused on
getting their point across than actually wrestling with the details of an argument. We can make sure to avoid hasty
generalizations by adding qualifiers to statements that we are not definitively certain of—such as “it seems like,”
“oftentimes,” or “I feel that.” By adding these simple qualifiers, one can make a hasty generalization into a more
responsible claim that the other party can argue against reasonably.
Examples of hasty generalizations:
•
“Americans are all so angry.”
•
“You always take their side and never come up with any original ideas of your own.”
Wrapping Up Logical Fallacies
As you can see, there are many different ways in which people can manipulate pathos and ethos in order to make up for
the fact that their argument doesn’t hold water. This list is by no means an exhaustive account of all forms of logical
fallacies. However, now that you are familiar with some of the most common examples, you will have a much better idea
of when someone is trying to circumvent a rational, reasonable argument. When you pick up on that, you can call it out for
what it is. You can also avoid indulging in logical fallacies in your own communications and negotiations. In the next
section, we are going to shift away from logical fallacies to take a closer look at the role that psychology can play in
negotiation.
7.4The Role of Psychology in Negotiation
Psychology in Negotiation Transcript
Download Material
In the first two weeks of this course, we learned the extent to which psychological factors can have a tremendous
influence on the course of a negotiation process. We also learned the role that emotions and personality play in any
conversation that takes place during a negotiation.
Like rhetoric, psychology is an incredibly powerful tool in a negotiation that can be used both positively and negatively,
depending on the person who is wielding it.1 For our purposes, we can become more successful negotiators by learning
about the different psychological tactics in negotiation and understanding what they look like and how they work. We will
be better able to use these tactics responsibly while also protecting ourselves when someone is trying to use them against
us.
Keep in mind that some people may pejoratively label these tactics as “mind games,” as they are means of using human
psychology to bolster and advance your own position in an argument, debate, or negotiation. As such, they will come in
handy in a distributive negotiation, when the resources being negotiated are truly limited and you have to do everything
you can to maximize your own benefit or gain from the conversation. The following techniques are to be used with
caution, as they have the potential to damage relationships in the long run if abused.
Framing Expectations with Extremes
Highball/Lowball
The highball/lowball tactic involves kicking off a negotiation with an offer that is either extremely high or extremely low in
relation to what is reasonable or what the other party may be expecting. 2 This tactic is used in order to make the other
party doubt their preconceived idea of what constitutes a fair deal and move closer to a number that is more amenable to
the highball or lowball offer. A highball offer typically involves asking for a much higher amount, while a lowball offer
usually involves offering a much lower amount to the other party. In either case, the effect is the same—using psychology
to distort the other party’s sense of scale and proportion in order to win a more favorable outcome for oneself. For
instance, a new hire might enter a salary negotiation hoping to be offered around $50,000 a year so they can negotiate up
to $55,000. But when they come to the meeting, the HR representative offers them $35,000, making them more amenable
to negotiating a salary of $45,000 per year.
This can be a highly effective technique, but within reason, as you run the risk of turning the other party off from the
negotiation process completely. If you suggest a number that’s completely out of the question, the other party may cease
taking you seriously and walk away from the negotiation altogether. However, the degree of effectiveness of the
highball/lowball technique depends heavily on the power dynamic between the two parties. Some negotiators with the
upper hand in a power dynamic use extreme highball or lowball offers to intimidate the other party out of negotiation
altogether. They hope the other party will concede the negotiation and assent to whatever terms the highball or lowball
negotiator is making.
Physical Aversion
In last week’s material, we took an in-depth look at how nonverbal communication and physiological cues can be
tremendously influential means of communicating messages to the other party during a negotiation. The tactic of physical
aversion involves taking unconscious nonverbal communication a step further by deliberately making nonverbal gestures
in order to manipulate the other party’s psychology and better obtain the result you want from a negotiation. 3 For instance,
if the other party makes you an offer, you might flinch at the sound of it. This could also be substituted with other strong
reactions that demonstrate surprise, shock, or displeasure, such as bulging your eyes or gasping. These gestures will
make the other party believe that the offer they have made is completely unreasonable, out of the question, or even
offensive. It could make them rethink what constitutes a fair offer in this negotiation. However, physical aversion is easy to
overdo, as not many people are skilled actors. With this tactic, you always run the risk of exposing yourself to the other
party as being deliberately manipulative and then losing credibility in the negotiation.
Bargaining for More
Nibbling
The nibbling tactic, as the name suggests, involves gradually making additional, proportionally small demands as the
negotiation reaches its close.4 Psychologically, as the conversation moves toward conclusion, you want to do anything to
wrap it up and have the terms set in writing. By continually asking for “one last thing” using the nibbling tactic, you may be
able to squeeze previously unconsidered forms of value out of the conversation in your favor.
Bogey
The bogey tactic involves acting as if a matter of negligible significance is extremely important to you so that later on in
the negotiation you may be able to trade this matter for a major concession from the other party.5 By inflating the value of
a trivial point, you can use it as a bargaining chip to win something of value for yourself in exchange.
Layers of Bureaucracy
The layers of bureaucracy tactic involves using multiple levels of decision-making authority in order to extract additional
concessions from the other party. It is typically only relevant if you are negotiating within or on behalf of an organization,
company, or corporation rather than on your own behalf. During the negotiation, you can cite the need to refer to a higher
authority for permission to go through with an agreement. That higher authority can request an additional concession
before referring the adjusted agreement to an even higher level of authority, and so on. In this tactic, each level of
bureaucracy is an additional opportunity to extract a concession from the other party, whose incentive throughout will be
primarily to close the deal and be done with the negotiation.
Shifting Responsibility
Calling a Higher Authority
The tactic of calling a higher authority is very similar to the layers of bureaucracy approach, but it serves a different
end.6 With this tactic, you can claim dependency on the opinion or judgment of a higher authority or decision maker who
cannot be present in order to evade responsibility for what has taken place at the negotiation table. Typically, people will
use this tactic as a way of buying time, stepping back from having made too many compromises, de-escalating a
conversation, or circumventing a stalemate.
Good Cop/Bad Cop
As the name suggests, the good cop/bad cop tactic involves two negotiators teaming up and dividing the positive and
unpleasant tasks between them.7 Usually, this tactic also relies on establishing a third, higher authority who may be real
or fictional and has the ultimate say on the negotiation process. One of the negotiators, who will play the role of the good
cop, will focus on the cooperative aspects of a certain deal and what has gone well during the course of negotiations. The
other negotiator, who will play the role of the bad cop, will focus on the ways in which the deal is unfair and criticize
elements that they believe are unfavorable to them. The other party will establish much better rapport with the good cop in
comparison and in a way feel thankful for the presence of a more friendly, supportive figure at the negotiating table.
Therefore, they will trust the good cop negotiator and be much more amenable to working with them. They will agree to
making small concessions and compromises in order to have the good cop present the terms positively to the higher
authority.
Closing
Brinksmanship
The brinksmanship tactic involves aggressively pursuing a list of conditions that have to be met, thereby pushing the other
party to the brink of what they consider an acceptable outcome from the negotiations. 8 To be performed effectively, you
must be able to convince the other party that accepting a deal, even with this list of conditions, is more favorable than any
of the other options available to them. It will invariably necessitate delegitimizing the other party’s BATNA.
Deadlines
Using deadlines is another way you can put pressure on the other party. You can designate a specific date or time by
when the other party needs to reach a decision. This can be an actual or artificial deadline. By presenting an option as
time sensitive or by threatening to take it off the table after a certain period of time, it adds psychological pressure that will
hopefully move the other party to agree to the terms they have been presented with.
Strategy or Deception?
Having familiarized yourself with these psychological strategies in negotiation, you can see how they may easily become
means of deception and manipulation. There are certain factors that can lead to greater deception and manipulation: if
one party has greater information about the terms being negotiated than the other party and does not share that
information, if there is a lack of familiarity or experience between the two parties, or if one party has a lot more to gain and
a lot less to lose compared to the other party. While these tactics are proven to be effective in negotiation contexts, they
raise questions about ethics in negotiation. For instance, when does a tactic turn into an act of outright deception or
manipulation? Should there be a discussion of ethics in a competitive act like negotiation? In the next section, we will
explore the matter of ethics as it pertains to negotiation in greater detail.
7.5Ethics in Negotiation
Having now covered some highly effective rhetorical skills, logical fallacies, and psychological tactics in negotiation, it is
pertinent to our overall discussion to ask ourselves what ethical considerations we must make when we choose to employ
these methods. While we may feel more comfortable relegating the question of ethics to our gut feelings and moral
compass, it is important to be able to clarify for ourselves what exactly ethics is in order to have a framework for
approaching ethical considerations in negotiation.
What Is Ethics?
As a discipline, ethics is a collection of theories regarding moral principles and values. It concerns attempts by thinkers
and scholars to organize and systematize the notion of right and wrong. 1 As such, being ethical means adhering to some
form of moral system, whereas being unethical means deviating from or rejecting such a system.
While different people and cultures may disagree on more minor points in their overall systems of value, the vast majority
agree on some major values and principles. For instance, it is pretty much universally accepted around the world that
being deceptive is unethical. This applies to the matter of negotiation as well. Once you make choices with the aim of
being deceptive during the course of negotiations, you have entered the territory of fraud.
Fraud in Negotiation
Fraud is a tricky concept to pin down, since it has both an ethical and a legal implication. In the context of the law, fraud
denotes any act that deliberately misrepresents the truth for the purpose of gaining an otherwise undeserved profit. 2 For
example, the legal procedure of divorce requires that you disclose transparently all of your assets so they can be
assessed and divided fairly. If during a divorce case, a person hides some of their assets from their spouse and their
lawyers, then they have committed fraud in a legal sense. Fraud poses such a threat to the proper administration of the
law that it is severely punished. In some jurisdictions, if after a divorce has been finalized, one spouse is revealed to have
hidden assets during the case, a judge will turn 100% of those assets over to the other spouse.
As an ethical concept, however, fraud, or committing a deceptive act, is a less black-and-white issue. Like morality, fraud
has been a matter of debate among thinkers and philosophers for longer than any of us have been alive. With that said,
just because philosophers haven’t decided once and for all whether fraud is an absolute evil does not make it a positive
act to commit. Just because an act belongs to an ethical “gray area” does not give you the green light to commit it. This is
especially true if you do so knowing that your benefit will ultimately come at someone else’s detriment.
The dynamic of your benefit coming at the cost of someone else’s detriment is somewhat unavoidable during the course
of a distributive negotiation, where the resources being fought over are fixed and limited. However, what sets fraud apart
is that it means benefiting by exploiting the other party’s ignorance or inattention. In a fair distributive negotiation process,
even if you benefit at the other party’s expense, at least they know full well you are doing so. If the moral implications are
not enough to give you pause, then at the very least you should be concerned by the fact that it is difficult to commit
fraudulent acts without being caught. If you are caught, you could potentially do permanent damage to your relationship
with the person against whom you’ve committed fraud and to your relationship with nearly everyone you know, both
professionally and personally.
As a negotiator, your authority depends on your ability to uphold your reputation as a fair, cooperative negotiator.
Committing an act of fraud to win in one instance is a shortsighted choice considering the possible, longreaching
consequences. Of course, it is difficult to think of this when in the moment you are trying to get the best deal possible for
yourself. As a general standard, when you have doubts, apply the golden rule and try not to do anything to anyone that
you would not have done to yourself.
Unethical Negotiation Tactics
For your reference, these are the primary unethical negotiation tactics that some people choose to commit: 3
•
Deception: This is when a negotiator makes a statement or commits an action that is designed to deceive or trick
the other party.
•
Lying: This is when a negotiator declares something that is at odds with established facts or reality.
•
Perjury: This is when a negotiator inflates, deflates, or otherwise distorts the importance of a particular action,
option, or possibility for a fraudulent purpose.
•
Nondisclosure: This is when a negotiator chooses to conceal or omit a piece of information for their own
advantage.
The purpose of this section is not simply to dissuade you from committing any of the above unethical negotiation tactics,
as the world of negotiation is full of moral quandaries that are not as simple as right and wrong. However, it is your
responsibility to be cognizant of the different forms of unethical tactics which any negotiator can use at any given moment.
You should know that if you choose to engage in some of these tactics, at the very least remain honest with yourself
about your motivations and reasons for committing acts that breach the ethical boundaries you have set out for yourself.
Otherwise, you wind up in the trap of being fraudulent with your own self, which can lead to further self-deception and
false rationalizations. Below, we will take a closer look at some of the scenarios in which the opportunity to commit
unethical negotiation tactics may become available to you.
The Lure of Temptation
Whether or not a negotiator chooses to engage in fraud or deception depends largely on how much they stand to gain or
lose from doing so or not doing so. In other words, the greater the potential reward (or at least the less the potential
fallout), the greater the likelihood of engaging in that unethical negotiation tactic. 4 Our moral compass tends to become
more flexible in the face of a great potential boon. We must always remain cautious of this and be sober-minded when it
comes to contemplating breaching our values for the sake of material rewards.
Uncertainty and Powerlessness
If there is uncertainty or confusion regarding the material facts of a particular negotiation scenario, you may feel more at
liberty to engage in unethical negotiation tactics. You will feel there is less of a chance that you will be caught committing
an unethical act and suffer the appropriate consequences for it. 5 This is especially the case when you as a negotiator feel
a certain powerlessness in the negotiation. You may turn to the other party’s uncertainty as the only place you can get an
edge over them in the negotiation. For instance, when given a job interview, you can exploit your potential hirer’s lack of
knowledge about your overall job search by telling them you have several other offers when in fact you have none.
Because you have no other job offers and feel reliant on this opportunity, you have a greater reason to exploit the
employer’s lack of knowledge in order to better your chances at securing an offer from them.
The Anonymity of Victims
Finally, we might feel a greater incentive to commit an unethical negotiation tactic if we feel less of a connection to the
people who might ultimately suffer as a result of it.6 If you do not know or will never meet the people whose value you are
taking for your own personal gain, then you will have less of a reason to think twice about committing that act. This is
assuming you have already made the decision to ignore your own personal moral compass. Since you will never have to
personally experience the consequences of that act, it is easier to deceive yourself into thinking there’s no harm in
committing it.
Further Ethical Issues to Consider
Aside from the unethical negotiating tactics we have covered in this section, there are other forms of unethical behavior
you could potentially resort to in the course of any negotiation. This list includes (but is not limited to) mistreatment of
others, forms of coercion (such as threats, intimidation, bribery, incentives, and corruption), disloyal or backstabbing
behavior to other negotiating partners who are not present at the negotiation, insults and maligning behavior toward other
individuals and groups, and intentional injury to the credibility or reputations of others for your own benefit. Obviously,
some of these are greater ethical violations than others, but none could be considered ethical. All of these tactics could
stand to do serious harm not only to those you are committing these acts against but also to your own relationships and
ability to continue negotiating productively.
This brings us to the fact that if you view the relationships you form through negotiation as strictly transactional, you may
be that much more encouraged to rely on these unethical negotiation tactics. Since you are not properly valuing the
relationship formed through negotiation, you are not taking an integrative, empathetic approach to the way you treat that
person. Even in negotiations that you believe constitute brief, one-time encounters, you may wind up damaging your
reputation in an irreversible way if you choose to behave unethically. You can never know who in the business world is
going to wind up being an asset to you or present you with a great opportunity. The safest way to proceed is to treat every
relationship as if it were a significant one, if you want others to extend that same courtesy to you.
Furthermore, if all of this is not reason enough to refrain from engaging in unethical negotiation tactics, remember that the
risks are often considerable and significantly outweigh the potential benefits you may reap from unethical approaches. For
instance, the price of these acts is not only the weight they may have on your conscience or moral compass, but also the
potential costs of tracking down evidence, legal discovery, contracting people to help you commit these acts, keeping your
records in order, and so forth. The best approach is to keep away from these unethical tactics altogether.
Negotiation Structures that Promote Ethical Behavior
If you are concerned about unethical behavior encroaching on your abilities as a negotiator—worry not. There are many
structures already in place not only to protect you from unethical behavior but to help keep you from engaging in such
behavior: your country’s regulations and legal system, your personal relationships and interdependence in business
relationships, your ready access to both institutional and independent sources of information that are reputable, third
parties (like mediators), and support from the institutions to which you belong.7
Generally speaking, knowing what different forms of unethical negotiation practices exist will keep you sharp and
cognizant when someone tries to get away with that behavior against you. It will also make you aware of what boundaries
you must not cross in your own negotiation strategies. So long as you can do that much, you don’t need to worry. In the
next section, we will pivot from this discussion of ethics and unethical behavior to another kind of negotiation tactic—
asking questions.
7.6The Importance of Asking Questions
At this point, we have covered a wide range of different techniques and tactics you can apply to your negotiations in order
to conduct them more strategically and successfully. We also looked at different tactics and fallacies you must be wary of
to avoid being deceived or harmed. In many of these latter instances, the opportunity for someone to commit an unethical
negotiation tactic or logical fallacy against you will come from your own lack of information. This is why asking questions is
important to your overall negotiation strategy. Previously, we discussed the importance of asking questions in the context
of establishing rapport, building common ground with the other party, and confirming that you both understand each
other’s positions in order to work toward a common solution. However, the skill of asking questions is more varied than for
just these purposes. In fact, asking questions can be considered a negotiation tactic in its own right. 1 In this section, we
are going to look at some specific types of questions in order to learn how to ask questions more skillfully and deliberately
during our negotiations.
Question Types
Open-Ended Questions
Open-ended questions invite a more detailed response than a simple one-word answer, like yes or no. Typically, these
questions will rely on the use of asking who, what, when, where, why, or how. They will also be phrased in such a way
that gives the person responding room to provide more than mere details, such as their opinion or perspective.
Oftentimes, when we feel we cannot get through to the other party, we can make progress by adjusting the way in which
we are asking questions. That way they cannot remain tight-lipped throughout the entire negotiation. The benefit of openended questions comes from the fact that you can develop a more accurate and three-dimensional sense of what the
other party is thinking and feeling, which will help you adjust your own approach to the negotiation. If you are able to
understand the other party’s thought process and the reasoning behind their position, rather than just their desired
outcome, then you can creatively approach devising options that respond to their position. Lastly, asking open-ended
questions demonstrates a level of attentiveness and interest beyond mere information gathering. It is an easy way to get
the other party to open up and feel more comfortable expressing themselves and sharing their thoughts and opinions
during the negotiation.
Here are some examples of open-ended questions:
•
How did you arrive at the proposal you’ve outlined?
•
Can you help me understand the reason for your position?
Leading Questions
Leading questions, as the name suggests, lead the other party to reach a certain conclusion or adopt a certain point of
view.2 These questions are useful if you feel the other party is receptive to hearing out your perspective or if they are
unsure how they feel about a matter. Leading questions are helpful when you don’t want to tell the other party outright
what to think about something.
Here are some examples of leading questions:
•
With all the advantages I’ve listed, don’t you think this bundle is most helpful and the right way to do it for both of
us?
•
After we have given the documentation you just listed, would you . . . ?
Sequential Questions
Oftentimes during a negotiation, we will want to dictate not only a set of terms but the order in which certain terms are to
be carried out.3 At the same time, we want to be mindful of not appearing as if we are dictating to the other party. Rather,
we want to reach conclusions together. In these instances, it can help you to ask sequential questions, or questions that
have a built-in set of steps or chain of logic, which the respondent can then confirm.
Here are some examples of sequential questions:
•
After you have finished the first distribution, how long would it take for you to get the second shipment ready and
delivered to us?
•
Once you have confirmed our deal with the accounting department, will you be sending us an invoice?
Verification Questions
As the name suggests, verification questions are designed to seek verification of either a statement that has been made
or of a piece of information that has been presented to you as fact. 4 Especially during the course of negotiations, we have
to be able to trust the information we are dealing with. Many of your strategies and moment-to-moment decisions could be
highly influenced by the information with which you are presented. Therefore, you serve yourself and the other party best
by asking verification questions in order to make sure that you can rely on the information you have at hand to make the
best decisions. While you may feel uncomfortable questioning the other party like this and would prefer to trust they have
your best interests at heart, some amount of cynicism in the negotiating process is quite healthy. Without it, you could
easily be lead astray.
Here are some examples of verification questions:
•
What evidence or proof did you use to support your position?
•
Could you explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion?
Flattery Questions
The purpose of flattery questions is not so much to gather information but to be complimentary to the other
party.5 Flattery, in the right dose, can be important to building rapport. Asking flattery questions is a way of doing so
without being overt about it.
Here’s an example of a flattery question:
•
Can we rely on your unique perspective for some insight on this particular matter?
Elaborating Questions
If the other party has presented you with some information, but you need further explanation, you can ask them
elaborating questions to help them expound on it further.6 These are questions that build from a point a party has made
and encourage them to further explain that particular topic. You can use these types of questions when you are trying to
develop a deeper understanding of the other party’s perspective.
Here are some examples of elaborating questions:
•
Will you send us more information about how you analyzed the data you just presented and how you came to a
conclusion?
•
Why do you believe this is a rational and reasonable concept?
•
Why is this point important?
Emotional Check Questions
As we covered during Week 2, there are moments during a negotiation when you may get an intuitive sense that the other
party is feeling something they cannot easily express, and it is interfering with the actual process of negotiating. In these
instances, rather than directly calling them out on your hunch, the more tactful way to handle their emotions would be to
ask an emotional check question.7 These are questions that can gently encourage the other party to be more open about
the way they are feeling. They can provide the other party with an opportunity to express their feelings before they cause
any further diversions from the negotiation at hand.
Here are some examples of emotional check questions:
•
How do you feel about this part of the settlement deal?
•
What’s your take on the option I’ve just proposed?
Vulnerability/You-Tell-Me Questions
In the context of a negotiation, the vulnerability (or you-tell-me) questions can be some of the most difficult questions to
ask.8 They require vulnerability not on the part of the respondent but on the person asking the question. With these
questions, you are asking for the other person’s honest opinion about a matter pertaining to yourself. You are presenting
yourself as vulnerable enough to hear exactly what they think or have to say about a particular matter. You might want to
use these questions if you have hit a wall with a certain topic, but you don’t want to throw in the towel and move on to
another subject. Furthermore, these questions are excellent for building rapport, as they demonstrate your interest in the
other party’s thoughts and opinions. They convey that you are open-minded enough to incorporate their views into your
own understanding of the situation.
Here are some examples of vulnerability/you-tell-me questions:
•
What about the option we’re currently discussing gives you pause?
•
Do you think I’m missing something here?
7.7Summary
In this section, we began by defining rhetoric as the art of persuasive language, whether spoken or written. We learned
that the study of rhetoric concerns a speaker or writer’s ability to use language in order to convey information, persuade
his or her audience, and motivate them to take a particular action or hold a particular opinion. From these definitions, we
focused our attention on the three forms of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and pathos. We saw how speakers can use them to be
persuasive and develop a platform that people will pay attention to.
Afterward, we shifted our attention to logical fallacies, or instances of faulty reasoning that may sound correct but actually
do nothing to prove a point or solidify an argument. We learned how these fallacies can interrupt or derail a negotiation
process and how we can identify common logical fallacies in order to combat them. We also took a closer look at how
psychology is an incredibly powerful tool in a negotiation that can be used toward both positive and negative ends. And
we saw what psychological tactics we can use in negotiation responsibly.
This led us to our discussion of ethics, or the collection of theories regarding moral principles and values, and the
attempts by thinkers and scholars to organize and systematize the notion of right and wrong. We learned the role that
ethics plays in negotiation. Finally, we concluded this topic with a primer on the skill of asking questions as a negotiation
tactic in its own right. And we looked at some specific question types in order to learn how to ask questions more skillfully
and deliberately during our negotiations.
Chapter 8: Evaluation of Negotiation Techniques
8.1Introduction
Topic 8 Introduction Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Learn which negotiation skills to utilize in various contexts.
2. Identify and utilize tactics appropriate for multi-issue negotiations.
3. Identify and utilize tactics appropriate for group negotiations.
4. Identify and utilize tactics appropriate for written negotiations.
Up until now, we have spent a lot of time focusing on different theories and frameworks and how you can apply them to
negotiations. While frameworks are an incredibly helpful way of building systems and structures of knowledge that you
can rely on as you approach negotiations, they are only so helpful without proper consideration of context. There are
many different forms of negotiation, some of which we have already covered, and some of which we are going to cover
in this topic. The more familiarity you have with context, the better you will be able to apply the frameworks we have
learned to a variety of scenarios.
In this topic, we are going to focus our attention on some important distinctions between various negotiation contexts—
such as single-issue versus multi-issue negotiations, one-on-one versus multi-party negotiations, and face-to-face
versus written negotiations. This will round out your overall understanding of negotiation in both theory and practice.
Once you have mastered these different negotiation contexts and how to navigate each one, you will be ready to bring
all that you have learned so far about negotiation to any context or scenario and have full confidence in your ability to
negotiate effectively and successfully.
8.2Single-Issue versus Multi-issue Negotiation
Single vs. Multi-issue Transcript
Download Material
Up to this point, our discussions of negotiation have been limited by the presumption that each instance of negotiation
focuses on a single issue—such as a pay raise, a purchase, or a disagreement. However, in reality, it’s rare for one
matter to exist completely in isolation. Oftentimes, we may find that there are several sub-issues housed beneath the
primary issue we thought we were negotiating. 1 How do you handle running such a negotiation when you must privilege
several different matters equally?
We have seen how the outcome of a single-issue negotiation largely depends on the factors we’ve expounded on in this
course—such as communication skills, personality types and conflict management types, BATNA, distributive versus
integrative negotiations, options, information, and preparation. However, we will not often be able to focus on a single
issue during a negotiation. Trying to address one conflict may reveal several different conflicts that lead to that original
conflict. Those conflicts themselves may branch into additional previous conflicts. Given the complexity of human
relationships and interconnectedness, we must presume that negotiation itself will grapple with comparably complex
problems.
For instance, we have looked at many examples concerning salary negotiations. Whereas in those examples the
discussion only concerned salary, in reality there are many issues connected to salary—such as housing costs, health
insurance, childcare, benefits, and other factors which may all be considerations in determining the fairness of a certain
salary. Or, say you are trying to win a contract with a company to be their supplier, you may not only need to negotiate on
the matter of price, but also time, quality, exclusivity, branding, expectations, and many other issues. In these instances of
multi-issue negotiation, there is an important question for us to answer: How can we effectively organize many different
issues in one negotiation process?
The answer is that we will need to be deliberate in what procedure we apply to a multi-issue negotiation. The good news
for us is that there are several well-known multi-issue negotiation procedures we can study that suit a wide variety of
purposes. We will take a closer look at these various procedures and what contexts they can be helpful for.
Package Deal Procedure
In a package deal procedure, you will handle a multi-issue negotiation by discussing the various issues together as a
single package deal.2 This particular approach works by bundling separate issues as a way of simplifying and
streamlining t…