assignment vs negotiation

• Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Negotiation and Assignment

On the other hand, assignment alludes to the transfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument, in which the assignee gets the right to receive the amount due on the instrument from the prior parties.

The most important difference between negotiation and assignment is that they are governed by different acts. To know more differences amidst the two types of transfers, take a read of the article below.

Content: Negotiation Vs Assignment

Comparison chart, definition of negotiation.

Negotiation can be described as the process in which the transfer of negotiable instrument, is made to any person, in order to make that person, the holder of the negotiable instrument. Therefore the negotiable instrument aims at transferring the title of the instrument to the transferee.

The term of negotiation for any person except maker, drawer or acceptor, until payment and in the case of the maker, drawer or acceptor, it should be until the due date. The two methods of negotiation are:

• By delivery : Negotiation is possible by mere delivery, in the case of bearer instrument, but that should be voluntary in nature.
• By endorsement and delivery : In the case of order instrument, there must be endorsement and delivery of the negotiable instrument. The delivery must be voluntary, with an intention of transferring the underlying asset, to the transferee to complete the negotiation.

Definition of Assignment

By the term assignment we mean, the transfer of contractual rights, ownership of property or interest, by a person, in order to realise the debt.

An assignment is a written transfer of rights or property, in which the assignor transfers the instrument to assignee with the aim of conferring the right on the assignee, by signing an agreement called assignment deed. Thus, the assignee is entitled to receive the amount due on the negotiable instrument, from the liable parties.

Key Differences Between Negotiation and Assignment

The primary differences between negotiation and assignment presented in the points below:

• The transfer of the negotiable instrument, by a person to another to make that person the holder of it, is known as negotiation. The transfer of rights, by a person to another, for the purpose of receiving the debt payment, is known as assignment.
• When it comes to regulation of negotiable instrument, negotiation governs the Negotiable Instrument, 1881, while the assignment is regulated by Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• Negotiation can be effected by mere delivery in case of bearer instrument and, endorsement and delivery in case of order instrument.
• In the case of bearer instrument, the negotiation is done by mere delivery of the instrument, but in the case of bearer instrument, endorsement and delivery of the instrument must be effected. Conversely, the assignment is effected by written agreement to be signed by the transferor, both in the case of order and bearer instrument.
• In negotiation, the consideration is presumed, whereas, in the case of assignment, the consideration is proved.
• There is no requirement of transfer notice, in negotiation. On the contrary, notice of assignment is compulsory, so as to bind the debtor.
• In negotiation, the transferee has the right to sue the third party in his/her own name. As against, in the assignment, the assignee does not have any right to sue the third party, in his/her own name.
• In negotiation, there is no requirement of payment of stamp duty. Unlike, in the assignment, stamp duty must be paid.

In negotiation, the transfer of negotiable instrument, entitles the transferor, the right of a holder in due course. On the other extreme, in the assignment the title of the assignee, is a bit defective one, as it is subject to the title of assignor of the right.

You Might Also Like:

Girmay says

April 24, 2023 at 8:42 am

Your note is so good, and Like it.keep it up!.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation vs. Assignment: What's the Difference?

Key Differences

Comparison chart, participation, required skills, negotiation and assignment definitions, negotiation, are assignments always related to education, is negotiation always between two parties, what is negotiation in business, what does assignment mean in law, how important are communication skills in negotiation, can negotiation result in compromise, what happens if an assignment is not completed, what role does diplomacy play in negotiation, is an assignment always a solo task, what is an example of an assignment in a job, can an assignment be declined, what is an assignment brief, are assignments time-bound, can negotiation occur in personal situations, can an assignment be reassigned to someone else, is negotiation a skill, how does culture impact negotiation, how is an assignment evaluated, what is a negotiation strategy, are negotiations confidential.

Trending Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

New Comparisons

Negotiation vs. Assignment — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Negotiation and Assignment

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, skills required, legal implications, business impact, compare with definitions, negotiation, common curiosities, are there situations where assignments are not allowed, how does assignment differ from delegation, what is a common negotiation strategy, what legal documents are involved in an assignment, how can negotiation influence business relationships, can anyone perform an assignment of rights, can negotiation result in no agreement, what is the role of communication in negotiation, what types of rights can be assigned, how does assignment affect the original party, what is an example of a negotiation in international relations, is consent needed from the other party in an assignment, what are ethical considerations in negotiation, how do cultural differences impact negotiation, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is the Negotiation Process? 4 Steps

• 04 May 2023

Negotiation is part of daily life—whether buying a car, leasing property, aiming for higher compensation, raising capital for a startup, or making difficult decisions as an organizational leader.

“Enhancing your negotiation skills has an enormous payoff,” says Harvard Business School Professor Michael Wheeler in the online course Negotiation Mastery . “It allows you to reach agreements that might otherwise slip through your fingers. It allows you to expand the pie [and] create value, so you get more benefits from the agreements that you do reach. It also—in some cases—allows you to resolve small differences before they escalate into big conflicts.”

Here's an overview of the negotiation process’s four steps and how to gain the skills you need to negotiate successfully.

Access your free e-book today.

4 Steps of the Negotiation Process

1. Preparation

Before entering a negotiation, you need to prepare. There are several things to define, including your:

• Zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) : The range in which you and other parties can find common ground. To establish the ZOPA, think about your perspective and your counterpart’s. What do you each want and need? Where might you be willing to compromise?
• Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) : Your ideal course of action if an agreement isn’t possible. To determine your BATNA, consider alternatives that provide some of the value you aim to gain from the negotiation. In Negotiation Mastery , Wheeler gives the example that if you can't negotiate down a new car’s price, your BATNA may be to have your old car repaired.
• Walkaway: The line where ending negotiations is better than making a bad deal. Use your BATNA to determine your walkaway. At what point would the BATNA provide more value than a possible negotiated outcome? That’s your walkaway.
• Stretch goal: The best-case scenario for the negotiation’s outcome. It’s critical to give the negotiation a potential ceiling to gauge offers. In Negotiation Mastery, Wheeler recommends choosing a scenario that’s unlikely but not impossible; something that has a 10 percent chance of occurring.

Preparing in advance can improve your confidence, give you clear goals to work toward, and provide a strategy to base your approach on.

2. Bargaining

The second step, bargaining, is what most often comes to mind when thinking about negotiation. Yet, before discussions even begin, there are three levers that determine how the bargaining stage will play out:

• Engaging (the “who”): How do you engage with each other? Is this a friendly conversation, or do you fall into enemy territory?
• Framing (the “what”): How do you define the negotiation? For instance, is it a battle, partnership, or problem to be solved together?
• Norming (the “how”): How do you relate to one another? What behaviors are established that characterize the negotiation?

You typically define these levers in a negotiation’s first few minutes simultaneously. You negotiate the “who,” “what,” and “how” implicitly as the broader negotiation happens explicitly.

How do you and other parties enter the room? Do you greet each other warmly and make small talk, or is there immediate tension? How do you first mention the negotiation? What norms do you imply during the conversation?

Through these levers, you can establish the negotiation’s tone, which is vital as you head into it with someone who may greatly differ from you.

Your counterpart may have different preferences, expectations, risk tolerance, and time horizons. The bargaining stage is about creating value for both you and other parties despite your differences. It requires finding the ZOPA and working within that space to claim the value needed to make the negotiation worthwhile.

“There’s a fundamental tension between creating and claiming value,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “Negotiation isn’t one or the other—it’s both at the same time.”

Related: 7 Negotiation Tactics That Actually Work

The third step in the negotiation process is closing—either coming to an agreement or ending the negotiation without reaching one.

How a negotiation closes depends on each party’s walkaway, BATNA, and ZOPA. It also relies on how you use engaging, framing, and norming to create a relationship with the other parties.

If you can’t reach a solution in the ZOPA, perhaps one or more parties decide to go for their BATNA instead. If you and the other parties create and claim value, you may strike a deal.

4. Learning from Your Experience

The final step of the negotiation process is possible to overlook but critical to your ongoing growth: Reflect on your experience. What went well? What went poorly, and why? How do you feel about the outcome?

No two negotiations are the same. The foundational elements can vary (such as the scenarios and people involved), as well as the finer details (for instance, people’s demeanors, emotions , walkaways, and BATNAs).

Reflecting on the process enables you to get to know yourself better as a negotiator and integrate your learnings into your next negotiation.

What Skills Do You Need for Successful Negotiation?

Even after learning about the negotiation process, negotiations can still feel intimidating. To gain confidence, it can help to understand the skills that great negotiators possess .

The best negotiators are strong communicators with high emotional intelligence . Developing your skills in those areas can help you form connections with counterparts and communicate goals. They can also enable you to craft a strategy and remain agile as a negotiation progresses.

“Great negotiators have keen analytical skills,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “They assess the matter at hand and craft strategy that best fits those particular circumstances. They know that with negotiation strategy, one size doesn’t fit all.”

Finally, you must create value. As Wheeler puts it in the course: You know how to “expand the pie” rather than argue for a bigger slice—creating value for everyone involved while still achieving your goals.

To learn more about the skills needed for successful negotiation, check out the video below and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

How to Become a Better Negotiator

Familiarizing yourself with the negotiation process and what each step entails can demystify it and help you feel more comfortable.

The best way to improve your negotiation skills is through practice. This can take place in real life through interactions like determining a lease’s terms or asking for your desired salary in job interviews.

If you’d prefer to practice in a supportive learning environment, consider enrolling in an online negotiation course featuring virtual simulations.

In Negotiation Mastery , Wheeler leads you through negotiation practice by pairing you with other learners for mock negotiations. He then debriefs each scenario so you can reflect on it and integrate the insights into future negotiations.

Through thoughtful preparation and dedicated practice, you can strengthen your skills and create value in any negotiation.

Do you want to deepen your understanding of negotiation dynamics? Explore our eight-week online course Negotiation Mastery , one of our online leadership and management certificate programs . Not sure which course is right for you? Download our free flowchart .

About the Author

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Negotiation?

How negotiations work.

• Where They Take Place

The Bottom Line

• Business Essentials

Negotiation: Definition, Stages, Skills, and Strategies

Investopedia / Ellen Lindner

The term negotiation refers to a strategic discussion intended to resolve an issue in a way that both parties find acceptable. Negotiations involve give and take, which means one or both parties will usually need to make some concessions.

Negotiation can take place between buyers and sellers, employers and prospective employees, two or more governments, and other parties. Here is how negotiation works and advice for negotiating successfully.

Key Takeaways

• Negotiation is a strategic discussion between two parties to resolve an issue in a way that both find acceptable.
• Negotiations can take place between buyers and sellers, employers and prospective employees, or the governments of two or more countries, among others.
• Successful negotiation usually involves compromises on the part of one or all parties.

Negotiations involve two or more parties who come together to reach some end goal that is agreeable to all those involved. One party will put its position forward, while the other will either accept the conditions presented or counter with its own position. The process continues until both parties agree to a resolution or negotiations break off without one.

Experienced negotiators will often try to learn as much as possible about the other party's position before a negotiation begins, including what the strengths and weaknesses of that position are, how to prepare to defend their positions, and any counter-arguments the other party will likely make.

The length of time it takes for negotiations to conclude depends on the circumstances. Negotiation can take as little as a few minutes, or, in more complex cases, much longer. For example, a buyer and seller may negotiate for minutes or hours for the sale of a car. But the governments of two or more countries may take months or years to negotiate the terms of a major trade deal.

Some negotiations require the use of a skilled negotiator such as a professional advocate, a real estate agent or broker, or an attorney.

Examples of Negotiations

Negotiating can take place between individuals, businesses, governments, and in any other situation where two parties have competing interests. Here are two everyday examples:

Say you plan to buy a new SUV but don't want to pay the full manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP). In that case, you might offer what you consider a fair price. The dealer can accept your offer or counter with another price figure. If you have good negotiating skills, you may be able to drive the price down to a level where you're happy and the dealer is still able to walk away with a profit, albeit a slimmer one.

Or, suppose you've been offered a new job but don't consider the salary sufficient. An employer's first compensation offer is often not its best possible offer, so it may have some room to negotiate. In fact, a 2016 survey by the CareerBuilder website found that 73% of employers were open to negotiating a starting salary with job seekers. And if higher pay isn't a possibility, the employer may be willing to offer something additional, such as more vacation time or better benefits.

In both of these examples—as in most successful negotiations—both parties have made compromises, while also achieving their principal goals.

A 2022 study by Fidelity Investments found that while 58% of workers had accepted their employer's initial offer, 85% of those who attempted to negotiate got at least some of what they asked for.

The Stages of the Negotiation Process

Regardless of what you're negotiating over or with whom, negotiation usually involves several distinct steps.

Preparation

Before negotiations begin, there are a few questions it helps to ask yourself. Those include:

• What do you hope to gain, ideally?
• What are your realistic expectations?
• What compromises are you willing to make?
• What happens if you don't reach your end goal?

Preparation can also include finding out as much as you can about the other party and their likely point of view. In the case of the SUV negotiation above, you could probably find out how much room the dealer has to bargain by looking up actual sales prices for that vehicle online.

Also, marshal any facts that will help you make a persuasive case. If you're negotiating for a new job or a raise at work, for instance, come armed with concrete examples of your accomplishments, including hard numbers if possible. Consider bringing testimonials from satisfied clients and/or coworkers if that will buttress your case.

Many experienced negotiators consider preparation to be the single most important step in the entire process.

Exchanging Information

Once you're prepped for the negotiation, you're ready to sit down with the other party. If they're smart, they have probably prepared themselves, as well. This is the point at which both sides will present their initial positions in terms of what they want and are willing to give in return.

Being able to clearly articulate your wishes is critical to the negotiation process. You may not get everything on your wish list, but the other party, if they want to reach a deal, will have a better idea of what it might take to make that happen. You will have a better idea of their position, and where they might be willing to bend, as well.

Now that both parties have laid out their case, you're ready to start bargaining.

An important key to this step is to hear the other party out and refrain from being dismissive or argumentative. Successful negotiating involves a little give and take on both sides, and an adversarial relationship is likely to be less effective than a collegial one.

Also bear in mind that a negotiation can take time, so try not to rush the process or allow yourself to be rushed.

Closing the Deal

Once both parties are satisfied with the results, it's time to end the negotiations. The next step may be in the form of a verbal agreement or written contract. The latter is usually a better idea as it clearly outlines the position of each party and can be enforced if one party doesn't live up to their end of the bargain.

Tips for Successful Negotiating

Some people may be born negotiators, but many of us are not. Here are a few tips that can help.

• Justify Your Position. Don't just walk into negotiations without being able to back up your position. Bring information to show that you've done your research and you're committed to reaching a deal.
• Put Yourself in Their Shoes. Remember that the other side has things it wants out of the deal, too. What can you offer that will help them reach their goal (or most of it) without giving away more than you want to or can afford to?
• Keep Your Emotions in Check. It's easy to get caught up in the moment and be swayed by your personal feelings, especially ones like anger and frustration. But don't let your emotions cause you to lose sight of your goal.
• Know When to Walk Away. Before you begin the negotiating process, it's a good idea to know what you'll accept as a bare minimum and when you'd rather walk away from the table than continue to bargain. There is no use trying to reach a deal if both sides are hopelessly dug in. Even if you don't want to end negotiations entirely, pausing them can give everyone involved a chance to regroup and possibly return to the table with a fresh perspective.

What Makes a Good Negotiator?

Some of the key skills of a good negotiator are the ability to listen, to think under pressure, to clearly articulate their point of view, and to be willing to compromise, within reason.

What Is ZOPA?

ZOPA is an acronym from the business world. It stands for zone of possible agreement . ZOPA is a way of visualizing where the positions of the parties to a negotiation overlap. It is within that zone that compromises can be reached.

What Is BATNA?

BATNA is another acronym from the world of business, meaning best alternative to a negotiated agreement . It refers to the next course of action a negotiator may take if a negotiation fails to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Veteran negotiators often go into a negotiation knowing what their likely BATNA would be, just in case.

Negotiating is essential part of day-to-life, the business world, and international affairs. Regardless of what you're negotiating, being a successful negotiator means knowing what you want, trying to understand the other party's (or parties') position, and compromising if necessary. A successful negotiation leaves everyone satisfied that they have gotten a deal they can live with.

CareerBuilder. " 73% of Employers Would Negotiate Salary, 55% of Workers Don't Ask ."

Fidelity Investments. " 2022 Career Assessment Study ," Page 3.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 9 min read

Negotiation Overview

A quick guide to negotiating.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Negotiation is a skill that everyone develops from an extremely young age, and everyone is a skilled negotiator by the time they can talk. On a business level, negotiation is often a highly complex and sophisticated process. Unfortunately, many people get stuck in a particular way of thinking about how to negotiate, limiting their efficiency and capabilities. Negotiation is a key business skill that needs to be developed through training and practice.

What Is Negotiation?

Negotiation is, at its simplest, a discussion intended to produce an agreement. It is the process of bargaining between two or more interests. [1]

The primary goal of negotiation should be to achieve a mutually acceptable deal, which accomplishes the objectives of the negotiation, without making the other party walk away or damaging a valuable relationship. This often requires substantial preparation, informed negotiation, compromise, and flexibility, depending on the situation. Some of the business situations which might require negotiation skills include:

• determining the details of a new commercial contract
• agreeing pay between management and a trades union
• bringing in new working practices
• changing employees' contractual arrangements
• arranging funding from a governing body
• agreeing next year's budgets
• working out the details of a major new project with colleagues
• agreeing objectives with team members

Stages of Negotiation

Most negotiations can be broken down into six main stages:

1. Preparation

Achieving objectives in the negotiation will be much easier if negotiators are fully prepared. A successful negotiator will ensure that they:

• are fully briefed on the subject matter of the negotiation
• are clear about their objectives and what they are trying to achieve
• have worked out their tactics and how best to put their case

2. Initial Exchanges

At the beginning of the negotiation, both parties will be sizing each other up. Both will be trying to find out and understand the other's position and requirements. The atmosphere in which the negotiation will be conducted should begin to form, and issues that need to be resolved later will emerge. At this stage it is probably wise to encourage the other side to say as much as possible, to listen a lot and not reveal too much too soon.

In this phase the negotiation begins to get serious, as both parties start to put forward their own offers of what they want to get out of the negotiation. During this stage, a number of different things will be happening:

• both sides will be searching for common ground, which could form the basis of an agreement
• both sides will be exploring possible areas of compromise, where ground could be conceded if necessary
• sticking points or objections, which will need to be resolved later, will begin to emerge

4. Bargaining

This is often the crunch-point of the negotiation, as the parties start to trade and exchange in the search for an agreement. Both parties will be aware of the limits they have set themselves on each of the negotiable issues, and therefore which issues they can concede and which they need to hold out for. This is the point at which the difficult issues will need to be resolved and is consequently a vulnerable point at which the negotiation could break down. There are many tools and techniques (such as BATNA and game theory ) that have been developed to determine bargaining positions when negotiating.

5. Securing Agreement

As the two parties arrive at their final positions, the negotiation could still break down. There are two common reasons for such a failure:

• potential loss of face in coming to a sensible compromise solution
• the last-minute introduction of a completely new set of conditions

In either of these situations, a final, small, unrelated concession, as a gesture of goodwill, may be necessary to secure the agreement. In order to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion to the negotiation, care needs to be taken to ensure that:

• the best time to bring the negotiation to a conclusion is chosen
• a 'final' proposal is put forward only if it is really meant and if the reasons why no further movement is available are justified
• the final agreement is comprehensive, unambiguous and clearly understood by each party

6. Implementation

A deal is only successful if it is workable. A successful negotiator is one who has a sound track record of successfully implementing the agreement that has been reached. The implementation plan will need to incorporate the following:

• a comprehensive list of necessary activities
• timescales or deadlines for each of the activities
• a clear understanding of who will be responsible for carrying out each action
• the resources and information that will be necessary to carry out the activities
• who else needs to be involved or informed
• arrangements for coordination and monitoring
• how to review the implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of the negotiated solution
• who should be informed of this outcome

Negotiation Styles

While successful negotiators tend to do many of the same things, they often go about it in different ways. This is because there are a number of different negotiation styles. The style a negotiator adopts will depend upon many things, including:

• their knowledge of the subject matter which is under negotiation
• their personality
• what they know of the other party, and how much they trust them
• whether it is a one-to-one or a team negotiation
• the national or regional culture of the individual(s) involved
• the type of negotiation and its level of importance
• how much time is available for the process to take place
• whether the negotiation is a 'one-off' or one in a regular series of events

A simple, but effective, classification of negotiators is whether they are task-oriented or people-oriented . The former will pursue their objectives relentlessly, will be tough, aware of tactical ploys and have little concern about the effect they have on others. The latter, on the other hand, are highly concerned about the wellbeing of others, which can mean they are more likely to understand the emotional aspects of the negotiation and build rapport. However, negotiators who favor the people-oriented approach can put insufficient emphasis on business goals, making them a 'soft touch' for negotiators who favor the task-oriented approach. In reality though, it is not quite so simple: there are a number of intermediate points in between the two extremes. Bill Scott has identified three main styles of negotiator: [2]

• The fighter: highly task oriented and likely to go flat out to achieve objectives
• The collaborator: attempts to get everything into the open, is prepared to confront issues and be innovative in order to make a deal.
• The compromiser: tends to make significant use of compromise in order to settle deals.

The significance of negotiation styles is threefold:

• To be successful we must recognize the negotiating style of the other party and work out what impact this is likely to have on us.
• We must work out what our own natural negotiating style is and whether the combination of the two styles can lead to problems.
• We should decide how we could adjust our own negotiating style, if necessary, in order to cope with, and succeed in, the situation with which we will be faced.

Negotiation Tools and Techniques

Many tools and techniques have been developed to determine bargaining positions when negotiating. One of these advises negotiators to work out three negotiating positions in advance:

• Ideal: the best possible outcome
• Realistic: what they expect to achieve
• Fallback: minimum what they will accept.

This strategy, also known as BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) was developed by Fisher and Ury as part of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School. [3] Negotiators should also estimate what they think the negotiating positions of the other party will be. If there are overlapping areas, bargaining and agreement may be possible. For example, a car buyer would ideally like to pay £3,600 for a new car but, realistically, expects to have to pay £3,800, and as a fallback will pay no more than £4,000. The car salesperson will also have equivalent ideal, realistic and fallback positions:

As the diagram shows, there is a small degree of negotiating space between the two parties in this situation. The price where the two parties will find their compromise, if one is to be reached, is between £3,900 and £4,000. One of the major developments for 20th century negotiation was that of game theory. Game theory is strategic interaction between two or more players, who make decisions and negotiate while trying to anticipate the others' actions and reactions. [4] Techniques such as game theory, or the use of asymmetric information , give a trained negotiator an edge over someone relying on general life experience. [5] Game theory has become a useful negotiation tool for mapping out potential scenarios and assessing the options that both the parties face.

Qualities of a Successful Negotiator

Successful negotiations require an atmosphere of calm, reasonable discussion. This can often be difficult, as negotiations which have taken a significant amount of time and energy to prepare for, can easily become emotionally charged events. Key to thriving in these situations is the ability to distinguish between the issues involved in the negotiation, and the relationship with the other party. Discussing issues as a matter of mutual, legitimate concern can diffuse emotional aspects of a negotiation, and produce a stronger long-term relationship between the two parties. Negotiating to solve problems helps participants move away from an adversarial approach, aiding the search for a solution through co-operative work.

That is not to say that there is no place for playing the negotiation with specific techniques to gain an advantage (the other party is most likely doing the same), but these must be carefully considered, and the circumstances judged perfectly in order to avoid permanently damaging a relationship.

Pragmatism is an essential quality for a negotiator, with good, objective judgment required at all times. The negotiator needs to be able to judge precisely when to make concessions, when to play hardball, or when to back away from a deal. Negotiating formally is a skill that needs to be developed through training and practice. Individuals may well have been informally negotiating for their whole lives, but there are aspects of a formal negotiation, mentioned above, which need time, preparation and thought to master.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negotiation (February 2009).

[2] Bill Scott, The Skills of Negotiating (Jaico Publishing House, 2005).

[3] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In , 2nd Ed (Penguin Putnam, 2008).

[4] In the 1950s, work on game theory really began to gather steam, specifically the work by John Nash , proving the existence of an equilibrium (the Nash Equilibrium), for non-co-operative games, and mathematician Albert Tucker , who developed the example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma . This model was an example of a non-zero-sum game i.e. a game that allows for collaboration, as opposed to a zero-sum game, a win-lose situation, in which a gain for one party means an equal loss for the other.

[5] Asymmetric information exchange occurs when one of the parties involved in a negotiation has more information concerning the process than the other party.

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Team Management

Learn the key aspects of managing a team, from building and developing your team, to working with different types of teams, and troubleshooting common problems.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

ADHD in the Workplace

Team Briefings

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Swot analysis.

Understanding Your Business, Informing Your Strategy

How to Build a Strong Culture in a Distributed Team

Establishing trust, accountability and work-life balance

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Head or heart - how personality affects problem-solving.

This Article Looks at How Personality Preferences Affect the Problem-Solving Process

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills

What is Negotiation?

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Negotiation in Action
• Transactional Analysis
• Avoiding Misunderstandings in Negotiations
• Peer Negotiation
• Negotiating Within Your Job
• Negotiation and Persuasion in Personal Relationships
• Negotiation Across Cultures
• Persuasion and Influencing Skills
• Developing Persuasion Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute.

In any disagreement, individuals understandably aim to achieve the best possible outcome for their position (or perhaps an organisation they represent). However, the principles of fairness, seeking mutual benefit and maintaining a relationship are the keys to a successful outcome.

Specific forms of negotiation are used in many situations: international affairs, the legal system, government, industrial disputes or domestic relationships as examples. However, general negotiation skills can be learned and applied in a wide range of activities. Negotiation skills can be of great benefit in resolving any differences that arise between you and others.

Stages of Negotiation

In order to achieve a desirable outcome, it may be useful to follow a structured approach to negotiation. For example, in a work situation a meeting may need to be arranged in which all parties involved can come together.

The process of negotiation includes the following stages:

• Preparation
• Clarification of goals
• Negotiate towards a Win-Win outcome
• Implementation of a course of action

1. Preparation

Before any negotiation takes place, a decision needs to be taken as to when and where a meeting will take place to discuss the problem and who will attend. Setting a limited time-scale can also be helpful to prevent the disagreement continuing.

This stage involves ensuring all the pertinent facts of the situation are known in order to clarify your own position. In the work example above, this would include knowing the ‘rules’ of your organisation, to whom help is given, when help is not felt appropriate and the grounds for such refusals. Your organisation may well have policies to which you can refer in preparation for the negotiation.

Undertaking preparation before discussing the disagreement will help to avoid further conflict and unnecessarily wasting time during the meeting.

2. Discussion

During this stage, individuals or members of each side put forward the case as they see it, i.e. their understanding of the situation. 

Key skills during this stage include questioning , listening and clarifying .

Sometimes it is helpful to take notes during the discussion stage to record all points put forward in case there is need for further clarification.  It is extremely important to listen, as when disagreement takes place it is easy to make the mistake of saying too much and listening too little.  Each side should have an equal opportunity to present their case.

3. Clarifying Goals

From the discussion, the goals, interests and viewpoints of both sides of the disagreement need to be clarified.

It is helpful to list these factors in order of priority.  Through this clarification it is often possible to identify or establish some common ground. Clarification is an essential part of the negotiation process, without it misunderstandings are likely to occur which may cause problems and barriers to reaching a beneficial outcome.

4. Negotiate Towards a Win-Win Outcome

This stage focuses on what is termed a 'win-win' outcome where both sides feel they have gained something positive through the process of negotiation and both sides feel their point of view has been taken into consideration.

A win-win outcome is usually the best result. Although this may not always be possible, through negotiation, it should be the ultimate goal.

Suggestions of alternative strategies and compromises need to be considered at this point.  Compromises are often positive alternatives which can often achieve greater benefit for all concerned compared to holding to the original positions.

5. Agreement

Agreement can be achieved once understanding of both sides’ viewpoints and interests have been considered.

It is essential to for everybody involved to keep an open mind in order to achieve an acceptable solution.  Any agreement needs to be made perfectly clear so that both sides know what has been decided.

6. Implementing a Course of Action

From the agreement, a course of action has to be implemented to carry through the decision.

See our pages: Strategic Thinking and Action Planning for more information.

Failure to Agree

If the process of negotiation breaks down and agreement cannot be reached, then re-scheduling a further meeting is called for. This avoids all parties becoming embroiled in heated discussion or argument, which not only wastes time but can also damage future relationships.

At the subsequent meeting, the stages of negotiation should be repeated.  Any new ideas or interests should be taken into account and the situation looked at afresh.  At this stage it may also be helpful to look at other alternative solutions and/or bring in another person to mediate.

See our page on Mediation Skills for more information.

Informal Negotiation

There are times when there is a need to negotiate more informally.  At such times, when a difference of opinion arises, it might not be possible or appropriate to go through the stages set out above in a formal manner.

Nevertheless, remembering the key points in the stages of formal negotiation may be very helpful in a variety of informal situations.

In any negotiation, the following three elements are important and likely to affect the ultimate outcome of the negotiation:

Interpersonal Skills

All negotiation is strongly influenced by underlying attitudes to the process itself, for example attitudes to the issues and personalities involved in the particular case or attitudes linked to personal needs for recognition.

Always be aware that:

• Negotiation is not an arena for the realisation of individual achievements.
• There can be resentment of the need to negotiate by those in authority.
• Certain features of negotiation may influence a person’s behaviour, for example some people may become defensive.

The more knowledge you possess of the issues in question, the greater your participation in the process of negotiation. In other words, good preparation is essential.

Do your homework and gather as much information about the issues as you can.

Furthermore, the way issues are negotiated must be understood as negotiating will require different methods in different situations.

Good interpersonal skills are essential for effective negotiations, both in formal situations and in less formal or one-to-one negotiations.

These skills include:

Effective verbal communication. See our pages: Verbal Communication and Effective Speaking .

Listening. See our pages on Active Listening and Tips for Effective Listening .

Reducing misunderstandings is a key part of effective negotiation. See our pages: Reflection , Clarification and The Ladder of Inference for more information.

Rapport Building. Build stronger working relationships based on mutual respect. See our pages: Building Rapport and How to be Polite .

Problem Solving. See our section on effective Problem Solving .

Decision Making. Learn some simple techniques to help you make better decisions, see our section: Decision Making .

Assertiveness. Assertiveness is an essential skill for successful negotiation. See our page: Assertiveness Techniques for more information.

Dealing with Difficult Situations. See our page: Communicating in Difficult Situations for some tips and advice to make difficult communications, easier.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

Conflict Resolution and Mediation

Learn more about how to effectively resolve conflict and mediate personal relationships at home, at work and socially.

Our eBooks are ideal for anyone who wants to learn about or develop their interpersonal skills and are full of easy-to-follow, practical information.

Continue to: Negotiation in Action Negotiating Within Your Job

See also: Transactional Analysis Assertiveness Peer Negotiation Skills

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What’s Your Negotiation Strategy?

• Jonathan Hughes
• Danny Ertel

Many people don’t tackle negotiations in a proactive way; instead, they simply react to moves the other side makes. While that approach may work in a lot of instances, complex deals demand a much more strategic approach.

The best negotiators look beyond their immediate counterparts to see if other constituencies have a stake in the deal’s outcome or value to contribute; rethink the scope and timing of talks; and search for connections across multiple deals. They also get creative about the process and framing of negotiations, ditching the binary thinking that can lock negotiators into unproductive zero-sum postures.

Applying such strategic techniques will allow dealmakers to find novel sources of leverage, realize bigger opportunities, and achieve outcomes that maximize value for both sides.

Here’s how to avoid reactive dealmaking

Idea in Brief

The challenge.

Negotiators often mainly react to the other side’s moves. But for complex deals, a proactive approach is needed.

The Strategy

Strategic negotiators look beyond their immediate counterpart for stakeholders who can influence the deal. They intentionally control the scope and timing of talks, search for novel sources of leverage, and seek connections across multiple deals.

Tactical negotiating can lock parties into a zero-sum posture, in which the goal is to capture as much value from the other side as possible. Well-thought-out strategies suppress the urge to react to moves or to take preemptive action based on fears about the other side’s intentions. They lead to deals that maximize value for both sides.

When we advise our clients on negotiations, we often ask them how they intend to formulate a negotiation strategy. Most reply that they’ll do some planning before engaging with their counterparts—for instance, by identifying each side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) or by researching the other party’s key interests. But beyond that, they feel limited in how well they can prepare. What we hear most often is “It depends on what the other side does.”

• JH Jonathan Hughes is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.
• Danny Ertel is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global consultancy specializing in strategic partnerships and complex negotiations.

Partner Center

Negotiation vs. Assignment: Know the Difference

Key Differences

Comparison Chart

Nature of process, involvement of parties, common contexts, success factors, negotiation and assignment definitions, negotiation, repeatedly asked queries, what is the primary goal of negotiation, can an assignment be revoked, is an assignment legally binding, what skills are essential for successful negotiation, are negotiations confidential, how important is communication in negotiation, is consent needed for an assignment, does negotiation always involve compromise, can anyone be given an assignment, does an assignment require acceptance by the assignee, what happens if an assignment is not completed, can negotiation occur in personal contexts, can an assignment be conditional, what are common obstacles in negotiation, who can make an assignment, can a third party be involved in an assignment, how is success measured in negotiation, how does culture impact negotiation, what is the difference between negotiation and debate, what legal considerations apply to an assignment, share this page.

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

Featured Comparisons

New Comparisons

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Negotiation and bargaining.

• Wolfgang Steinel Wolfgang Steinel Leiden University, Department of Psychology
•  and  Fieke Harinck Fieke Harinck Leiden University, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.253
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve.

There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate.

Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation.

Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

• negotiation
• negotiation style
• multiparty negotiations
• motivated information processing

Bargaining and negotiation, the “back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2012 , p. xxv), are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2021 ).

Negotiation and bargaining are common terms for discussions aimed at reaching agreement in interdependent situations, that is, in situations where parties need each other in order to reach their goals. While both terms are often used interchangeably, Lewicki et al. ( 2021 ) distinguish between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation. Distributive refers to situations where a fixed amount of a resource (e.g., money or time) is divided, so that one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. In such win–lose situations, like haggling over the price of a bicycle, bargainers usually take a competitive approach, trying to maximize their outcomes. Integrative refers to situations where the goals and objectives of both parties are not mutually exclusive or connected in a win–lose fashion. In such more complex situations that usually involve several issues (rather than the distribution of only one resource), interdependent parties try to find mutually acceptable solutions and may even search for win–win solutions, that is, they cooperate to create a better deal for both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

The distinction between bargaining and negotiation reflects the research tradition, where bargaining has largely been investigated from an economic perspective, focusing on the dilemma between immediate self-interest and benefit to a larger collective. Negotiation has mostly been investigated from the perspective of social psychology, organizational behavior, management, and communication science and has mainly focused on the effect on, and behavior and cognition of people in richer social situations.

Research Paradigms

Negotiation research has applied various paradigms. Game-theoretic approaches, such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma and related matrix games, in which simultaneous choices together influence two parties’ outcomes, explore how people handle the conflict between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests (see Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013 , for a review). A paradigm to investigate behavior in purely distributive settings is the Ultimatum Bargaining Game (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982 ). It models the end phase of a negotiation: one player offers a division of a certain resource (e.g., €100 split 50–50), and the other player can either accept, in which case the offer is carried out, or reject, in which case both players get nothing. Studies in ultimatum bargaining have consistently shown that even in distributive one-shot interactions, bargainers not only try and maximize their own outcomes, but are also driven by other-regarding preference, can reject unfair offers (Güth & Kocher, 2014 ), are concerned about being and appearing fair (Van Dijk, De Cremer, & Handgraaf, 2004 ), and are affected by their own and a counterpart’s emotions (Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef, 2012 ).

While ultimatum bargaining is a context-free simulation of a distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation has predominantly been studied in richer contexts that simulate real-life decision-making. Research has largely relied on negotiation simulations to identify and analyze participants’ behaviors and measured economic outcomes (Thompson, 1990 ). Field studies on negotiation behavior have been conducted to a much smaller extent (Sharma, Bottom, & Elfenbein, 2013 ).

The remainder of this article will first describe the strategy and planning for negotiations, and the behavior and outcomes of negotiations. It will then cover research on factors that affect behavior and outcome in integrative negotiation, starting with intrapersonal factors, such as cognitions and emotions. Then aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, culture, and group constellations will be covered, before moving on to aspects of the situational context, such as time, communication media, and conflict issues, and concluding with some emerging lines of research.

Negotiation Preparation and Goals

The goal of negotiations.

The goal of negotiations may be deal-making or dispute resolution. Before entering the actual negotiation, well-prepared negotiators define the goals they want to achieve and the key issues they need to address in order to achieve these goals (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Deal-making (e.g., a student selling his bike) involves two or more parties who have some common goals (e.g., transferring ownership of the bike from the seller to the buyer) and some incompatible goals (receiving a high price vs. paying a low price), and try and negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo (the seller keeping the bike) or any alternative agreements with third parties (e.g., selling the bike to someone else or buying a different bike). Negotiation with the aim of dispute resolution (e.g., a student complaining about the noise a flatmate makes) occurs when parties who are dependent on each other (e.g., because they share a flat) realize that they are blocking each other’s goal attainment (preparing for an exam vs. listening to punk rock) and negotiate what can be done to solve the problem.

Preparing for Negotiations

Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets, and limits, and to prepare an opening offer (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Figure 1 shows the key points in the example of a student selling his bike to another student. The target point is the point at which each negotiator aspires to reach a settlement. For example, the seller hopes to sell his bike for €280, and the buyer hopes to buy it for €190. By making opening offers beyond their targets, negotiators create leeway for concessions while pursuing their goal. In the bike example, the seller has prepared an opening offer (e.g., an asking price) of €320, while the buyer planned to start the negotiation by offering to pay €150. Well-prepared negotiators define their limits before entering a negotiation by setting a resistance point, that is, the price below which a settlement is not acceptable (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). If, for example, the seller would accept any price above €200 and the buyer is willing to pay up to €280, it is likely that they settle on a price somewhere in this range. This zone between the two parties’ resistance points is called zone of potential agreements (ZOPA; Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1. Overview of Key Points in Negotiation Preparation (Example).

Well-prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reaching a deal in the upcoming negotiation, in particular of their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA; Fisher et al., 2012 ). As the quality of a negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement, and thus their dependency on their counterpart, attractive BATNAs increase a negotiator’s power.

Deal-making and dispute resolution differ in the way parties are dependent on each other: in deal-making, both parties can have independent alternatives that they can unilaterally decide to turn to instead of reaching a deal (the buyer may find a different seller, and the seller might find another potential buyer). Disputes that occur between parties who share a common fate, like flatmates, parents of a child, co-owners of a company, or different ethnic or religious groups living on the same territory, can only be solved by the parties working together. The alternative to not solving a dispute for both disputants therefore is conflict escalation (e.g., sabotaging the stereo installation), a victory for one (and a grudge for the other) or a stalemate in which neither party is willing to abandon their position. These alternatives usually do not last or they damage the relationship between the parties.

Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes

Negotiation is communication. Parties communicate either directly, or through agents, and exchange offers and counteroffers, usually alongside arguments, questions, proposals, cooperative statements, commitments, threats, and so on. How people behave in negotiations is influenced by their preferred negotiation style. The Dual Concern Model (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ) describes how two types of concerns jointly determine negotiation styles. These two concerns, which can both range in intensity from low (i.e., indifference) to high, are the concern about a party’s own outcome and the concern about the other’s outcome, as displayed in Figure 2 . Importantly, the model does not postulate concern about a party’s own interests (also called concern for self or self-interest) and concern about the other’s outcomes (also called concern for other or cooperativeness) as opposite ends of one scale, but rather as two dimensions that can vary independently.

Figure 2. Dual-Concern Model.

Parties with a low concern for self and for other will probably be avoiding negotiations, leaving the other party without an agreement. Parties with a high concern for self and a low concern for other are likely to use forcing behaviors, while aiming to achieve the own goals by imposing a solution onto the other. Forcing (also called contending), like using threats or other forms of pressure, is detrimental to the relationship with the other party, and can lead parties into a conflict spiral, especially when they are similarly powerful (Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Parties with a low concern for self and a high concern for other are likely to engage in yielding . Yielding (also called accommodating), like making large concessions or accepting the other party’s demands, is often the strategy of parties who feel weaker than their counterpart or have a strong need for harmony. This can lead into a dynamic of exploitation. It is less effective when negotiating important issues, since yielding on important issues will leave the yielding party dissatisfied with the outcome. Parties with an intermediate concern about both parties’ outcomes are likely to use compromising , a “meet-in-the-middle” approach often considered a democratic and fair way of solving conflicts between mutually exclusive goals. Parties who compromise, however, might settle for a simple solution and overlook more creative solutions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ).

The negotiation styles displayed in Figure 2 , on the diagonal from yielding via compromising to forcing, entail distributive behavior. Distributive behavior aims to distribute the value of a deal in a win–lose fashion—one’s losses are the other’s gains. These are the behavior that bargainers engage in during positional bargaining—each side takes a position, argues for it, and might make concessions in order to move toward a compromise (Fisher et al., 2012 ). The negotiation style problem-solving, which is located beyond this distributive diagonal, aims at reaching win–win agreements. Instead of focusing on their positions, parties with a high concern for self and for other may focus on their interests. Interests are the underlying causes or reasons why negotiators take a certain position (Fisher et al., 2012 ). Engaging in integrative problem-solving behavior, negotiators try to find solutions that integrate both parties’ interests and are thus better for both parties than a simple compromise would be (see the article “ Conflict Management ” for a more elaborate description of the dual concern model).

Differentiation before Integration

Negotiations often follow a differentiation-before-integration pattern in which negotiating parties start with distributive, forcing behavior, such as threatening the other party or fiercely arguing for their own interests. Only after realizing that this competitive behavior does not bring them any closer to an agreement, for example because the other party does the same, they tend to switch to more integrative negotiation and become willing to look for mutually satisfactory agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Olekalns & Smith, 2005 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). In lab studies, such switches from competitive to cooperative negotiation often occur after temporary impasses (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 )—moments in a negotiation in which parties take a time-out before having reached an agreement. In field studies, such switches have been described as “ripe moments” (Zartman, 1991 ) or “turning points” (Druckman, 2001 ; Druckman & Olekalns, 2011 ).

Outcomes of Negotiations

Outcomes of negotiations are either an impasse when no agreement is reached or an agreement that can be either distributive (win–lose) or integrative (win–win). Outcomes can be measured as objective or economic outcomes—such as money or points—and as subjective outcomes—such as satisfaction with the outcome or process and willingness to interact in the future (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009 ). Distributive agreements are those that divide some fixed resources between parties in a win–lose way—one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. An example would be a situation in which a buyer and seller are negotiating only about the price of a bike. Win–lose does not necessarily imply victory of one party over the other—a simple compromise (50–50) where parties meet in the middle of their initial demands is an example of a distributive agreement as well. Distributive negotiation styles are likely to lead to impasses when parties match their forcing behavior, or to distributive agreements when one party yields to the forcing of the other or when both decide to compromise and “meet in the middle.”

Integrative agreements are those that divide an expanded set of resources and thereby increase the benefit for both negotiators. Contrary to distributive bargaining, which is dominated by value-claiming strategies, integrative negotiation offers the possibility to create value, that is, to find solutions that improve the outcomes to both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). A key activity in integrative negotiation is to generate alternative solutions to the problem at hand. One way to generate alternative solutions is by adding resources and negotiating about more than initially planned, thereby making a deal more attractive to both parties. Figuratively, negotiators expand the pie before they divide it. For example, the seller of a bicycle might add a good bicycle lock that he does not need any more, thereby making a better deal selling his bike and lock, while the buyer gets a good lock for his new bike and in total pays less than he would have paid if he had to buy a new lock in a shop.

Another way to generate alternative solutions is by discussing multiple issues rather than single issues, and by determining which issues are more and less important. For example, the seller of the bicycle might be a returning exchange student who cannot take the bike to his home country, but he needs to use it until the final days of his stay. By negotiating the price and delivery date, buyer and seller may integrate the seller’s preference for a late delivery with the buyer’s preference for a lower price. Integrative negotiation styles can lead to integrative agreements; if negotiators trust each other, exchange information, and gain an accurate understanding of their preferences and priorities, they might detect common interests (Rubin et al., 1994 ) and mutually beneficial trade-offs across topics that vary in importance (Ritov & Moran, 2008 ), so-called logrolling (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). Parties can also reach integrative agreements through an implicit way of exchanging information, for example by proposing multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs; Leonardelli, Gu, McRuer, Medvec, & Galinsky, 2019 ) and letting the other side choose which offers they prefer. For example, knowing that a rental bike would cost €50 a week, the seller may propose two equally attractive offers—selling the bike immediately for €300, or selling it in one week for €250. The prospective buyer, provided he has little urgency, might choose the latter option, thereby creating value from the different priorities that the two parties have.

An important ability of negotiators is perspective-taking, the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011 ). Perspective-taking helps negotiators detect logrolling opportunities and thereby exploit the integrative potential of a negotiation situation (Trötschel et al., 2011 ).

Cognitions (how people think about a situation) influence negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Cognitions have been the focus of the behavioral decision perspective on negotiations that was dominant in the 1980s and 1990s (for an overview, see Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000 ). Two of the most prominent biases are fixed-pie perceptions and anchoring.

Fixed-Pie Perception

A fixed-pie perception is the common assumption that the interests of the parties are diametrically opposed such that “my gain is your loss” (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). This idea is related to the view that negotiation is a purely distributive contest in dividing a fixed amount of resources in which the winner claims a larger share than the loser. When both parties have a fixed-pie perception, they are unlikely to notice that their priorities may differ and might overlook profitable opportunities for a mutually beneficial exchange of concessions (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”).

Anchoring is the tendency to rely on a first number when making a judgment. For example, the interested buyer might offer a higher price if, immediately before negotiating the price of the second-hand bike, he saw an ad for a bike costing €1,500, than if he saw a bike offered for €100. The offer made for the second-hand bike is thus influenced (anchored) by prior information. This bias is related to the first-offer effect. In negotiations, the first offer functions as an anchor point at which the negotiation starts and a negotiation agreement is often in favor of the first party that proposes a concrete number (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Loschelder, Trötschel, Swaab, Friese, & Galinsky, 2016 ).

Emotions (how people feel about a situation) and the expression thereof have a profound influence on negotiation processes and outcomes. The effects of emotions on the negotiation process can be intrapersonal—a person’s mood or emotion influences his or her own behavior. These effects can also be interpersonal—one person who expresses his or her emotions affects another person’s behavior (Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008 ).

Intrapersonal Effects of Emotions

The intrapersonal effects of emotions are straightforward. Negotiators who are in a bad mood, or who feel angry or disappointed, are more likely to engage in forcing behavior and less likely to accommodate the other party. On the other hand, negotiators who are in a good mood or feel happy are more likely to be lenient negotiation partners who are willing to make a deal (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997 ; Friedman et al., 2004 ; Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006 ; Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2010 ; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004 ).

Interpersonal Effects of Emotions

The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations are summarized by the Emotions-As-Social-Information Model (Van Kleef, 2009 ), which proposes that a negotiator’s emotions affect the behavior of their counterparts via two distinct processes. Emotions trigger inferential processes and affective reactions in the targets of those emotions. The inferential process means that emotions give information about the aspirations of a party—an angry reaction of a counterpart on a proposal signals that the counterpart has set ambitious limits. As a result, an angry reaction by party A often triggers a yielding response by party B, in order to satisfy party A and reach an agreement (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). A happy reaction by party A, on the other hand, might indicate the proposal is near target point of party A, and party B may conclude that no further concessions are required in order to reach an agreement.

Emotions might also trigger an affective reaction in the receiver; an expression of anger of party A is likely to engender an angry reaction by party B in return, whereas a more happy reaction will trigger a happier response. In general, the interpersonal effect of anger is exemplified by the finding that negotiators who express anger will get a yielding response from their counterpart, but only when the other party is willing and able to take the emotions of the angry party into account (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). On the other hand, an expression of happiness is met with a more competitive or less yielding response. Expressing anger in negotiations can backfire, however (Van Kleef et al., 2008 ). Anger directed at the person, rather than at a proposal, is likely to lead to retaliation rather than concessions (Steinel, Van Kleef, & Harinck, 2008 ), and the same effect occurs for angry expressions in value-laden conflict (Harinck & Van Kleef, 2012 ); people may overtly concede to a counterpart who expresses anger, but they might subsequently retaliate covertly (Wang, Northcraft, & Van Kleef, 2012 ). Similarly, expressing anger helps powerful negotiators who may receive a conciliatory response, but harms powerless parties, who are more likely to receive an angry, non-conciliatory response (Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010 ; Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest, 2008 ). Also, fake expressions of anger aimed at trying to get the other party to concede are more likely to lead to intransigence rather than to conciliatory behavior in the receiving party, due to reduced trust (Campagna, Mislin, Kong, & Bottom, 2016 ; Côté, Hideg, & Van Kleef, 2013 ).

The cognitions and emotions of negotiation parties show that negotiators are humans; they think, make mistakes, and feel. In fact, for many people negotiations can be quite stressful due to either their thoughts or their feelings about the negotiation. The next section, “ Gender ,” will address situational characteristics that influence negotiation processes, behaviors, and outcomes, focusing on three major situational factors—the gender composition of the negotiating dyad, the power positions of the dyad members, and the cultural environment in which negotiations take place.

Gender differences can arise in negotiation, showing a general advantage for male negotiators over female negotiators. These differences tend to disappear, however, when negotiators are more experienced, when the range of potential agreements is known, or when they negotiate for someone else (Mazei et al., 2015 ). Gender differences in negotiation can largely be explained by stereotypical thinking. The stereotypical ideas of an effective negotiator—strong, dominant, assertive, and rational—tend to align with stereotypical male characteristics, whereas the stereotypical ideas about an ineffective negotiator—weak, submissive, accommodating, and emotional—tend to align with stereotypical female characteristics, suggesting that male negotiators are more effective than female negotiators (Bowles, 2012 ; Kray & Thompson, 2005 ).

These stereotypical ideas can play a role in negotiations when negotiators use them to figure out how to behave and when they want to predict how the other party is likely to behave (Bowles, 2012 ; Mazei et al., 2015 ). In general, male negotiators are expected to be competitive, whereas female negotiators are expected to be more cooperative. For example, people are likely to make lower offers to women than to men and expect women to be more easily satisfied with the offers they receive (Ayres & Siegelman, 1995 ; Kray, Locke, & Van Zant, 2012 ; Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999 ).

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is an important cause for the lower negotiation outcomes achieved by female than by male negotiators (Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002 ; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001 ). People experience a stereotype threat when they feel their performance is evaluated on a task in a domain for which they are aware of negative stereotypes about their group’s abilities (Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011 ). For example, female participants who are evaluated on a math test or in a negotiation might experience stereotype threat, due to the stereotypical belief that women are bad at math or in negotiation. Under conditions in which the stereotype threat is neutralized by presenting the negotiation as a learning tool rather than as an assessment tool, or when female characteristics are linked to negotiation success, gender differences diminish or disappear (Kray et al., 2001 , 2002 ). Gender differences also disappear when people negotiate on behalf of another person or party (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010 ). In that situation, the female stereotypes of caring for others and the negotiation aim align, and male and female negotiators perform equally well.

Stereotype Reactance

Several remedies mitigate this potential disadvantage for female negotiators. First, awareness of stereotype threat can reduce its effects by stereotype reactance . In a study using typical math tests, gender differences disappeared when the test was presented as a problem-solving task rather than a math test, and also when participants received additional information explaining how stereotype threat can interfere with women’s performance on a math test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005 ). As such, informing female negotiators that a negotiation might trigger a stereotype threat that might interfere with their performance can help neutralize the stereotype threat and its effects.

Backlash is the negative reaction that female negotiators face when they engage in gender-incongruent competitive negotiation behavior (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ). Women can prevent expectancy violations and thus minimize the likelihood of backlash by giving external attributions for competitive behaviors (anticipatory excuses or justifications, such as “my mentor advised me to . . .” or “my association has released a salary survey, and my salary seems to be below average . . .”) or by stressing gender-normative behavior, like using inclusive language (“I am sure we can find a mutually satisfactory agreement”), or influence tactics that indicate warmth and caring (“can you help me to . . .”; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ).

Finally, gender differences tend to diminish when clear instructions to negotiate signal that behaving competitively is not counter-normative. At the individual level, for instance, gender differences disappear when people need to negotiate on behalf of others, a case in point when negotiating is something that a person is supposed to do (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005 ). At a higher level, organizations could, for example, be more transparent about what can or cannot be negotiated, the so-called zones of negotiability (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ), specifying what terms of employment are open for discussion (Bowles, 2012 ). The bottom line seems to be that normalizing negotiations and negotiating behavior will diminish gender differences.

A general definition of power is the ability to control one’s own and others’ resources and outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ). In negotiation, power is negatively related to dependency: the more powerful party needs the negotiation to a lesser extent than the less powerful party in order to achieve certain outcomes or to satisfy certain needs. Based upon this idea, power in negotiation research is most often operationalized by giving parties a good or a bad BATNA (Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000 ; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 , as described in the section “ Negotiation Preparation and Goals ”). A good BATNA can be a good alternative offer by another party (Magee et al., 2007 ), the existence of an alternative negotiation party (Giebels et al., 2000 ), or the existence of several alternative negotiation parties (Mannix & Neale, 1993 ). A good BATNA leads to more power in the negotiation; negotiators with a good BATNA are less dependent on the negotiation because they can opt for the alternative to reach a beneficial outcome. Other manipulations of power are role instructions (e.g., boss vs. employee; De Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004 ), a power priming writing task (Magee et al., 2007 ), or knowledge about the BATNA (Wong & Howard, 2017 ).

Ample research shows that equal power between negotiation parties—with both parties having comparable BATNAs—generally leads to more integrative agreements than unequal power between negotiation parties (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 ). Other research, however, shows that parties who differ in power achieve better collective outcomes (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994 ; Wei & Luo, 2012 ). Depending on circumstances, both power equality and power differences can be harmful. Power equality decreases performance if it leads to power struggles (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010 ), while power differences decrease performance when power disparity is not aligned with task competence (Tarakci, Greer, & Groenen, 2016 ), or when individualistically motivated power holders exploit weaker counterparts (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Van Tol & Steinel, 2020 ). Furthermore, it seems that it is not the asymmetrical BATNA situation per se, but the knowledge about BATNA asymmetry that drives the lower joint outcomes in unequal power situations. By knowing the power advantage, the more the powerful negotiator tends to focus on value claiming, which leads to more judgment errors about the other party, impeding their information sharing and in the end resulting in lower joint outcomes (Wong & Howard, 2017 ). These findings are supported by earlier research showing that the party who feels or is most powerful in the negotiation, is also more likely to engage in or initiate negotiations, make the first offer (leading to more favorable outcomes for that party), and claim a larger share of the outcomes (Magee et al., 2007 ; Pinkley et al., 1994 ).

Interestingly, having no BATNA seems to be more beneficial than having a weak BATNA, because weak BATNAs may function as anchors, influencing negotiators to make less ambitious first offers than those negotiators who have no BATNA at all, who in turn are not influenced by this kind of low anchor and feel more free to make a relatively high first offer (Schaerer, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015 ).

Culture is the unique character of a social group (Brett, 2000 ), including cultural values about what is important and cultural norms about how to behave (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2000 , 2018 ; Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995 ). Negotiation research concerning culture can be distinguished as intra cultural negotiation research or inter cultural negotiation research (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Gunia, Brett, & Gelfand, 2016 ; Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zhang, 2012 ). Intracultural research focuses on negotiations between parties from the same culture, and compares negotiations within one culture to negotiations within another culture—a comparison of French–French negotiations versus U.S.–U.S. negotiations, for example. Intercultural negotiation research focuses on negotiations between parties from different cultures, such as French–U.S. negotiations. Although culture can be defined as the unique character of a social group, most negotiation research concerning culture focuses on different nationalities rather than on specific social groups within or between nations.

Studies on the effects of culture on negotiation allow general assumptions on how specific cultural backgrounds affect negotiators’ behavior. However, not everybody adheres to their cultural characteristics to the same extent, and variations within cultures are large, therefore predictions about individual negotiators require caution (Brett, 2000 ).

Cultural differences in how people exchange information and how they deal with power are relevant for negotiation processes and outcomes (Hofstede, 2011 ; Torelli & Shavitt, 2010 ). Most intra- and intercultural negotiation research focuses on differences concerning information exchange and/or influence and power tactics (Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ). Information can be shared directly by giving or asking information about preferences and priorities, as in the United States, or indirectly, by proposals and counterproposals, as in Asian countries. The reactions to proposals and the proposals themselves can also give information about a party’s preferences and priorities (Brett, 2000 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ). Both types of information sharing can lead to integrative outcomes.

Research has mainly compared Western (mostly Northern American negotiators) to East Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese or Japanese negotiators; Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ; Tinsley, 1998 ; Tinsley & Pillutla, 1998 ). These cultures differ on several dimensions, with the United States being more individualist, low context, and egalitarian, and East Asian cultures generally being more collectivistic, high context, and hierarchical (Adair et al., 2004 ). These cultural differences have several consequences. For example, negotiators from low-context cultures in which communication is explicit and direct are more likely to use direct rather than indirect information sharing. Also, parties from more egalitarian cultures might pay less attention to power or status differences between the negotiating parties than counterparts from more hierarchical societies. Higher-status negotiators from these societies may interpret this as a lack of respect and react by using their power or competitive strategies.

From the 2010s, the cultural logic approach (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ) has been introduced into the field of negotiations (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2018 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ; Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2015 ). This approach distinguishes three different cultures: dignity, honor, and face cultures. In dignity cultures every person has an equal amount of inherent worth that does not depend on the opinions of others. Most Western societies are dignity cultures. In honor cultures, on the other hand, a person’s worth depends on the extent to which the person adheres to the honor code in that person’s own eyes and in the eyes of others. Honor cultures exist in the Middle East and in the southern United States. And finally, in face cultures there are stable hierarchies and people have face as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations accompanying their position in the hierarchy. Face cultures are found in East Asia (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ). The first results using this categorization show that, in intracultural negotiations, parties in dignity cultures use more (direct) information sharing and less competitive influencing behaviors compared to honor and face cultures. Also, dignity cultures are more likely to reach win–win agreements, and to reach a more equal division of outcomes between the parties compared to honor and face cultures (Aslani et al., 2016 ).

Figure 3 displays a model of intercultural negotiation (Brett, 2000 ). It posits that cultural values influence parties’ interests, preferences, and priorities. As such, different cultural values can determine the integrative potential in the negotiation and whether and where profitable trade-offs are possible. On the other hand, cultural norms influence parties’ negotiation behaviors and strategies, so combinations of different cultures can lead to specific interactional patterns. Both the existence of different preferences and priorities and the interaction pattern influence the final outcomes of the intercultural negotiation. Cultural intelligence, defined as a person’s capability to successfully adapt to new cultural settings, has been shown to increase a negotiator’s effectiveness in intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010 ).

Figure 3. How Culture Affects Negotiation.

Negotiations within and between Groups

Much of the empirical laboratory research into negotiation processes and outcome has investigated a basic situation in which two parties, both representing their own interests, negotiate with each other. Some studies have investigated situations that are more socially complex, for example with the conflict being between groups rather than individuals (i.e., intergroup negotiation), sometimes with individuals representing their constituent group (i.e., representative negotiation) or with several negotiators representing each side (i.e., team negotiation), or with negotiations involving more than two parties (i.e., multiparty negotiation). Some 21st-century studies have shed light on the increased social and procedural complexities in these negotiation settings.

Intergroup Negotiations

Intergroup negotiations are typically conducted by representatives (Walton & McKersie, 1965 )—negotiators who represent the group, pursuing not just their own personal interests but also the interests of their constituents. Representatives often negotiate more competitively than people who negotiate on their own behalf, as they tend to think that their constituency favors a competitive approach (Benton & Druckman, 1974 ). The extent to which representatives stick to the group norm (or what they think the groups wants) depends on their need to secure group membership. Representatives who occupy marginal positions in attractive groups seek to demonstrate their belongingness to the group, and they therefore behave more competitively toward an opposing player than representatives who hold central positions in their group (Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Moffitt, 2007 ). Similarly, representatives with an insecure position in their group follow the group norm more strictly—the more so the higher their dispositional need to belong to the group (Steinel et al., 2010 ). Group norms, however, are not always clear. Constituencies may consist of different individuals—some are hawks, preferring a competitive stance toward the opposing group, while others are doves, favoring cooperation with the opponents. The attention-grabbing power of hawkish messages renders even a minority of hawks in a constituency more influential than doves (Aaldering & De Dreu, 2012 ; Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2008 ). Another way for constituencies to influence group negotiations is by selecting their representative, a choice that groups make depending on the purpose of the negotiation. When negotiations are identity-related (e.g., about moral issues), groups favor representatives who represent their group norms, or are more extreme than their own group, and as distant as possible from the opposing group. When negotiation are instrumental (i.e., when attaining a favorable outcome is central), however, groups prefer negotiators who deviate from the group norms in a way that brings them closer to the norms that the opposing group holds (Teixeira, Demoulin, & Yzerbyt, 2010 ).

Multiparty Negotiations

Multiparty negotiations differ from interactions between two negotiators in several respects. As every party brings goals, interests, and strategies to the negotiation table, group negotiations are more demanding on information-processing capacities (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ). Furthermore, team negotiations differ from dyadic negotiations, because they occur in a social environment similar to group decision-making, characterized by increased social complexity. Group dynamics depend largely on the goals that individual group members pursue—does everyone try to maximize their individual outcomes, or does the group strive to maximize collective outcomes? Groups which pursue a common goal reach more integrative agreements because they trust each other more and exchange more information than teams of people who pursue their individual goals (Weingart, Bennett, & Brett, 1993 ). Finally, the increased number of negotiators results in procedural and strategic complexity. A way to deal with these complexities is by installing decision rules that specify how to transform individual judgments into a group judgment. Under unanimity rule, every group member can use their veto power to make sure that their interests are recognized in an agreement. Under majority rule, however, team members whose interests are aligned can form a coalition and neglect the needs of minority members with opposed preferences, which is particularly likely and harmful to the collective outcome when group members pursue their individual goals rather than pursuing a collective goal (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ).

Team Negotiation

Team negotiation becomes increasingly complex when team members have different preferences and priorities on some of the conflict issues. Subgroup formation can occur and reduce the groups’ ability to implement beneficial trade-offs, if groups in team negotiations are not unitary teams where all members share the same preferences, but instead some team members have preferences that align better with the preferences of (some members of) the opposing group (Halevy, 2008 ). Subgroup conflict can also have positive effects, as it challenges fixed-pie perceptions and thus increases team members’ motivation to form an accurate understanding of the situation (Halevy, 2008 ).

Motivated Information Processing

Social motives.

Several of the studies mentioned in the section “ Multiparty Negotiations ” relate to one of the strongest determinants of negotiation processes and outcome— social motives (e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 , De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008 ; Weingart et al., 1993 ). Social motives are preferences for certain distributions of value between oneself and others, which can be rooted in a person’s character (social value orientations; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997 ) or engendered externally. A bonus system based on individual performance, for example, would give rise to individualistic motivation, while a bonus system that rewards the collective performance of a work team would spur more prosocial motivation. Pro-self negotiators aim to maximize their individual outcomes and tend to see negotiations as competitive interactions in which power and individual success are important. Prosocial negotiators, on the other hand, strive for equality and high collective gains, and tend to see negotiation as a cooperative endeavor in which fairness and morality are central (De Dreu et al., 2008 ).

Epistemic Motivation

The Motivated Information-Processing in Groups Model (De Dreu et al., 2008 ) states that win–win agreements are more likely when negotiators are prosocially motivated, because this leads to more trust, information exchange, and problem-solving behavior. Importantly, apart from a prosocial motivation, integrative agreements also require a high epistemic motivation , that is, the desire to form an accurate understanding of the situation. Negotiators with a high epistemic motivation make use of the information they exchange and find options to create value, for example by exchanging mutually beneficial concessions. Negotiators with a low epistemic motivation make suboptimal compromises instead. Epistemic motivation is fostered, for example, when negotiators are process accountable—the need to explain or justify their behavior motivates them to think carefully. Epistemic motivation is reduced, for example, when time pressure makes people prefer rules of thumb and other mental shortcuts over a careful appraisal of the available information.

Time Pressure

Time pressure can be beneficial and detrimental to negotiation performance. On the one hand, time pressure impairs negotiators’ decision-making, because it reduces epistemic motivation and leads to shallow information processing (De Dreu et al., 2008 ). Time pressure may also lead to impasses, when negotiators have insufficient time to craft mutually acceptable or even beneficial agreements. On the other hand, time pressure may also motivate negotiators to reach a deal quickly, increase their willingness to make concessions, help overcome positional bargaining, and increase negotiation efficiency (Moore, 2004 ).

Time pressure can be the result of time costs or of deadlines. Time costs are the costs of delaying an agreement, for example legal costs in a dispute or loss of income before a joint venture is agreed upon. Having higher time costs than one’s opponent (e.g., having a more expensive lawyer than the other party) is a weakness in negotiations, as the party with high time costs is more dependent on settling the conflict quickly, while the party with low time costs can afford to extend the negotiations and wait for the counterpart to concede.

Many negotiators misunderstand the implication of unilateral deadlines on the power balance between negotiators and see deadlines as a weakness, too: negotiators who have a deadline that their opponent is not aware of tend to keep this deadline secret, being afraid that they would otherwise reveal their weakness. Negotiators who learn about a counterpart’s deadline often try and stall the negotiation in an attempt to receive concessions. Unlike time costs, however, the deadline that one party has is a mutual constraint to both parties—if no deal is made before the deadline, both parties fall back on their BATNA. If both negotiators understand that a deadline is a mutual constraint, the time pressure resulting from the deadline can be beneficial, as negotiators need to work efficiently toward a deal (Moore, 2004 ).

Communication Media

As negotiating through e-mail or videoconferencing is becoming more and more common, the question of how communication media, and in particular the richness and synchrony of communication channels, affect negotiation processes and outcomes is key. The communication orientation model (Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012 ) posits that the benefit of richer channels (i.e., those that offer sight and sound, as compared to only text, and synchronicity of communication rather than a delayed back-and-forth messaging) depends on the negotiators’ orientation to cooperate or not, such that richer channels increase the achievement of high-quality outcomes for negotiators with a neutral orientation. The richness of channels matters less for negotiators with a cooperative orientation. For negotiators with a non-cooperative orientation richer communication channels can even be detrimental.

An important side note to our knowledge of the effects of communication media in negotiation, however, is that technology has been changing rapidly since 2010 —with the invention of forward-facing cameras on smartphones and applications like Skype, negotiators nowadays are much more familiar with videoconferencing than the participants of earlier studies, on which most of our knowledge is based. It is reasonable to assume that the utility of any communication medium depends on the familiarity and comfort of the user (Parlamis & Geiger, 2015 ).

Conflict Issues

An important moderator of negotiation processes and conflict management is the conflict issue—what the conflict is about. Research on conflict issues generally distinguishes between resource-based conflict and value-based conflict (Druckman, Broome, & Korper, 1988 ; Druckman, Rozelle, & Zechmeister, 1977 ; Harinck & Ellemers, 2014 ; Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000 ; Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). Resource-based conflict concerns conflict about scarce resources such as time, money, or territory. Value-based conflict concerns conflict about norms, values, and personal opinions, such as political preferences or rules of behavioral conduct—what is morally good or bad, and what is (un)acceptable behavior? Although other types of conflict can be distinguished, such as power struggles, status conflict, or informational conflict (who is right concerning a factual issue?), most conflict issue research has focused on the two large categories of resource-based and value-based conflict.

Conflict issue matters for negotiators’ behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and perceptions, and for the outcomes negotiators achieve. For negotiation behaviors and outcomes, it is shown that value-based conflicts are harder to solve via negotiation and often lead to less than optimal agreements than resource-based conflicts (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). While scarce resources can be divided by the give and take of traditional negotiation, people hesitate to give in on one topic in order to gain on another topic when the conflict concerns values. For example, pro-environmentalists are not going to agree on oil drilling in Alaska in exchange for a boycott on oil drilling in a Navajo reserve. Those “taboo trade-offs”—trading off values either against other values, or for money, such as selling a child—raise moral outrage, and are considered unacceptable (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000 ).

In several studies, negotiations between participants assuming the role of attorneys were framed as value-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves justice) or resource-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves the personal position of the attorney). In resource-based conflicts, as compared to value-based conflicts, more trade-offs between topics (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”) occurred and led to better negotiation agreements, including win–win agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ). Different types of conflict have been found to affect the degree of negotiators’ satisfaction with integrative agreements. In resource-based conflict, negotiators were more satisfied with win–win agreements obtained by trade-offs than with objectively worse 50–50 compromises. In value conflicts, however, negotiators were more satisfied with the 50–50 compromises than with the win–win agreements that entailed trade-offs. In value-based negotiation, people seem to prefer compromise agreements in which both parties have to give in rather than an objectively better agreement that would include a value trade-off (Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ).

The conflict patterns differ between resource- and value-based negotiations as well. In resource-based negotiations, parties often start with a strong fixed-pie perception (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ) and a concomitant competitive stance. After a while, when they realize that they might need to negotiate with the other party in order to reach any agreement at all, they become more flexible and less competitive and start making concessions. In value-based negotiations on the other hand, people initially expect other people to share their ideas. Once they realize the other party does not, they expect opposition and perceive less common ground than people in resource-based negotiations (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ), which results in a less cooperative approach. It matters whether negotiation situations are framed as resource- or value-based conflicts, because negotiators perceive less common ground between themselves and the other party, and consider agreements less likely in the value-based conflicts compared to the (same-topic) resource conflicts. Moreover, personal involvement and feelings of being threatened are stronger in value-based than resource-based conflicts (Kouzakova, Ellemers, Harinck, & Scheepers, 2012 ; Kouzakova, Harinck, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2014 ).

Current Developments

Research in negotiation and bargaining is thriving not only in (social) psychology, but also in management and communication science and (experimental) economics, and is becoming interdisciplinary. Globalization and digitalization have connected people all over the world more than ever before. In order to handle conflict, solve urgent global problems (like climate change or migration), and create collaboration and business opportunities, our connected world requires an understanding of conflict within and across different cultures.

Interaction among Gender, Power, and Culture

More research into dignity, honor, and face cultures and into the interaction among power, gender, and culture is needed. Commendably, in the 2000s, more and more research investigating the interaction between gender, power, and culture has been conducted. Evidence has accumulated that gender differences can be power differences in disguise (Galinsky, 2018 ), power differences may play out very differently depending on the culture in which the negotiation takes place, and gender roles (including acceptable and unacceptable behaviors) may differ across cultures. There are some studies investigating combinations of power and gender (Hong & Van der Wijst, 2013 ; Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham, & Ben-Ari, 2015 ), power and culture (Kopelman, Hardin, Myers, & Tost, 2016 ), or gender and culture (Elgoibar, Munduate, Medina, & Euwema, 2014 ), but a more elaborate and systematic investigation of these combinations in intra- and intercultural negotiation research is needed in our currently increasingly diversifying societies, in which men and women from all over the world need to work, and thus negotiate, with each other.

Communication Processes

Other emerging topics of research relate to communication processes during conflict and negotiation, including silences (Jared Curhan, Yeri Cho, Teng Zhang, & Yu Yang, in Hart et al., 2019 ), or asking questions in negotiations, in particular the willingness to ask sensitive questions (Einav Hart & Eric VanEpps, in Hart et al., 2019 ) or the effect of deflecting direct questions. Deflecting a direct question that a person does not want to answer (“What did you earn in your latest job?”) with a counter-question (“Would you like to offer me a job then?”) has been found to be better for interpersonal and economic outcomes than refusing to answer the question or giving an evasive answer (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2020 ). The use of humor in negotiations is also under investigation. Humor can decrease the credibility of a person’s statements or disclosures, which has implications as to when a person should or should not use humor in negotiations (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Ethics and Deception

Ethical questions that arise in negotiation are mostly related to truth-telling and deception (Lewicki et al., 2021 ; Robinson, Lewicki & Donahue, 2000 ). Deception is the topic of a growing body of research. Earlier studies focused on the antecedents of deception and found that negotiators are more likely to deceive when stakes are high (Tenbrunsel, 1998 ), when they know that the other negotiator lacks information (Croson, Boles, & Murnighan, 2003 ), when they aim to maximize their individual rather than the collective gains (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997 ), when they expect their counterpart to be competitive rather than cooperative (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004 ), or when the counterpart is a stranger rather than a friend (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999 ) or angry rather than happy (Van Dijk et al., 2008 ). Research focus is shifting toward processes and consequences of various types of deception, such as informational or emotional deception, and, depending on whether the deception is detected, its consequences for the deceiver, the target, and third parties (Gaspar, Methasani, & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Neurobiological Processes

Neurobiological processes are also increasingly becoming a focus of research. Negotiation behavior and outcomes are influenced by hormones such as oxytocin (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2010 ) or cortisol (e.g., Akinola, Fridman, Mor, Morris, & Crum, 2016 ; De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ; Harinck, Kouzakova, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2018 ). Increased cortisol levels can be beneficial for outcomes in salary negotiation, but only when people experience their higher levels of arousal (due to higher levels of cortisol) as beneficial; otherwise, they are detrimental (Akinola et al., 2016 ). Other research has focused on brain activity (e.g., Weiland, Hewig, Hecht, Mussel, & Miltner, 2012 ) and other physiological activity such as pupil dilatation (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ). Until now, most of this research has been done in relatively content-free experimental game settings (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ), but gradually similar measurements are getting introduced in more naturalistic negotiation experiments (Akinola et al., 2016 ; Harinck et al., 2018 ).

Personality effects are making a comeback on the research agenda. As experiments have revealed little or no effects of various aspects of personality on negotiation behavior, “many authors have reached the conclusion that simple individual differences offer limited potential for predicting negotiation outcomes” (Bazerman et al., 2000 , p. 281). In 2013 , this widely held irrelevance consensus was challenged by a meta-analysis that revealed that personality traits did predict various negotiation outcome measures (Sharma et al., 2013 ). For example, cognitive ability predicts negotiation outcomes, and extraversion and agreeableness predict subjective outcomes. The effects of personality factors on negotiation behavior and outcomes are stronger in field settings than in laboratory experiments, as in the latter case behavioral options are restricted due to the strong demand characteristics of the situation and a focus on short-term economic outcomes in interactions between unacquainted experimental participants. Personality is more likely to affect behavior in negotiation situations that are not affected by the clearly defined norms common to laboratory studies, suggesting that the irrelevance consensus was a result of limited data (Sharma et al., 2013 ). More research into negotiation in naturalistic settings will help us understand how personality and situational factors interact to predict negotiation and bargaining behavior. Brett’s ( 2000 ) model, presented in Figure 3 , with the terms “culture” replaced by “personality,” could serve as guiding framework for this re-emerging line of research.

Negotiation and bargaining are thriving research areas. The increasing globalization and concomitant societal developments steer research into new directions of culture and gender, while at the same time technological developments enable researchers to investigate negotiation behavior and communication in more advanced and sophisticated ways. The findings and advice that result from this research will help people across the world to deal effectively with their differences and enable them to create solutions and agreements that are profitable for all parties involved.

Further Reading

• Galinsky, A. D. , & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend and foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both . New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
• Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world . New York, NY: Scribner.
• Malhotra, D. (2016). Negotiating the impossible: How to break deadlocks and resolve ugly conflicts (without money or muscle) . Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Aaldering, H. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 15 , 713–724.
• Adair, W. , Brett, J. , Lempereur, A. , Okumura, T. , Shikhirev, P. , Tinsley, C. , & Lytle, A. (2004). Culture and negotiation strategy . Negotiation Journal , 20 , 87–111.
• Akinola, M. , Fridman, I. , Mor, S. , Morris, M. W. , & Crum, A. J. (2016). Adaptive appraisals of anxiety moderate the association between cortisol reactivity and performance in salary negotiations . PLoS ONE , 11 (12), e0167977.
• Allred, K. G. , Mallozzi, J. S. , Matsui, F. , & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 70 , 175–187.
• Amanatullah, E. , & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 256–267.
• Aslani, S. , Ramirez-Marin, J. , Brett, J. , Yao, J. , Semnani-Azad, Z. , Zhang, Z. , & Adair, W. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 , 1178–1201.
• Ayres, I. , & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review , 85 , 304–321.
• Bazerman, M. H. , Curhan, J. R. , Moore, D. A. , & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation . Annual Review of Psychology , 51 , 279–314.
• Beersma, B. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 227–252.
• Benton, A. A. , & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 4 , 141–150.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 151 , 73–89.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2020). The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 118 (5), 945–990.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston, TX: Gulf.
• Bowles, H. R. (2012). Psychological perspectives on gender in negotiation . HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP12-046, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, MA.
• Bowles, H. R. , Babcock, L. , & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 951–965.
• Brett, J. (2000). Culture and negotiation . International Journal of Psychology , 35 , 97–104.
• Brett, J. (2018). Intercultural challenges in managing workplace conflict: A call for research . Cross Cultural & Strategic Management , 25 , 32–52.
• Brett, J. M. , & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 495–510.
• Campagna, R. L. , Mislin, A. A. , Kong, D. T. , & Bottom, W. P. (2016). Strategic consequences of emotional representation in negotiation: The blowback effect . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 605–624.
• Côté, S. , Hideg, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking anger in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 453–469.
• Croson, R. T. A. , Boles, T. L. , & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 51 , 143–159.
• Curhan, J. , Elfenbein, H. , & Kilduff, G. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 524–534.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Greer, L. L. , Handgraaf, M. J. J. , Shalvi, S. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Baas, M. , . . . Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans . Science , 328 , 1408–1411.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 42 , E116.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Nijstad, B. A. , & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 , 22–49.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (3), 303–319.
• Derks, B. , Scheepers, D. , Van Laar, C. , & Ellemers, N. (2011). The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 178–183.
• Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 45 , 519–544.
• Druckman, D. , Broome, B. J. , & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking? Journal of Conflict Resolution , 32 , 489–510.
• Druckman, D. , & Olekalns, M. (2011). Turning points in negotiation . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 4 , 1–7.
• Druckman, D. , Rozelle, R. , & Zechmeister, K. (1977). Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Two perspectives. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives (pp. 105–131). Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Elgoibar, P. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. J. , & Euwema, M. C. (2014). Do women accommodate more than men? Gender differences in perceived social support and negotiation behavior by Spanish and Dutch worker representatives . Sex Roles , 70 , 538–553.
• Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
• Friedman, R. A. , Brett, J. M. , Anderson, C. , Olekalns, M. , Goates, N. , & Lisco, C. C. (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 369–376.
• Galinsky, A. (2018). Are gender differences just power differences in disguise? . Ideas and Insights, Columbia Business School, March 13.
• Galinsky, A. D. , & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 657–669.
• Gaspar, J. P. , Mathasani, R. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations . Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81.
• Gelfand, M. , & Brett, J. (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
• Giebels, E. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 255–272.
• Greer, L. L. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 1032–1044.
• Gunia, B. C. , Brett, J. M. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2016). The science of culture and negotiation . Current Opinion in Psychology , 8 , 78–83.
• Güth, W. , & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 108 , 396–409.
• Güth, W. , Schmittberger, R. , & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 3 , 367–388.
• Halevy, N. (2008). Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 1687–1702.
• Harinck, F. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses . European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 595–611.
• Harinck, F. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 81 , 329–358.
• Harinck, F. , & Ellemers, N. (2014). How conflict issues change the nature of the conflict game. In C. K. W. De Dreu (Ed.), Social conflict within and between groups (pp. 19–36). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
• Harinck, F. , Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2018). Coping with conflict: Testosterone and cortisol changes in men dealing with disagreement about values vs. resources . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 11 , 265–277.
• Harinck, F. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations . British Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 741–752.
• Hart, E. , Chaudhry, S. J. , Curhan, J. R. , Greer, L. L. , Roberts, A. , Cho, Y. , . . . Zhang, T. (2019). Words will never hurt me? Managing conflict through communication . Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2019 (1).
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (1).
• Hong, A. P. C. I. , & Van der Wijst, P. J. (2013). Women in negotiation: Effects of gender and power on negotiation behavior . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 6 , 273–284.
• Imai, L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 83–98.
• Johns, M. , Schmader, T. , & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance . Psychological Science , 16 , 175–179.
• Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition . Psychological Review , 110 , 265–284.
• Kopelman, S. , Hardin, A. E. , Myers, C. G. , & Tost, L. P. (2016). Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 721–730.
• Kopelman, S. , Rosette, A. S. , & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative and neutral emotions in negotiations . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 99 , 81–101.
• Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , Harinck, F. , & Scheepers, D. (2012). The implications of value conflict: How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 798–807.
• Kouzakova, M. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2014). At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and motivational responses to moral conflicts and resource conflicts . Social Psychological and Personality Science , 5 , 35–42.
• Kray, L. J. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Thompson, L. L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 386–410.
• Kray, L. J. , Locke, C. C. , & Van Zant, A. B. (2012). Feminine charm an experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1343–1357.
• Kray, L. J. , & Thompson, L. L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research . Research in Organizational Behavior , 26 , 103–182.
• Kray, L. J. , Thompson, L. L. , & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 , 942–958.
• Kulik, C. , & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide . Journal of Management , 38 , 1387–1415.
• Lelieveld, G.-J. , Van Dijk, E. , Van Beest, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why anger and disappointment affect other’s bargaining behavior differently: The moderating role of power and the mediating role of reciprocal and complementary emotions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1209–1221.
• Leonardelli, G. J. , Gu, J. , McRuer, G. , Medvec, V. H. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 152 , 64–82.
• Leung, A. K. Y. , & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 , 507–526.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2021). Essentials of negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Liu, L. A. , Friedman, R. , Barry, B. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Zhang, Z. X. (2012). The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations . Administrative Science Quarterly , 57 , 269–304.
• Loschelder, D. D. , Trötschel, R. , Swaab, R. I. , Friese, M. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When moving first helps versus hurts negotiators . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 995–1012.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , Barsness, Z. I. , Tinsley, C. H. , & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior , Vol. 17 (pp. 167–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Magee, J. C. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate and moving first in competitive interactions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 , 200–212.
• Mannix, E. A. , & Neale, M. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 2 , 119–133.
• Mazei, J. , Hüffmeier, J. , Freund, P. , Stuhlmacher, A. , Bilke, L. , & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators . Psychological Bulletin , 141 , 85–104.
• Moore, D. A. (2004). The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (1), 121–127.
• Nelson, N. , Bronstein, I. , Shacham, R. , & Ben-Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 8 , 1–24.
• O’Connor, K. M. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A nasty but effective negotiation strategy: Misrepresentation of a common-value issue . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , 504–515.
• Olekalns, M. , & Smith, P. L. (2005). Moments in time: Metacognition, trust and outcomes in dyadic negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 , 1696–1707.
• Overbeck, J. R. , Neale, M. A. , & Govan, C. L. (2010). I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 126–139.
• Parlamis, J. D. , & Geiger, I. (2015). Mind the medium: A qualitative analysis of email negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 24 , 359–381.
• Pinkley, R. L. , Neale, M. A. , & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 57 (1), 97–116.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
• Ritov, I. , & Moran, S. (2008). Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: Reluctance to making integrative gambit offers . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 21 , 337–351.
• Robinson, R. J. , Lewicki, R. J. , & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 , 649–664.
• Rubin, J. , Pruitt, D. G. , & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Schaerer, M. , Swaab, R. I. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Anchors weigh more than power: Why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes . Psychological Science , 26 , 170–181.
• Schweitzer, M. E. , & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions . International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 225–248.
• Shafa, S. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Beersma, B. (2015). Regulating honor in the face of insults . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 47 , 158–174.
• Sharma, S. , Bottom, W. P. , & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis . Organizational Psychology Review , 3 , 293–336.
• Sinaceur, M. , & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 42 , 314–322.
• Solnick, S. J. , & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 79 , 199–215.
• Steinel, W. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision-making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 , 419–434.
• Steinel, W. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , Ouwehand, E. , & Ramirez-Marin, J. Y. (2008). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 109 , 67–78.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me ?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 362–369.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Knippenberg, D. , Hogg, M. A. , Homan, A. C. , & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 13 (6), 779–794.
• Stoeckli, P. L. , & Tanner, C. (2014). Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest- versus value-based issues on negotiator satisfaction . European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 202–208.
• Swaab, R. I. , Galinsky, A. D. , Medvec, V. , & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The Communication Orientation Model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 16 , 25–53.
• Tarakci, M. , Greer, L. L. , & Groenen, P. J. F. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 415–429.
• Teixeira, C. P. , Demoulin, S. , Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 228–234.
• Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 330–339.
• Tetlock, P. E. , Kristel, O. V. , Elson, B. , Green, M. , & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 853–870.
• Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues . Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 515–532.
• Thompson, L. , & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 47 , 98–123.
• Tinsley, C. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German and American cultures . Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 316–323.
• Tinsley, C. , & Pillutla, M. (1998). Negotiating in the United States and Hong Kong . Journal of Business Studies , 29 , 711–728.
• Torelli, C. J. , & Shavitt, S. (2010). The impact of power on information processing depends on cultural orientation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 959–967.
• Trötschel, R. , Hüffmeier, J. , Loschelder, D. D. , Schwartz, K. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 771–790.
• Van Dijk, E. , De Cremer, D. , & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 697–707.
• Van Dijk, E. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 600–614.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18 , 184–188.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation: Retaliation or spillover? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 753–760.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 510–528.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , Van Knippenberg, D. A. , Hogg, M. , & Moffitt, A. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour . British Journal of Social Psychology , 46 , 129–152.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Dijk, E. , Steinel, W. , Harinck, F. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future . Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 13–30.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Joireman, J. A. , Parks, C. D. , & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120 , 125–141.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Otten, W. , De Bruin, E. M. N. , & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 733–746.
• Van Tol, J. S. , & Steinel, W. (2020). Dictators in the Aloha Beach Club: The effect of asymmetric power dispersion and social motives on group negotiation . Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Wade-Benzoni, K. A. , Hoffman, A. J. , Thompson, L. L. , Moore, D. A. , Gillespie, J. J. , & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions . Academy of Management Review , 27 , 41–57.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Wang, L. , Northcraft, G. B. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 119 , 54–63.
• Wei, Q. , & Luo, X. (2012). The impact of power differential and social motivation on negotiation behavior and outcome . Public Personnel Management , 41 , 47–58.
• Weiland, S. , Hewig, J. , Hecht, H. , Mussel, P. , & Miltner, W. H. R. (2012). Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining . Social Neuroscience , 7 , 537–551.
• Weingart, L. R. , Bennett, R. I. , & Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 504–517.
• Wong, R. S. , & Howard, S. (2017). Blinded by power: Untangling mixed results regarding power and efficiency in negotiation . Group Decision Making , 26 , 215–245.
• Zartman, I. W. (1991). Regional conflict resolution. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation (pp. 302–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Related Articles

• Organizational Behavior
• Social Psychology and Language
• Group Decision-Making

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Prof. Mary Rowe

Departments

• Sloan School of Management

As Taught In

• Business Ethics
• Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management
• Communication

Learning Resource Types

Negotiation and conflict management, assignments.

Grades are based 50% on class work and 50% on writing: your Little Papers, the journal and Separate Pages. Please write in your confidential journal and write evaluations of your colleagues every week. I will read your papers, keep them confidential, and return the papers at the next class – no one else sees them.

Many of the documents that relate to these assignments can be found on the lecture notes page.

2 What Kind of Negotiator am I? Hand in your journal, which should include the following four assignments:

• The Class Notes reading assignment for today: Rowe, Mary. Options and Choice for Conflict Resolution in the Workplace , in Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain , by Lavinia Hall, ed., Sage Publications, Inc., 1993, pp. 105-119, ends with an “Exercise” which is your first self-assessment. Write about your conflict management preferences and those of people close to you.
• Score the Thomas-Kilmann Questionnaire – the second self-assessment. Please write about your scores in three areas of your life. Some people photocopy the questionnaire and the answer sheet for a Significant Other before filling it out, either to find out the self-analysis of the Other, or to see how the other person thinks you would answer it, or both.
• Write about the $2 game: How did you feel about the negotiation conditions, and the tactics you used or observed in the $2 game? Whose negotiating behavior particularly impressed or irritated you, and why?
• Turn in at least one Separate Page, about the negotiation behavior of someone in the class which you found particularly noteworthy on the first day.

There are pages on the study materials page with questions that may be useful in this analysis. The separate page should include the name of the person whose negotiation you are describing. You do not need to sign the page but if you want to write an anonymous page – and also wish me to give you credit for writing a great assessment – then put your name on it with a sticky note, and I will remove the note before giving the page to the person named. These pages will be sent to all of you after the end of the course. Previous classes have suggested that this feed-back is useful to the recipients of the pages. My first interest, however, is that you should be able to analyze and understand how others negotiate, and how various negotiations strategies and styles affect you.

Case this week: Stratego Aero I. (Please save your copy of the case)

For next week: Please find the Ethics and Machiavelli Questionnaires , and scoring sheets in the Class Notes, for the assignment due in Session 3. Pick up your part in Terry and Josephine at Navigational Systems . 3 Distributive and Mixed Motive Bargaining Hand in: Ethics and Machiavelli Little Paper #1 ( PDF )

The Ethics and Machiavelli Questionnaires are the third and fourth self-assessments of this class. You will find the Ethics and Machiavelli Questionnaires , and scoring sheets, in the Class Notes. If you wish, photocopy the questionnaires and give a copy to someone who knows you well, to fill out about you and return to you. NB: The Machiavelli Questionnaire is at best quaint and sexist, and there are no right answers. The point is to assess the extent to which you think or act in a way that others might think is “Machiavellian,” and to see if you believe that your thinking and behavior reflect your own values. Please feel free to (re) read The Prince , or recall anything you would like about Machiavelli, as you think about this. Alternatively, just deal with the image of “Machiavellianism” and whether you think it suits you.

Also – please write in your journal and, as usual, please write a separate page about the negotiation of someone in the class (journals are handed in during Session 6).

Case: Prepare your role in the Terry and Josephine case. If you can, prepare together with anyone who is playing the same role as you.

For Next Week: Pick up your roles for next week in the Hiring/Salary case ( Barrister ) and the Performance Evaluation case ( The Yearly Review ). Prepare with someone else with the same role if you can. 4 Integrative and Mixed Motive Bargaining This week there is a lot of reading, writing and case preparation but nothing to hand in.

Write: Write in your journal, (which is due in Session 6). As usual, please write a separate page about your observations of someone in the class?

Cases: Prepare your role in Barrister, Counselor, Solicitor and Avocat , and your role in The Yearly Review . Please prepare together with anyone who is playing the same role as you.

Pick up copies of the Aggressive Competitive Negotiator and Tax Books cases to prepare for next week. Choose a partner for next week – the negotiation next week will be two on two. 5 Competitive and Cooperative Styles and Do Gender or Culture Make a Difference? Write: Write in your journal, plus the “separate page” about the excellent (or otherwise remarkable) negotiation of a classmate.

Cases: Prepare the Tax Books case with a partner. NB: Please together choose a negotiating style and strategy and tactics that you and your partner will pursue – see the tactics sheet from Negotiation 101 (refer to the study materials section). Keep your plans secret from the other side, but please tell me in your journals how the planned choice of strategy, style and tactics influences (if at all) your negotiating, and the outcome of the case. See if you are able to figure out which strategy and style the other team adopted? In real life, can you recognize the strategy and style of others? ( negotiated two on two )

Please also prepare the Aggressive Competitive Negotiator with your partner. Come up with several suggestions about how you might deal with this ACN.

Pick up your role in Telemachus , for next week. Please prepare with someone who has the same role. 6 Negotiating in Context Hand in your journal – plus separate pages about people who have inspired you, or who have done something you find questionable, in class negotiations. The journal – covering classes and readings (and your life?) during the period of Session 2 up to today – is due today.

Case: Prepare Telemachus , (but not the Coalition case). Prepare together with anyone who is playing the same role as you in Telemachus . Please pay special attention to the question of choosing a strategy and style and planning your tactics – again please review the Tactics sheet from Negotiations 101 and review the possible roles Ury describes for a Thirdsider – two pages at the end of N101 (refer to the study materials section).

Next Week: Please do the reading for Session 7, before you write your Perceived Injurious Experience letter. Then read the instructions in the Class Notes on how to write a P.I.E. letter. This letter is your Little Paper #2, due in Session 7. You may turn this assignment in early if you wish to because you are taking a trip. Please try hard to follow the instructions even if you think they are too rigid. Holiday Week Optional Assignment: Enders Game , as suggested earlier and/or Joan Slonczewski’s A Door Into Ocean , Avon, 1986, science fiction, which presents a profoundly different view – from Enders Game – of sources of power in dealing with armed conflict. As with Enders Game , this book may interest you especially in the light of hostilities in many parts of the world. If you do read either or both books, please consider writing in your journal your responses to the questions I asked for Session 4, with respect to Enders Game. 7 Origins of Conflict – Dispute Prevention – Delegating Conflict Management to the Disputant Write: In your journal – and look for behavior in a classmate that will inspire a separate page.

**Hand in Little Paper #2: “Perceived Injurious Experience.” **

• Assignment Description for the PIE Letter ( PDF )
• Drafting – and Perhaps Sending – A Private Letter to a Person Who has Harassed or Offended You ( PDF )
• Joe and Josephine at Biochemix ( PDF )

Please try hard to follow the instructions, even if you think they are too rigid? 8 Your Employer’s Dispute Resolution and Complaint Handling System Write: In your journal and, if possible, a separate page. If you read or skimmed the MIT Guide to Dealing with Harassment consider writing a paragraph of critique or commentary. Read the questions posed for last week and answer them?

Preparing for Next Week: Read the instructions (in the Class Notes) for Little Paper #3, “Seeing Both Sides of a Dispute”, due on Session 9.

Pick up Stratego Aero II . Check to see that you still have Stratego Aero I . You will need both I and II to prepare for next week.

Before you leave class please arrange to prepare together with one or more people playing the same role as you in the mediation next week. Preparing for any important negotiation is probably the most important skill in negotiations. It is especially vital if you are going into a mediation in any role. You will find the Moore readings useful, so try to do the readings for next week before you meet with a colleague who has the same role. See also the Moore chart: Figure 2.1 from Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, 1996. Holiday Week Optional Assignment: Rent the video The Return of Martin Guerre . The question is, whom can you believe? Is it possible to tell if someone is lying? If so – how will you do it as a manager? If not – how will you manage? 9 Conciliation and Mediation Write: Write in your journal and – if possible – a separate page.

Hand in: Little Paper #3: Seeing Both Sides of a Dispute ( PDF )

Case: Prepare Stratego Aero II . To do so, you should have re-read Stratego Aero I as well as your Stratego II Secret Instructions. Prepare together with someone who is playing the same role as you and please prepare carefully. Otherwise you will mess up your colleagues’ role-playing, and they will write me fierce notes about requiring people to prepare better.

Pick up cases for next week. These cases are somewhat controversial. Can you find a classmate, or someone else quite different from you , to read the cases together with you, and help prepare for the class discussion?

Remember the double class (6 hours) next week with pizza. 10 Investigation, Arbitration and Exceptionally Difficult People (Double Class, 6 hours) Write: In your journal - and try for a separate page? By now you are totally exhausted with the semester, but the colleagues you write about will (probably) be grateful - and you need all the practice you can get in evaluating Others.

_The last journal (covering the period Session 6 through today) and separate pages, are due after this class, any time later this week. _ Class: Certified Public Accountants, Inc. (Theft); Discussion of Cases Distributed in Class (Drugs, Whistleblowers, and a Convicted Employee).

Cases: Please prepare to discuss the cases. If you possibly can, prepare by asking people outside the class – preferably ask someone who is not of your own background – what should happen in any of these cases. There is no role-play preparation. 11 More Negotiating with Difficult People Hand in: Your journal (covering the period since Session 6) and separate pages are due today if you did not send them in during this past week.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

What is Negotiation? A Quick Guide

Dive into the world of What is Negotiation? to gain a comprehensive understanding of this essential skill. Explore real-world examples of negotiations, discover the various types of negotiations, and unravel the stages that make up the negotiation process. Learn about the critical skills required for successful negotiation.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Effective Communication Skills
• Business Communication Course
• Contract Negotiation Training Course
• Dealing with Difficult People
• Sales Negotiation Training

From a business professional to a team leader, or even in personal relationships, understanding the art of Negotiation can empower you to navigate conflicts, influence others, and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. But do you know What is Negotiation? 

Negotiation is an exchange of dialogues involving different opinions between two individuals.It can also be referred to as a process of finding resolutions to disputes and reaching common ground.

This definition can’t alone justify What is Negotiation. There is more to explore about this art and excel in Negotiating your needs. Read this blog to understand more about What is Negotiation, its types, and explore some examples to help you in real life. Table of Contents 

1) What is Negotiation?

2) Examples of Negotiations

3) Types of Negotiation 

4) What are the stages of the Negotiation process?

5) Key skills for successful Negotiation 

6) Conclusion 

What is Negotiation  

Negotiation is a dynamic and interactive communication exchange of ideas to resolve differences, reach agreements, and find common ground among the parties involved. To truly master these skills, it is essential to understand their definition, importance, and the various types that exist. 

At its core, it is a dialogue-based process wherein two or more parties engage in discussions, presentations, and proposals to reach an agreement that satisfies the interests of all involved. It involves a thoughtful exchange of ideas, perspectives, and positions with the ultimate goal of finding a mutually acceptable solution. 

This skill encompasses more than just haggling over prices or contractual terms. It is a multifaceted process that requires active listening, effective communication, problem-solving, and creative thinking. This process can take place in diverse contexts, ranging from business transactions and legal disputes to interpersonal conflicts and diplomatic Negotiations.

Learn the art of Negotiation with our Negotiation Skills Course -  join now!

Examples of Negotiations

To help you fully grasp the meaning of Negotiation, let us look at some examples:

a) Salary Negotiation: When employees join a new company, they Negotiate their salary with the Human Resource professionals. According to the Salary Negotiation, the employee decides their salary  and vice versa.

b) Partnership Negotiations: Let’s say you have recently launched a business. However, you want your friend or colleague or an individual with the potential of carrying out the leadership in your organisation. In this scenario, you need to have a partnership agreement where all the terms and conditions from both parties are decided and Negotiated accordingly. Only after all the words are fulfilled the partnership agreement can be fulfilled.

c) Trade agreements: Trade agreements are also a form of Negotiation where several countries Negotiate or agree on exporting and importing goods and services across borders.. Budget Negotiation: In a company, when any projects are getting onboarded, the senior management or the Project Managers Negotiate with the clients regarding budget allocation. e. Political Negotiation: When two or more parties come together to form a coalition, they need to agree with the coalition agreements that come from both sides of the party. This is called a political Negotiation.

Types of Negotiation  

After reading What is Negotiation, it’s time to learn about its various types. Understanding its various types can provide valuable insights into the dynamics and strategies involved. Here, we will explore some common   types of Negotiation: 

Distributive Negotiation  

Distributive Negotiation, also known as win-lose Negotiation, is a competitive approach where the parties involved aim to maximise their individual gains. This often occurs when there is a fixed number of resources or a limited pie to be divided. Each party tries to claim as much of the pie as possible, resulting in a win for one party and a loss for the other. 

Here, the focus is on positional bargaining and making concessions to secure the best possible outcome for oneself. Tactics such as setting high aspirations, using persuasive arguments, and employing power dynamics are often employed. However, it is important to note that Distributive Negotiation may strain relationships and lead to suboptimal outcomes if not managed carefully. 

Integrative Negotiation   

It is also referred to as win-win Negotiation, which takes a collaborative approach. In this type of Negotiation, parties work together to reach mutually beneficial agreements to create value. Unlike Distributive, it seeks to expand the pie and finds creative solutions that satisfy the interests of all parties involved. 

In Integrative Negotiation, the emphasis is on problem-solving, open communication, and a cooperative mindset. The parties actively explore their underlying interests and priorities, searching for trade opportunities and generating value. This encourages the building of long-term relationships and can lead to outcomes that exceed initial expectations. 

Cross-cultural Negotiation  

It occurs when individuals from different cultural backgrounds engage in the process. Cultural norms, communication styles, and values can greatly influence Negotiation dynamics and outcomes. For the contract to be successful, it requires an appreciation of the cultural nuances at play. 

Here, adapting communication styles, being sensitive to cultural differences, and demonstrating respect for diverse perspectives is crucial. Building trust and establishing rapport is essential to bridging cultural gaps and reaching mutually satisfactory agreements. 

Gain an understanding of the fundamentals of contract Negotiation with our Contract Negotiation Training .  

Multi-party Negotiation   

Multi-party Negotiation involves more than two parties collaborating to reach an agreement. This type of Negotiation is often complex and requires managing relationships among multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and priorities. It is common in settings such as business mergers, government-aided companies, and community decision-making processes. 

Effective multi-party contract involves establishing clear communication channels, facilitating collaboration, and managing competing interests. Balancing the needs and concerns of all parties is essential to achieve consensus and maintain long-term relationships. 

It is important to note that these types of Negotiation are not mutually exclusive, and they often exhibit elements of multiple types. The context, objectives, and dynamics of each situation will determine the most suitable approach. 

Unlock your full potential and take your Negotiation skills to the next level with our Communication Skills Training .  

What are the stages of the Negotiation process?

If you want to carry out a good Negotiation, then you can follow these stages. They are as follows:

Preparation

Before a Negotiation takes place, the agendas need to be decided. To decide these agendas, clause, etc., a time and place is agreed upon by both parties. A time limit is also determined so that the Negotiation can come to fruition in less time. Both parties decide on the points that need to be discussed before the Negotiation.

After the time and place are decided both the parties meet for a face-to-face discussion. In this stage, both parties present their points, principles, clause, terms, conditions, etc., which they think is necessary for the agreement. Moreover, Questions are raised, doubts are clarified, and, most importantly, the notes and the discussions are recorded and documented.

Negotiate toward a win-win outcome

After some intense rounds of discussion, a conclusion is reached. In this stage of Negotiation, both parties should come up with a win-win solution. However, in specific scenarios, there may be some disagreement from the other party because they might feel that their terms and conditions are not made. 

In these situations, more intense and elaborate discussions should take place so that both parties can maintain a healthy and  professional relationship. The final agreement is made by preserving the sanctity of the terms and conditions that were discussed.

A legal document is prepared where both parties confirm the terms and conditions of the Negotiation. This stage is crucial in the Negotiation process as the details of the agreement must be explicitly written out so that there is no chance for any miscommunication once the deal is made. Moreover, a legal agreement binds both parties to honour their contracts on their end till the completion of the deal.

Implementing a course of action

The time from when the agreement is set to start till the end of the project, when the terms and clauses that are agreed needs to be  fixed. This time frame that is selected from both sides of the party allows them to carry out the terms and conditions that are agreed upon on their behalf.

Learn how to be assertive and improve your confidence with our Assertiveness Skills - How And When To Be Assertive Course -  join now!

Key skills for successful Negotiation 

Active listening 

Active listening is a foundational skill in Negotiation. It involves fully engaging with the other party, paying attention to their words, tone, and body language. By actively listening, Negotiators can gain valuable insights into the other party's needs, interests, and concerns. This skill helps build rapport, establish trust, and demonstrate respect, promoting an environment conducive to productive contracts. 

Effective communication 

Effective communication is at the heart of Negotiations. It involves clearly expressing ideas, thoughts, and proposals concisely and articulately. Skilled Negotiators convey their messages with clarity and precision, using language that is persuasive, respectful, and free from ambiguity. Effective communication also encompasses asking probing questions, seeking clarification, and actively engaging in dialogue. 

Problem-solving and creativity 

Negotiation often involves finding solutions to complex problems and overcoming obstacles. Skilled Negotiators possess strong problem-solving and critical-thinking abilities. They can analyse situations, identify underlying issues, and generate creative alternatives. Being open-minded, flexible, and willing to explore innovative solutions enables Negotiators to expand the possibilities and find mutually beneficial outcomes. 

Understand the role of conflict management in the organisation with our Conflict Resolution And Negotiation For Change Training. 

Emotional intelligence 

Emotional intelligence plays a significant role in Negotiations. It involves understanding and managing one’s own emotions while also recognising and empathising with the emotions of others. Skilled Negotiators can navigate emotional dynamics, remain composed under pressure, and constructively address conflicts. Emotional intelligence allows Negotiators to build rapport, establish trust, and foster positive relationships, leading to more successful agreements. 

Building relationships 

Building relationships is crucial for successful Negotiation outcomes. Skilled Negotiators prioritise relationship-building by investing time and effort in understanding the other party's perspectives, interests, and needs. They seek common ground, show empathy, and demonstrate a genuine desire to find win-win solutions. By nurturing relationships, Negotiators establish a foundation of trust and collaboration, which can lead to long-term partnerships and mutually beneficial agreements. 

Conclusion 

We hope that through this blog, you got the answer of What is Negotiation. Preparing diligently and following a structured process to conquer this  skill is crucial. Skilled Negotiators actively listen, communicate effectively, apply problem-solving and creativity, demonstrate emotional intelligence, and prioritise relationship-building.

Elevate your business communication skills with our Business Communication Training - sign up now!

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 26th Apr 2024

Fri 28th Jun 2024

Fri 23rd Aug 2024

Fri 25th Oct 2024

Fri 27th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

Distinguish between Negotiation and Assignment.

Section 14 of the Negotiable Instrument Act defines negotiation as When a Promissory Note, Bid &Exchange or Cheque is transferred to any person, sous to constitute that person the holder thereof, the instrument is said to be negotiated-. Thus negotiation means that the negotiable instrument is transferred to another person in such a manner, that the transferee of the instrument becomes its holder, who has the right to possess the instrument in his own name and to recover the amount mentioned therein from concerned parties.

When the ownership of a negotiable instrument is transferred by writing a separate deed of transfer, it is termed as ‘assignment’. Endorsement is not required in this case. Assignment is done under Transfer of Property Act. The title of the assignee shall be the same as that of the assignor.

Distinction between Negotiation and Assignment

Negotiation

• It can be done by mere delivery if the instrument is a bearer one or by endorsement and delivery if the instrument is an order instrument.
• Consideration is presumed.
• The title of the transferee is better than of the transferor.
• Notice of transfer to debtor is not necessary.
• It is done under Negotiable Instrument Act.
• It can be done by a written document.
• Consideration must be proved.
• The title of the assignee is the same-as that of the assignor.
• The debtor must be informed about the assignment.
• It is done under Transfer of Property Act.

Tags: B.Com Bachelor of Business Administration

Disability Discrimination in The Workplace: Know Your Rights And Protections

No Consideration, No Contractn – Explain This Rule With Exceptions

Explain the Legal Rules Regarding Valid Acceptance. Define Acceptance.

Define offer. Explain the rules regarding a valid offer.

Owlgen.in is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.in. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.in, Inc. or its affiliates.

• Entertainment
• Health & Fitness
• Personal Growth
• Privacy Policy

Email : [email protected]

Compare items

• Total ( 0 )

Assignment vs Novation: Everything You Need to Know

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. 4 min read updated on February 01, 2023

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. The party transferring their rights and duties is the assignor; the party receiving them is the assignee. Novation is a mechanism where one party transfers all its obligations and rights under a contract to a third party, with the consent of the original counterparty.

The transfer of a benefit or interest from one party to another is referred to as an assignment. While the benefits can be transferred, the obligation or burden behind the contract cannot be. A contract assignment occurs when a party assigns their contractual rights to a third party. The benefit that the issuing party would have received from the contract is now assigned to the third party. The party appointing their rights is referred to as the assignor, while the party obtaining the rights is the assignee. 

The assignor continues to carry the burden and can be held liable by the assignee for failing to fulfill their duties under the contract. Purchasing an indemnity clause from the assignee may help protect the assignor from a future liability. Unlike notation, assignment contracts do not annul the initial agreement and do not establish a new agreement. The original or initial contract continues to be enforced. 

Assignment contracts generally do not require the authorization from all parties in the agreement. Based on the terms, the assignor will most likely only need to notify the nonassigning party.

In regards to a contract being assignable, if an agreement seems silent or unclear, courts have decided that the contract is typically assignable. However, this does not apply to personal service contracts where consent is mandatory. The Supreme Court of Canada , or SCC, has determined that a personal service contract must be created for the original parties based on the special characteristics, skills, or confidences that are uniquely displayed between them. Many times, the courts need to intervene to determine whether an agreement is indeed a personal service contract.

Overall, assignment is more convenient for the assignor than novation. The assignor is not required to ask for approval from a third party in order to assign their interest in an agreement to the assignee. The assignor should be aware of the potential liability risk if the assignee doesn't perform their duties as stated in the assigned contract.

Novation has the potential to limit future liabilities to an assignor, but it also is usually more burdensome for the parties involved. Additionally, it's not always achievable if a third party refuses to give consent.

It's essential for the two parties in an agreement to appraise their relationship before transitioning to novation. An assignment is preferential for parties that would like to continue performing their obligations, but also transition some of their rights to another party.

A novation occurs when a party would like to transfer both the benefits and the burden within a contract to another party. Similar to assignment, the benefits are transferred, but unlike assignment, the burden is also transferred. When a novation is completed, the original contract is deleted and is replaced with a new one. In this new contract, a third party is now responsible for the obligations and rights. Generally, novation does not cancel any past obligations or rights under the initial contract, although it is possible to novate these as well.

Novation needs to be approved by both parties of the original contract and the new joining third party. Some amount of consideration must also be provided in the new contract in order for it to be novated, unless the novation is cited in a deed that is signed by all parties to the contract. In this situation, consideration is referring to something of value that is being gained through the contract.

Novation occurs when the purchaser to the original agreement is attempting to replace the seller of an original contract. Once novated, the original seller is released from any obligation under the initial contract. The SCC has established a three-point test to implement novation. The asserting party must prove:

• The purchaser accepts complete liability
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the purchaser as the official debtor, and not simply as a guarantor or agent of the seller
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the new contract as the replacement for the old one

Also, the SSC insisted that if a new agreement doesn't exist, the court would not find novation unless the precedence was unusually compelling.

If you need help determining if assignment vs. novation is best for you, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Contract Transfer
• Novation Agreement
• What is Novation of Contract
• Novation of Contract
• Contract Novation Letter
• Deed of Novation
• Contract Novation
• Loan Novation Agreement
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Contract Novation Agreement

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.1: Negotiation vs. Conflict Management

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 48728

Learning Objectives

• Discuss how negotiating is different from managing conflict

We negotiate every day. We might be looking for a better job, trying to purchase a used car, or walking down the street on the right side and seeing someone coming right toward us, seemingly unwilling to step to the left. We don’t necessarily think about whether we won or lost a negotiation when we step to the left and let the walker pass, but it’s a negotiation, nonetheless.

Negotiation is the process of discussing each individual’s position on a topic and attempting to reach a solution that benefits both parties. We often step in and negotiate when a conflict is taking place, but conflict doesn’t have to exist for there to be an opportunity for negotiation. It can be a discussion of an exchange of goods and services (or just jockeying for position on a sidewalk).

All negotiations share four common characteristics:

• The parties involved are somehow interdependent
• The parties are each looking to achieve the best possible result in the interaction for themselves
• The parties are motivated and capable of influencing one another
• The parties believe they can reach an agreement

If these conditions don’t exist, neither can a negotiation. The parties have to be interdependent—whether they are experiencing a conflict at work or want to do business with one another. Each has an interest in achieving the best possible result. The parties are motivated and capable of influencing one another, like a union bargaining for better working conditions. A worker doesn’t have influence over a manufacturer, but a union of workers does, and without that influence as a factor, both parties won’t be motivated to come to the table for discussions. Finally, the parties need to believe they can reach an agreement; otherwise any negotiation talks will be futile.

Practice Question

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/13705

There are two basic types of negotiation—distributive and integrative:

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions. Anything one party gains in the deal is lost by the other party. There can be a winner and a loser, and parties are usually opposing each other. Any relationship between the two parties is usually short term, as at least one party will walk away a “loser” of sorts and animosities can build.

Buying a Used Car

Imagine you’re looking to purchase a used car. You might meet a salesperson on the lot. You ask the price of the green Chevy. The salesperson tells you, and you shake your head—you know you don’t want to pay that much. You make an offer that’s significantly cheaper than the current sales price. Negotiation begins.

The new price will likely come at the commission of the salesperson, as there’s a fixed amount of resources to be divided. As you “win” a discounted price, he “loses” commission. You and the salesperson are opposing each other in the price negotiation. And when the purchase is complete, you’ll part ways, not likely to interact again.

Integrated Negotiation

Integrated negotiation features a variable amount of resources to be divided. In integrated negotiations, both parties can walk away winners. Their primary interests don’t make them “opposing parties,” but rather they’re convergent or congruent with one another. In integrated negotiations, the relationship can be of longer term, because feelings are preserved and no one walks away a loser.

Residential Amusement Park

Let’s say a long-operating amusement park is now surrounded by residential housing. One fall, the park announces that they’re going to open a roller coaster on the side of the park that’s closest to the residential neighborhood, and they’re going to build a parking structure to accommodate the extra guests they’re sure the coaster will attract. Neighbors mount a protest—they don’t want noise and the extra traffic that the roller coaster will bring. They complain to the city, and meetings are called.

The amusement park realizes that having the trust of these area homeowners is important because their complaints are not only well-founded but can cause delays to the park’s plans. The park agrees to move the parking structure to the other side of the park, reposition speakers that might create too much noise for their neighbors and build a wall to keep the sound in the park and not out in the neighborhood. It’s a win-win for both sides—neighbors keep a neighborhood free from traffic and noise, and the amusement park can add its profit-building roller coaster. Additionally, if the park can keep the neighborhood on its side, people from the neighborhood are more likely to visit the park.

Contributors and Attributions

• Negotiation vs. Conflict Management. Authored by : Freedom Learning Group. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

• Banking and Financial news
• Financial Analysis
• Foreign Exchange
• Indian Financial System
• Information Technology
• Investment and Insurance
• Loans and Advances
• Mortgage Laws
• Negotiable Instrument Act
• Risk Management
• Difference between Assignment and Negotiation

An assignment is when the rights, title, and interest in debts due or accruing due to a person are transferred to another person. The debts which are sought to be assigned may be present, future, conditional or contingent charge by way of assignment can be created under actionable claim. Transfer of   Life Insurance Policy, National Saving Certificates, Supply bills etc., to the name of the bank for the purpose of borrowing are examples of assignment.

What constitutes negotiation?

An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder and completed by delivery.

Basically, negotiation and assignment are forms of transferring property rights to another person, there is a certain difference between them. They are given in the following table.

Related articles

Assignment and actionable claim

Meaning of valid Endorsement

Holder: Who is a holder of a negotiable instrument?

Holder in due course- explained

Payment in due course- explained

A better title to ‘Holder in due course’ explained

Paying bank’s responsibility under NI Acts

Collecting Banker’s responsibility under NI Acts

General and Special crossing of cheques

Effects of ‘Not Negotiable’ mark on a cheque

Allonge: When is an allonge to be used?

Author:  Surendra Naik

Related posts.