CHAPTER 11

1. CHAPTER 11 Managing Negotiation Impasses

2. Introduction This chapter is organized into three major sections : First, we discuss the nature of negotiations that are difficult to resolve. In the second section, we explore fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that cause negotiation impasses. Finally, we discuss strategies that negotiators can use to resolve impasses and get negotiations back on track.

3. The titles • The Nature of “Difficult-to Resolve” Negotiations and Why They Occur. • Fundamental Mistakes That Cause Impasses. • How to Resolve Impasses

4. 1.The Nature of “Difficult-to Resolve” Negotiations and Why They Occur. The Nature of Impasses We define difficult-to-resolve negotiation broadly as being at impasses. Impasses is a condition or state of conflict in which there is no apparent quick or easy resolution. When impasses exists, the parties are unable to create deals that satisfy their aspiration and expections.

5. Impasses is not necessarily bad or destructive (although it can be ). • Impasses does not have to be permanent. • Impasses can be tactical or genuine. • Impasses perception can differ from reality.

6. What Causes Impasses and Intractable Negotiation? Putanam and Wondlleck(2003) suggest that intractable conflicts vary along four dimensions: • Divineness—the degree to which the conflict divides people such that they are “backed into a corner” and can’t escape without losing face. • Intensity —the level of participant involvement ,emotional, and commitment in a conflict. • Pervasiveness —the degree to which the conflict invades the social an private lives of people .

7. Complexity —the number and complexity of issues, the number of parties involves, the level of social systems involves in the conflict ,and the degree to which it is impossible to resolve one issue without resolving several others simultaneously .

8. Characteristics of the Parties • How one Defines One’s Self ? Many impasses originate because of the way parties define themselves. Issues of identity are central to many difficult-to-resolve negotiation. Identity is determined by the way that individuals answer the question “Who am I? ”.People may answer the question in a variety of ways, depending on the social groups to which they belong and how they understand themselves to be . Rothman (1997) suggest that conflict likely to occur when people’s identities are threatened because such threat challenge people’s fundamental sense of who they are .

9. Comparing One’s Self to Others If issues of identity focus on the question “who am I?” then issues of social comparison reflect the way individuals define “who are they?” Babcock ,Wang, and Loewenstein(1996) have two principal findings :First, negotiators chose comparison groups to reflect a supportive ,self-serving bias for their own positions. Second, negotiation breakdowns or impasses were positively correlated with perceives difference between the negotiators’ chosen comparison groups.

10. Perception of Power Smyth (1994) examined two aspects of the role of power in impasses: whether the parties believe that their power was subject to change, and whether there were agrees-on social institutions for dealing with power changes between parties. The resulting matrix indicates how parties will react to power relationships. (see Figure 11.1)

11. FIGURE 11.1Conflicts, Power Relationships, and Institution Power Relationship Altered Power Relationship Does Not Change Ⅰ Agrees-Upon Institutions No Agreed-Upon Insititutions

12. Smyth suggests that the most intractable situations occur in the lower left quadrant, in which there is a change in the power balance but no mutually acceptable social institutions to govern or manage the change. Impasses result from the strength of and interaction among four factors: • The saliency of a group’s social identity. • The attractiveness to each party of the substance of the deal. • The attractiveness to the low-power party of gaining more power. • The saliency of the institutions governing changes in issues of autonomy and control.

13. Revenge and Anger Impasses may also result from an expression of fear and anger or from a commitment to seek revenge on the offending party. • Conflict Management Style • Mayer (2000) observed that parties often prefer to avoid conflict in a number of creative ways : • Aggressive avoidance • Passive avoidance • Passive aggressive avoidance • Avoidance by claiming hopelessness • Avoidance through surrogates • Avoidance through denial • Avoidance through premature problem solving • Avoidance by folding

14. Characteristics of the Issue • Value differences Value difference vary from minor difference in preference to major difference in ideology, lifestyle, or what is considered sacred and critical. • Value stakes distributive bargaining. Negotiation impasses may also result from distributive bargaining when there is no apparent overlap in the bargaining range • Risk to human health and safe Some negotiation—particular those in the area of health and the environment—reach impasses because the threat to human welfare is so clear and apparent ,and often because the issue themselves are rooted in complex science that is difficult for the layperson to understand, much less believe and/or blindly trust.

15. Characteristics of the Environment When negotiation learn that they have different understanding about what they are negotiating, the risk of impasses increase. Renegotiation of existing agreements can also lead to impasses. Salacuse (2001) suggest that renegotiations of existing agreements occur frequently and are in response to three situations: (1) postdeal negotiations (2) intradeal negotiations (3) exterdeal negotiations All the three types of renegotiations can lead to impasses.

16. Characteristics of the Negotiation Setting Experienced negotiators understand that the changing the negotiation setting-the physical location in which it occurs-can be an important tactic for getting negotiations back on track. Lax and Sebenius(2003) suggest further that “negotiating with the wrong parties, or about wrong set of issues, involving parties in the wrong sequence, or at the wrong time” can all lead to impasses.

17. Characteristics of the Conflict Resolution Processes Negotiations are difficult to resolve to the extent that attempts at conflict resolution have been characterized by negative dynamics that cause the negotiation to escalate rather than approach a resolution. Among the characteristics of negatively charged conflict resolution processes that increase the likelihood of impasses are these : 1. The atmosphere is charges with anger, frustration, and resentment. Mistrust and hostility are direct at the other party. 2. Channels of communication, previously used to exchange information and supporting arguments for each party’s position, are now closed or constrained.

18. 3. The original issue at stake have become blurred and ill defined, and new issues may have been added. 4. The party’s tend to perceive great difference in their respective positions 5. As anger and tension increase, the parties become locked into their initial negotiating positions. 6. Those on the same side tend to view each favorably.

19. 2.Fundamental Mistakes That Cause Impasses. Sebenius (2001) outlines six fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that can derail the negotiaion process and result in impasses: • 1. Neglecting the other side’s problem . • 2. Too much of a focus on price . • 3. Positions over interests. • 4. Too much focus on common ground. • 5. Neglecting BATNs. • 6. Adjusting perceptions during the negotiation. Another mistake that negotiators make during negotiations is that they do not proactively manage the negotiation processes itself.

20. Deborah and Judith Williams(2000,2001) suggest that a major reason negotiations are not successful is that negotiators to manage the “shadow negotiation” Ron Fortgang, David Lax, and James Sebenius(2003) suggest that negotiators need to manage the social contract in addition to the economic issues under discussion or the negotiation may derail. Barbara Gray (2003) suggest that another reason negotiations reach impasses is that negotiators allow their emotions to determine their reaction to the other party rather than responding in a measured way to the situation.

21. 3.How to Resolve Impasses To manage impasses, we need to be resolved on three levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Mayer,2000) : • 1.Cognitive is resolution is needed to change how the parties view the situation. • 2.Emotional resolution involves changing how parties feel about the impasses and the other party. • 3.Behavioral resolution explicitly addresses what people will do in the future and how agreements they make about the future will be realized.

22. We describe six strategies that can be used to resolve impasses • 1.Reaching agreement on rules and procedures. • 2.Reducing tensions and synchronizing the de-escalation of hostility. • 3.Improving the accuracy of communication, particularly improving each party’s understanding of the other’s perspective. • 4.Controlling the number and size of issue in the discussion. • 5.Establishing common ground where parties can find a basis for agreement. • 6. Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives that each party presents to the other. Each of these strategies above we will describe it in detail:

23. 1 . Agreement on rules and procedures. Parties can try to manage impasses by obtaining mutual agreement about the rules that will govern the negotiation. • 2.Reducing tensions and synchronizing the de-escalation. • Separating the Parties • Tension Management • Acknowledging the Other’s Feelings : Active Listening • Synchronized De-escalation

24. 3 Improving the accuracy of communication • Role Reversal • Imaging • 4 Controlling Issues • Fractionate the Negotiation : • Reduce the number of parties on each side • Control the number of substantive issue involved • State issue in contract terms rather as principles • Restrict the precedents involved, both procedural and substantive • Search for ways to divide the big issues • Depersonalize issue: separate them from the parties advocating them

25. 5 Establishing common ground • Superordinate goals • Common enemies • Common expectation • Manage time constraints and deadlines • Reframe the parties’ view of each other • Build trust • Search for semantic resolutions • Use analogical reasoning

26. 6 Enhancing the desirability of the options to the other party • Give the other party a “yesable” proposal • Ask for a different decision • Sweeten the offer rather than intensifying the threat • Use legitimacy or objective criteria to evaluate solutions

27. 5 Establishing common ground • Superordinate goals • Common enemies • Common expectation • Manage time constraints and deadlines • Reframe the parties’ view of each other • Build trust • Search for semantic resolutions • Use analogical reasoning

28. 6 Enhancing the desirability of the options to the other party • Give the other party a “yesable” proposal • Ask for a different decision • Sweeten the offer rather than intensifying the threat • Use legitimacy or objective criteria to evaluate solutions