Any negotiating process, regardless of its participants, context, or goals, involves an interaction between the negotiators, which is manifested through communication. The statement “there can be no negotiation without communication” is particularly true due to the essential role of the communicational process in negotiations. Indeed, negotiating involves exchanging opinions, interests, ideas, positions, and other elements of parties’ reasoning to negotiate, which can only be expressed through the different means of communication. In essence, communication, similarly to negotiation, is also an exchange between several parties, which involves sending and receiving information in a verbal or non-verbal form. Therefore, the two notions, communication and negotiation, are inherently connected.
As any other type of a communicative process, negotiation might be characterized by several variables, as well as impacted by barriers that determine the overall success of the negotiation process and the effective participation of a negotiator in it. When ‘getting-to-yes’ in a negotiation, the parties pursue the substance of the negotiation and the relationship that might be impacted by negotiation. As the example with ugly orange negotiation demonstrates, the parties’ ability to communicate their interests effectively rather than concentrating on positions or relationships is the cornerstone of negotiation success.
To communicate effectively, one should produce and decode such variables as verbal and non-verbal communication. Verbally people interact using effective questioning and active listening te4chniques that significantly contribute to achieving mutual understanding. Also, such non-verbal and body language constituents as the facial expression of emotions, posture, appearance, sounds, and others, when appropriately analyzed, provide for obtaining a complete set of information necessary to negotiate effectively. On the other hand, the lack of skills in listening, questioning, or analyzing and expressing body language and non-verbal signals might be significant barriers to successful communication. Also, such biases as stereotyping, projecting, or selective perception can negatively affect the process of achieving an agreement. Therefore, for a negotiator to be effective, the enlisted skills should be developed, as well as the ability to reflect on them.
Ethical conduct is not a necessary requirement for effective negotiation. Despite the significant role of truthfulness and openness of the parties in the achievement of agreement, the process often involves dishonesty for the purpose of pursuing interests. Indeed, when bargaining, the parties are interested in achieving an agreement on the most favorable terms. When negotiation is perceived as a contest, where one should win, and another one should lose, the parties strive for misleading one another in the pursuit of winning, which is where dishonest conduct takes place. Negotiators communicate around the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and might consider the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) to succeed in negotiations. However, BATNA and ZOPA are aligned with the core interests of the parties, which lead the overall direction of the bargaining.
When determining ethical conduct and setting the framework for avoiding an unethical one, a negotiator must prioritize interests over positions. Indeed, in the process of negotiation, one might be deceptive about the position, the level of authority, or power that would be beneficial for the bargaining outcome. For example, when negotiating budget questions, one might not disclose or even mislead the opponent on the budget constraints to preserve a firm’s finances when it is possible. However, when it comes to negotiating interests, dishonesty might be harmful to the successful negotiation. When deceiving the other party on the interests, one engages in unethical conduct that undermines the opportunities for mutual gain. Moreover, the scope of truthfulness in negotiations depends on the area of bargaining and the context, which, as in the case of the legal context, might be directly regulated by law.
When defining such a broad term as negotiation, one should state that it is a process of communication between several parties aimed at achieving an agreement over a mutually relevant issue. In most cases, negotiations evolve around a conflict where the opponents have different interests; however, to achieve agreement, the parties need to exchange a certain amount of information to arrive at a solution. Apart from negotiations, there exist several other conflict or dispute resolution processes, which appear within the alternative dispute resolution continuum (ADR). One might distinguish five forms of conflict resolution, including direct negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation, which possess a certain degree of parties’ control over the outcome and process formality and predictability.
Within the continuum, litigation is characterized by the highest degree of process predictability and the lowest level of parties’ control over the outcome, since it is up to external parties how the dispute will be resolved. The opponents do not directly interact in the process of litigation. On the contrary, negotiation, which is located on the opposite end of the continuum, involves direct interaction between the parties, where their control over the outcome is high, however, the process predictability is very low. In other words, the opponents resolve the dispute by means of their interpersonal communication using the skills they have. In-between these two contrary ADRs, arbitration is less formal than litigation, but it also is characterized by a high level of predictability of outcome and does not involve direct interaction between the parties. Mediation, on the other hand, is located in the middle of the continuum and allows for the participation of a mediator along with the direct communication between the parties in the conflict. Conciliation does not provide space for direct interaction but prioritizes the conciliator’s communication of the interest of both parties. Thus, negotiation is the form of conflict resolution that gives space to a wide range of alternative solutions based on the direct communication between the opponents.
As a process of negotiating to pursue one’s interests in opposition to the counterpart, bargaining, might differ in the form. Integrative bargaining is a strategy of negotiation that involves finding a solution that is alternative to the winning of either party but integrates the interests of both sides and allows for obtaining a win-win outcome. From the perspective of integrative bargaining, the negotiators incorporate their efforts to solve the problem within the scope of their interests but with the priority of a wise and rational solution. The goal of such a negotiating strategy is to obtain a win-win solution by working collaboratively on finding a decision alternative to the winning of only one side. The parties are transparent and honest about their interests and are willing to arrive at a mutual gain. The opponents insist on objectivity in decision-making; they brainstorm the criteria and the solutions. Integrative negotiators do not use pressure or influence of power to drive the negotiations; they rather apply reasoning and collaboration.
Positioning bargaining is a type of bargaining that is in contrast to the integrative one. Such negotiation participants act as rivals, whose positions are placed over the interest in a mutually beneficial solution. The goal of positioning bargaining is for one party to win the dispute based on pursuing a dominant position and using misleading and dishonest conduct. Each party insists on its position without giving space to finding alternative solutions. The negotiators compete over the leading position; they use pressure, the influence of power, and demand opponents’ compliance. Given the differences between the two contrasting negotiating strategies, people need to select one mode of negotiating, since the choice of communicational methods and tactics will determine the overall outcomes of the negotiations.
Ten most important characteristics of an effective negotiator are presented in the order of their priority, where number one is the most important, and number ten is the least important of ten.
- Ability to place interests over positions
- Creativity
- Flexibility
- Patience
- Effective active listening
- Proactive questioning
- Ability to read and use non-verbal behavior
- Ability to control emotions
- Ability to separate people from problems
- Managing bias and stereotyping
The order of these characteristics is justified by the priority of negotiator’s focus on interests when engaging in principled negotiation. Position-taking leads to ineffective decisions which should be avoided in effective negotiations. Creativity, flexibility, and patience are the essential traits that one needs to obtain and develop to be approachable in communication with opponents, as well as facilitate the mutual gain in the course of bargaining.
After these basic characteristics, the skills of listening, questioning, and recognizing body language are presented as those contributing to the process of negotiations with a particular person. Finally, the ability to control emotions, separate problems and people, and the ability to eliminate bias from the negotiation will be helpful in achieving agreement without disrupting relationships with the other party. Currently, I am working on my listening, questioning, and non-verbal skills to enhance the effectiveness of my communication skills for achieving agreement. Reading materials on the topic and observing successful negotiators use these skills helps me build the scope of practical elements. Also, the practice of using active listening and asking good questions helps me develop in this area.
Non-verbal behavior is essential in communication, especially in negotiations where the exchange of information between the parties is decisive for the outcomes of the negotiated problem. Non-verbal behavior includes body language, such as posture, the movements of had, eyes, hands, legs, as well as the sounds a person attributes to the reaction. All these elements contain a substantial amount of important information, which, sometimes to even more extent than words, shows the intentions and the character of the opponent. Body-language and other non-verbal behaviors are the signs of how the person perceives the information and where the communication is going. In negotiations, it is important to be observant of such signs to incorporate them with the words articulated by the opponent to adjust the negotiation efforts in the right direction.
When recognizing and using non-verbal signals during negotiations, one might observe and analyze such expression as a smile or the positioning of eyebrows. For example, if a person smiles, but there are now wrinkles in the corners of the eyes, it might signalize that the smile is forced. This might be decoded as a sign of discomfort or disagreement with the opponent’s statements. Also, if the person’s brows are lifted, it might signalize tension, which also sends a message to the other party as per the direction of the negotiations. To the same extent, the posture and the placement of arms and legs tell much about the intentions of the negotiators. For example, crossed arms or legs crossed with the outer side of thigh showing to the opponent might signalize that the person is not open to a transparent discussion. Knowing these elements, one can use them in enhancing their verbal expressions and influencing the negotiations in that way or respond to the expression of non-verbal behaviors in opponents to lead the communication in the necessary direction.
When confronted by a more powerful opponent in negotiations, one should be well-prepared to make enough effort to achieve the desired outcome of the bargaining. Collecting information on the sources of that power, as well as the interests of the opponents in the negotiation might be a helpful tool in managing the pressure from the more authoritative party. Importantly, powerful negotiators perceive their position as dominant and might be weak in seeing the potential contribution of their opponents. Therefore, a less powerful negotiator should be creative in presenting a benefit or a mutual gain from an offer. Moreover, it is crucial to understand clearly the goals and interests of both parties and be able to communicate around them, thus paying tribute to the advantages of both communicators.
Undoubtedly, active listening and effective questioning are the important strategies in negotiating with a powerful opponent because these are the areas where the space for collaboration or flexibility might be detected. Asking the right questions might allow for identifying weak spots in the opponent’s position and offer a beneficial solution, which will lead to a successful result of negotiations. Lastly, being confident and flexible during the communication process might be very helpful in delivering necessary messages to the opponents and ensure their involvement in meaningful bargaining.
In personal communication during negotiations, people have an opportunity to express their emotions and feelings, which, depending on the context of bargaining, might have a negative or positive effect. In essence, bargaining might trigger both positive and negative emotions; and on the opposite, positive emotions may lead to positive outcomes of negotiations, and negative emotions might adversely impact the possibility to achieve agreement. Negative emotions, particularly their unmanaged expressions, such as anger, impatience, anxiety, boredom, or passiveness, show the opponent the unwillingness to cooperate and contribute to the negotiations’ breach. Moreover, the tendency of people to mirror the emotions of others and react to them in a similar manner might lead to the escalation of conflict rather than its resolution in the course of negotiations.
The positive aspect of feeling involves positive outcomes for negotiations. Good mood and elevated spirits create space for affirmative attitudes, willingness to cooperate, and the ability to understand the counterparty. Beyond strategies and goals, negotiators are individuals whose personal traits play a significant role in bargaining outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to manage personality expressions, emotions, and feelings in the process of negotiations to eliminate the threat of failing the opportunity to make a deal and to influence the negotiation process.