Sat . 20 May 2020
TR | RU | UK | KK | BE |


negotiation, negotiation skills
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just for one or some of them

It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making small concessions to achieve an agreement The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful Negotiation is not a zero-sum game; if there is no cooperation, the negotiation fails

Everyone negotiates everyday, often without even considering it a negotiation Negotiation occurs in business, sales, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations, and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, etc The study of the subject is called negotiation theory Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiator, or hostage negotiators They may also work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators, or brokers


  • 1 Strategies
    • 11 Distributive negotiation
    • 12 Integrative negotiation
  • 2 Elements of negotiation
    • 21 Adversary or partner
    • 22 Employing an advocate
    • 23 Perspective taking for integrative negotiation
    • 24 Negotiation styles
    • 25 Types of negotiators
    • 26 Bad faith negotiation
      • 261 In international relations and political psychology
  • 3 Emotion
    • 31 Affect effect
    • 32 Positive affect
    • 33 Negative affect
    • 34 Conditions for emotion affect
    • 35 Effect of partner's emotions
    • 36 Problems with laboratory studies
  • 4 Team negotiations
  • 5 Women in Negotiations
  • 6 Etymology
  • 7 Barriers
  • 8 Tactics
  • 9 Nonverbal communication
    • 91 Examples in negotiation
  • 10 See also
  • 11 References
  • 12 Further reading
  • 13 External links


Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position in a formal setting, to an informal negotiation between friends Negotiation can be contrasted with mediation, where a neutral third party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties It can also be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding In arbitration, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator decides the outcome This negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation

Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation Different theorists use different labels for the two general types and distinguish them in different ways

Distributive negotiation

See also: Zero sum game

Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing it will not be accepted—and then uses a combination of guile, bluffing, and brinkmanship to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value

The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being distributed or divided among the people involved It operates under zero sum conditions and it means any gain I make is at your expense and vice versa Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie" There is only so much to go around, but the proportion to be distributed is variable Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain results in another person's loss A distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house

Integrative negotiation

See also: Non-zero-sum game and Win-win game

Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, or principled negotiation It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation techniques While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value a "fixed pie" to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation "expand the pie" It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions, approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the forming of a relationship It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual gains It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation

Elements of negotiation

There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation

One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues positions and - more helpfully - interests, the options, and the agreements reached at the end

Another view of negotiation comprises four elements: strategy, process, tools, and tactics Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including relationship and the final outcome Processes and tools include the steps to follow and roles to take in preparing for and negotiating with the other parties Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions Some add to this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted

Adversary or partner

The two different approaches to negotiating require different tactics In the distributive approach each negotiator fights for the largest possible piece of the pie, so it may be quite appropriate—within certain limits—to regard the other side more as an adversary than a partner and to take a somewhat harder line This would however be less appropriate if the idea were to hammer out an arrangement that is in the best interest of both sides A good agreement is not one with maximum gain, but optimum gain This does not by any means suggest that we should give up our own advantage for nothing A cooperative attitude, however, regularly pays dividends Gains are not at the expense of the other, but with him

Employing an advocate

A skilled negotiator may serve as an advocate for one party to the negotiation The advocate attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcomes the other party is or parties are willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations, unless the best alternative to a negotiated agreement BATNA is acceptable

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis, to a straightforward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions, to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations

Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy Bad guy/good guy is when one negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being considerate and understanding The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent

Perspective taking for integrative negotiation

Perspective taking can be helpful for two reasons: that it can help self-centered negotiators to seek mutually beneficial solutions, and it increases the likelihood of logrolling when a favor is traded for another ie quid pro quo Social motivation can increase the chances of a party conceding to a negotiation While concession is mandatory for negotiations, research shows that people who concede more quickly, are less likely to explore all integrative and mutually beneficial solutions Therefore, conceding reduces the chance of an integrative negotiation

Negotiation styles

Kenneth W Thomas identified 5 styles/responses to negotiation These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two themes or dimensions

  1. A concern for self ie assertiveness, and
  2. A concern for others ie empathy

Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others The following five styles can be used based on individuals’ preferences depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals These styles can change over time, and individuals can have strong dispositions towards numerous styles

Accommodating Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal relationships Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time--they withdraw all complaints Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance Avoiding Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes Those who avoid conflicts adopt a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to siInn1er without doing anything to minimize them Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether Bayazit & Mannix, 2003 Sometimes they simply agree to disagree a modus vivendi Collaborating Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties Collaborating is an active, pro-social, and pro-self approach to conflict resolution Collaborating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem solving, or a win-win orientation, entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent's outcomes as well as their own Competing Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships Competing is an active, pro-self means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one's view Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win-lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others Fighting forcing, dominating, or contending can take many forms, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence Morrill, 1995 These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one's solution on the other party Compromising Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly

Types of negotiators

Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project These types of negotiators are: Soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers

  • Soft These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both They avoid contests of wills and insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions
  • Hard These people use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it" They make threats, are distrustful of others, insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory Additionally, they search for one single answer, and insist you agree on it They do not separate the people from the problem as with soft bargainers, but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem
  • Principled Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions, and do so by sidestepping commitment to specific positions They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards independent of personal will They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure These criteria may be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, and tradition

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they face in order to reach the best solution, but this is often not the case as when you may be dealing with an individual using soft or hard bargaining tactics Forsyth, 2010

Bad faith negotiation

When a party pretends to negotiate, but secretly has no intention of compromising, the party is considered negotiating in bad faith Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to reason to reach settlement, but have no intention to do so, for example, one political party may pretend to negotiate, with no intention to compromise, for political effect

In international relations and political psychology

Bad faith in political science and political psychology refers to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise, or a model of information processing The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles' beliefs and his model of information processing It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent A state is presumed implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness Examples are John Foster Dulles' position regarding the Soviet Union, or Hamas's position on the state of Israel


Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process, although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation During negotiations, the decision as to whether or not to settle rests in part on emotional factors Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, but may be instrumental in attaining concessions On the other hand, positive emotions often facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains, but can also be instrumental in attaining concessions Positive and negative discrete emotions can be strategically displayed to influence task and relational outcomes and may play out differently across cultural boundaries

Affect effect

Dispositional affects affect various stages of negotiation: which strategies to use, which strategies are actually chosen, the way the other party and their intentions are perceived, their willingness to reach an agreement and the final negotiated outcomes Positive affectivity PA and negative affectivity NA of one or more of the negotiating sides can lead to very different outcomes

Positive affect

Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence, and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy During the negotiation, negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics and more cooperative strategies This in turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability to find integrative gains Indeed, compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity, negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as flexible thinking, creative problem solving, respect for others' perspectives, willingness to take risks and higher confidence Post-negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well It increases satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one's desire for future interactions The PA aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which brings commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions
PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance, such that performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is Thus, studies involving self reports on achieved outcomes might be biased

Negative affect

Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by far the most researched is anger Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties' judgment, narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent's interests and are less accurate in judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains Moreover, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers Opponents who get really angry or cry, or otherwise lose control are more likely to make errors: make sure they are in your favor Anger does not help achieve negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains and does not boost personal gains, as angry negotiators do not succeed Moreover, negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's commitment, sincerity, and needs Moreover, although NA reduces gains in integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks such as zero-sum In his work on negative affect arousal and white noise, Seidner found support for the existence of a negative affect arousal mechanism through observations regarding the devaluation of speakers from other ethnic origins" Negotiation may be negatively affected, in turn, by submerged hostility toward an ethnic or gender group

Conditions for emotion affect

Research indicates that negotiator's emotions do not necessarily affect the negotiation process Albarracın et al 2003 suggested that there are two conditions for emotional affect, both related to the ability presence of environmental or cognitive disturbances and the motivation:

  1. Identification of the affect: requires high motivation, high ability or both
  2. Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either the motivation, the ability or both are low

According to this model, emotions affect negotiations only when one is high and the other is low When both ability and motivation are low, the affect is identified, and when both are high the affect is identified but discounted as irrelevant to judgment A possible implication of this model is, for example, that the positive effects PA has on negotiations as described above is seen only when either motivation or ability are low

Effect of partner's emotions

Most studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator's own emotions on the process However, what the other party feels might be just as important, as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels When it comes to negotiations, trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect, and visibility enhances the effect Emotions contribute to negotiation processes by signaling what one feels and thinks and can thus prevent the other party from engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signals to keep in the same way, while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed
Partner's emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator's emotions and behavior: mimetic/ reciprocal or complementary For example, disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation In a study by Butt et al 2005 that simulated real multi-phase negotiation, most people reacted to the partner's emotions in reciprocal, rather than complementary, manner Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent's feelings and strategies chosen:

  • Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent
  • Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner
  • Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of him by the opponent, however it also led the opponent to place higher demands On the other hand, personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved
  • Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent

Problems with laboratory studies

Negotiation is a rather complex interaction Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task, let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions, and focus only on some aspects Although lab studies have their advantages, they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions:

  • Emotions in lab studies are usually manipulated and are therefore relatively 'cold' not intense Although those 'cold' emotions might be enough to show effects, they are qualitatively different from the 'hot' emotions often experienced during negotiations
  • In real life, people select which negotiations to enter, which affects emotional commitment, motivation and interests —but this is not the case in lab studies
  • Lab studies tend to focus on relatively few well defined emotions Real life scenarios provoke a much wider scale of emotions
  • Coding the emotions has a double catch: if done by a third side, some emotions might not be detected as the negotiator sublimates them for strategic reasons Self-report measures might overcome this, but they are usually filled only before or after the process, and if filled during the process might interfere with it

Team negotiations

Students from University of Tromsø and University of Toronto during 5th International Negotiation Tournament – Warsaw Negotiation Round in the Polish Senate 2014

Due to globalization and growing business trends, negotiation in the form of teams is becoming widely adopted Teams can effectively collaborate to break down a complex negotiation There is more knowledge and wisdom dispersed in a team than in a single mind Writing, listening, and talking, are specific roles team members must satisfy The capacity base of a team reduces the amount of blunder, and increases familiarity in a negotiation

Women in Negotiations

Many of the strategies in negotiation vary across genders It has been shown that it is more difficult for women to be self-advocating when they are negotiating Many of the implications of these findings have strong financial impacts in addition to the social backlash faced by self-advocating women in negotiations, as compared to other advocating women, self-advocating men, and other advocating men Research in this area has been studied across platforms, in addition to more specific areas like women as physician assistants The backlash associated with this type of behavior is attributed to the fact that to be self-advocated is considered masculine, whereas the alternative, being accommodating, is considered more feminine Males, however, do not appear to face any type of backlash for not being self-advocating Research also supports the notion that the way individuals respond in a negotiation varies depending on the gender of the opposite party In all-male groups, the use of deception showed no variation upon the level of trust between negotiating parties, however in mixed-sex groups there was an increase in deceptive tactics when it was perceived that the opposite party was using an accommodating strategy In all-female groups, there were many shifts in when individuals did and did not employ deception in their negotiation tactics


The word "negotiation" originated in the early 15th century from the Old French and Latin expressions “negociacion” and “negotiationem” These terms mean “business, trade and traffic” By the late 1590s negotiation had the definition, "to communicate in search of mutual agreement" With this new introduction and this meaning, it showed a shift in “doing business” to “bargaining about” business


  • Die-hard bargainers
  • Lack of trust
  • Informational vacuums and negotiator's dilemma
  • Structural impediments
  • Spoilers
  • Cultural and gender differences
  • Communication problems
  • The power of dialogue


Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process More often than not they are subtle, difficult to identify and used for multiple purposes Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus in on taking as much value off the table as possible Many negotiation tactics exist Below are a few commonly used tactics

Auction: The bidding process is designed to create competition When multiple parties want the same thing, pit them against one another When people know that they may lose out on something, they want it even more Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, they also want to win, just to win Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up the price

Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point where the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement

Bogey: Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance is very important Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance

Chicken: Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluffs, to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure

Defence in Depth: Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority In other words, each time the offer goes to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to close the deal

Deadlines: Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision This method uses time to apply pressure to the other party Deadlines given can be actual or artificial

Flinch: Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal Common examples of flinching are gasping for air, or a visible expression of surprise or shock The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked"

Good Guy/Bad Guy: The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team negotiations where one member of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands, and the other offers a more rational approach This tactic is named after a police interrogation technique often portrayed in the media The "good guy" appears more reasonable and understanding, and therefore, easier to work with In essence, it is using the law of relativity to attract cooperation The "good guy" appears more agreeable relative than the "bad guy"

Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that is not achievable The theory is that the extreme offer makes the other party reevaluate their own opening offer and move close to the resistance point as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement Another advantage is that the party giving the extreme demand appears more flexible when they make concessions toward a more reasonable outcome A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time

The Nibble: Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven't been discussed previously just before closing the deal This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing"

Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that they have difficulty determining what information is important, and what is a diversion Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert

Mirroring: When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more positive To create trust and a rapport, a negotiator may mimic or mirror the opponent's behavior and repeat what they say Mirroring refers to a person repeating the core content of what another person just said, or repeating a certain expression It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation and acknowledges the other party's point or statement Mirroring can help create trust and establish a relationship

Scotting: A tatic of lowering one's voice to create a position of power This technique was pioneered by a veteran businessman, M G Scott, and saw tremendous success in railway machinery price negotiations

Nonverbal communication

Main article: Nonverbal communication

Communication is a key element of negotiation Effective negotiation requires that participants effectively convey and interpret information Participants in a negotiation communicate information not only verbally but non-verbally through body language and gestures By understanding how nonverbal communication works, a negotiator is better equipped to interpret the information other participants are leaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate

Examples in negotiation

Non-verbal "anchoring" In a negotiation, a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing a position first By anchoring your position, one establishes the position from which the negotiation proceeds In a like manner, one can "anchor" and gain advantage with nonverbal body language cues

  • Personal space: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power Negotiators can repel this strategic advantage by positioning allies in the room to surround that individual
  • First impression: Begin the negotiation with positive gestures and enthusiasm Look the person in the eye with sincerity If you cannot maintain eye contact, the other person might think you are hiding something or that you are insincere Give a solid handshake

Reading non-verbal communication Being able to read the non-verbal communication of another person can significantly aid in the communication process By being aware of inconsistencies between a person's verbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them, negotiators can to come to better resolutions Examples of incongruity in body language include:

  • Nervous Laugh: A laugh not matching the situation This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort When this happens, it may be good to probe with questions to discover the person's true feelings
  • Positive words but negative body language: If someone asks their negotiation partner if they are annoyed and the person pounds their fist and responds sharply, "what makes you think anything is bothering me"
  • Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/her hands in this position reveals frustration even when he/she is smiling This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negative attitude
  • If possible, it may be helpful for negotiation partners to spend time together in a comfortable setting outside of the negotiation room Knowing how each partner non-verbally communicates outside of the negotiation setting helps negotiation partners sense incongruity between verbal and non-verbal communication

Conveying receptivity

The way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other may influence how receptive each is to the other person's message and ideas

  • Face and eyes: Receptive negotiators smile, make plenty of eye contact This conveys the idea that there is more interest in the person than in what is being said On the other hand, non-receptive negotiators make little to no eye contact Their eyes may be squinted, jaw muscles clenched and head turned slightly away from the speaker
  • Arms and hands: To show receptivity, negotiators should spread arms and open hands on table or relaxed on their lap Negotiators show poor receptivity when their hands are clenched, crossed, positioned in front of their mouth, or rubbing the back of their neck
  • Legs and Feet: Receptive negotiators sit with legs together or one leg slightly in front of the other When standing, they distribute weight evenly and place hands on their hips with their body tilted toward the speaker Non-receptive negotiators stand with legs crossed, pointing away from the speaker
  • Torso: Receptive negotiators sit on the edge of their chair, unbutton their suit coat with their body tilted toward the speaker Non-receptive negotiators may lean back in their chair and keep their suit coat buttoned

Receptive negotiators tend to appear relaxed with their hands open and palms visibly displayed

See also

  • Alternative dispute resolution
  • Collaborative software
  • Collective action
  • Conciliation
  • Conflict resolution research
  • Consistency negotiation
  • Contract
  • Cross-cultural
  • Cross-cultural differences in decision-making
  • Diplomacy
  • Dispute resolution
  • Expert determination
  • Flipism
  • Game theory
  • Impasse
  • International relations
  • Leadership
  • Method of Harvard Principled Negotiation
  • Multilateralism
  • Nash equilibrium
  • Prisoner's dilemma
  • Program on Negotiation


  1. ^ Fisher, Roger; Ury, William 1984 Patton, Bruce, ed Getting to yes : negotiating agreement without giving in Reprint ed New York: Penguin Books ISBN 0140065342 
  2. ^ a b Gregory Brazeal, "Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation", Harvard Law & Policy Review Online, vol 3, p 1 2009
  3. ^ Saner, Raymond The Expert Negotiator, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2000 p 40
  4. ^ a b Churchman, David 1993 Negotiation Tactics Maryland: University Press of America p 13
  5. ^ Trotschel; Hufmeier; Loschelder; Schwartz; Collwitzer 2011 "Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 771–790 doi:101037/a0023801 
  6. ^ "Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update" Journal of Organizational Behavior 13: 265–274 2006-11-21 doi:101002/job4030130307 Retrieved 2014-08-24 
  7. ^ Shell, R G 2006 Bargaining for advantage New York: Penguin Books
  8. ^ Marks, M; Harold, C 2011 "Who Asks and Who Receives in Salary Negotiation" Journal of Organizational Behavior 32: 371–394 doi:101002/job671 
  9. ^ Sorenson, R; Morse, E; Savage, G 1999 "The Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model" The International Journal of Conflict Management 
  10. ^ Forsyth, David 2009 Group dynamics Wadsworth Pub Co pp 379–409 
  11. ^ "negotiating in bad faith", example of use of "bad faith" definition in Oxford Online Dictionary
  12. ^ IBHS Union Voice 2008-12-03 ""Bad Faith Negotiation", Union Voice" Unitaswordpresscom Retrieved 2014-08-24 
  13. ^ example of use - "the Republicans accused the Democrats of "negotiating in bad faith", Oxford Online Dictionary
  14. ^ Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr, "The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model' Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger", Political Psychologysubscription required
  15. ^ a b " the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's opponent ", The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T Gilbert, Susan T Fiske, Gardner Lindzey
  16. ^ Kopelman, S; Rosette, A; and Thompson, L 2006 "The three faces of eve: Strategic displays of positive neutral and negative emotions in negotiations" Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes OBHDP, 99 1, 81-101
  17. ^ Kopelman, S and Rosette, A S 2008 "Cultural variation in response to strategic display of emotions in negotiations" Special Issue on Emotion and Negotiation in Group Decision and Negotiation GDN, 17 1 65-77
  18. ^ a b c d e f Forgas, J P 1998 "On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and behavior" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 565–577 doi:101037/0022-3514743565 PMID 11407408 
  19. ^ a b c d Van Kleef, GA; De Dreu, CKW; Manstead, ASR 2006 "Supplication and Appeasement in Conflict and Negotiation: The Interpersonal Effects of Disappointment, Worry, Guilt, and Regret" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91 1: 124–142 doi:101037/0022-3514911124 
  20. ^ a b c d Butt, AN; Choi, JN; Jaeger, A 2005 "The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics" Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 6: 681–704 doi:101002/job328 
  21. ^ a b Kramer, R M; Newton, E; Pommerenke, P L 1993 "Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: Effects of self-esteem and mood" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56: 110–133 doi:101006/obhd19931047 
  22. ^ a b c d Maiese, Michelle "Emotions" Beyond Intractability Eds Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder Posted: July 2005 downloaded: 30 August 2007
  23. ^ a b Carnevale, P J D; Isen, A M 1986 "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37: 1–13 doi:101016/0749-59788690041-5 
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Barry, B; Fulmer, I S; & Van Kleef, G A 2004 "I laughed, I cried, I settled: The role of emotion in negotiation" In M J Gelfand & J M Brett Eds, The handbook of negotiation and culture pp 71–94 Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press
  25. ^ a b 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 doi:101006/obhd19972705 
  26. ^ Davidson, M N; Greenhalgh, L 1999 "The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race" Research on Negotiation in Organizations 7: 3–26 
  27. ^ Seidner, Stanley S 1991 "Negative Affect Arousal Reactions from Mexican and Puerto Rican Respondents" Washington, DC: ERIC 
  28. ^ Albarracin, D; Kumkale, GT 2003 "Affect as Information in Persuasion: A Model of Affect Identification and Discounting" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 3: 453–469 doi:101037/0022-3514843453 
  29. ^ Van Kleef, G A; De Dreu, C K W; Manstead, A S R 2004 "The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations" PDF Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 57–76 doi:101037/0022-351486157 
  30. ^ Bazerman, M H; Curhan, J R; Moore, D A; Valley, K L 2000 "Negotiation" Annual Review of Psychology 51: 279–314 doi:101146/annurevpsych511279 
  31. ^ Sparks, D B 1993 The Dynamics of Effective Negotiation second edition Houston: Gulf Publishing Co
  32. ^ Brianne, Hall,; Tracy, Hoelting, 2015-04-24 "Influence of negotiation and practice setting on salary disparities between male and female physician assistants" 
  33. ^ a b Gladstone, Eric; O’Connor, Kathleen M 2014-09-01 "A counterpart's feminine face signals cooperativeness and encourages negotiators to compete" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 125 1: 18–25 doi:101016/jobhdp201405001 
  34. ^ Amanatullah, Emily T; Tinsley, Catherine H 2013-01-01 "Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120 1: 110–122 doi:101016/jobhdp201203006 
  35. ^ "Negotiation Etymology" Online Etymology Dictionary Retrieved May 11, 2014 
  36. ^ Richard Luecke Negotiation Harvard Business Essentials Boston: Harvard Business School Press ISBN 9781591391111 
  37. ^ Gates, Steve 2011 The Negotiation Book United Kingdom: A John Wiley and Sons, LTD, Publication p 232 ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9 
  38. ^ Gates, Steve 2011 The Negotiation Book United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Publication p 240 ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9 
  39. ^ Goldman, Alvin 1991 Settling For More: Mastering Negotiating Strategies and Techniques Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc p 83 ISBN 0-87179-651-1 
  40. ^ a b Lewicki, R J; D M Saunders; J W Minton 2001 Essentials of Negotiation New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education p 82 ISBN 0-07-231285-8 
  41. ^ Gates, Steve 2011 The Negotiation Book United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Publication p 246 ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9 
  42. ^ Coburn, Calum "Neutralising Manipulative Negotiation Tactics" Negotiation Training Solutions Retrieved 1 October 2012 
  43. ^ Gates, Steve 2011 The Negotiation Book United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Publication p 245 ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9 
  44. ^ a b Lewicki, R J; DM Saunders; JW Minton 2001 Essentials of Negotiation New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education p 81 ISBN 0-07-231285-8 
  45. ^ Lewicki, R J; D M Saunders; J W Minton 2001 Essentials of Negotiation New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education p 86 ISBN 0-07-231285-8 
  46. ^ Vecchi, G M, Van Hasselt, V B, & Romano, S J 2005 "Crisis hostage negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution" Aggression and Violent Behavior, 105, 533-551
  47. ^ Walker, Henry 1935 Southern Railway Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff 
  48. ^ Hui, Zhou; Tingqin Zhang "Body Language in Business Negotiation" International Journal of Business Management 3 2  |access-date= requires |url= help
  49. ^ Body Language Magic 
  50. ^ Donaldson, Michael C Negotiating For Dummies Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc ISBN 1-118-06808-4 
  51. ^ Pease, Barbara and Alan 2006 The Definitive Book of Body Language New York: Bantam Dell ISBN 0-553-80472-3 
  52. ^ Donaldson, Michael C; Donaldson, Mimi 1996 Negotiating for dummies New York: Hungry Minds ISBN 978-1-56884-867-9 

Further reading

See also: List of books about negotiation
  • Camp, Jim 2007 No, The Only Negotiating System You Need For Work Or Home Crown Business New York
  • Movius, H and Susskind, L E 2009 Built to Win: Creating a World Class Negotiating Organization Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press
  • Roger Dawson, Secrets of Power Negotiating - Inside Secrets from a Master Negotiator Career Press, 1999
  • Davérède, Alberto L "Negotiations, Secret", Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
  • Ronald M Shapiro and Mark A Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1
  • David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006
  • Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005
  • Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
  • Catherine Morris, ed Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers Trust
  • Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Belknap Press 1982, ISBN 0-674-04812-1
  • David Churchman, "Negotiation Tactics" University Press of America, Inc 1993 ISBN 0-8191-9164-7
  • William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, revised second edition, Bantam, 1993, trade paperback, ISBN 0-553-37131-2; 1st edition under the title, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, 1991, hardcover, 161 pages, ISBN 0-553-07274-9
  • William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Revised 2nd edition, Penguin USA, 1991, trade paperback, ISBN 0-14-015735-2; Houghton Mifflin, 1992, hardcover, 200 pages, ISBN 0-395-63124-6 The first edition, unrevised, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, hardcover, ISBN 0-395-31757-6
  • The political philosopher Charles Blattberg distinguished between negotiation and conversation, and criticized conflict-resolution methods that give too much weight to the former See his From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-19-829688-6, a work of political philosophy; and his Shall We Dance A Patriotic Politics for Canada, Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen's University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-7735-2596-3, which applies that philosophy to the Canadian case
  • Leigh L Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator 3rd Ed, Prentice Hall 0ct2005
  • Nicolas Iynedjian, Négociation - Guide pratique, CEDIDAC 62, Lausanne 2005, ISBN 2-88197-061-3
  • Michele J Gelfand and Jeanne M Brett, ed Handbook of negotiation and culture, 2004 ISBN 0-8047-4586-2
  • "Emotion and conflict" from the Beyond Intractability Database
  • Echavarria, Martin, 2015 Enabling Collaboration – Achieving Success Through Strategic Alliances and Partnerships LID Publishing Inc ISBN 9780986079337 Nierenberg, Gerard I 1995 The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains Barnes and Noble ISBN 1-56619-816-X 
  • Andrea Schneider & Christopher Honeyman, eds, The Negotiator's Fieldbook, American Bar Association 2006 ISBN 1-59031-545-6
  • Dr Chester Karrass "Effective Negotiating Tips"
  • Skaf, M A 2000 The Use of Financial Engineering and Real Options in the Design of Negotiated Agreements Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University
  • Richard H Solomon and Nigel Quinney American Negotiating Behavior: Wheeler-Dealers, Legal Eagles, Bullies, and Preachers United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010; 357 pages; identifies four mindsets in the negotiation behavior of policy makers and diplomats; draws on interviews with more than 50 practitioners
  • Charles Arthur Willard Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy University of Chicago Press 1996
  • John McMillan "Games, Strategies, and Managers" Oxford University Press 1992 ISBN 0-19-507403-3
  • Charles Arthur Willard A Theory of Argumentation University of Alabama Press 1989
  • Charles Arthur Willard Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge University of Alabama Press 1982
  • Short definition of negotiation
  • "Negotiation Etymology" Online Etymology Dictionary Retrieved 11 May 2014 
  • Trotschel; Hufmeier; Loschelder; Schwartz; Collwitzer 2011 "Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 771–790 doi:101037/a0023801 
  • Hames, David S 2011 "Integrative Negotiation: A strategy for creating value" Negotiation: Closing deals, settling disputes, and making team decisions SAGE Publications ISBN 9781483332727 
  • Marks, M; Harold, C 2011 "Who Asks and Who Receives in Salary Negotiation" Journal of Organizational Behavior 32: 371–394 doi:101002/job671 
  • Sorenson, R; Morse, E; Savage, G 1999 "The Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model" The International Journal of Conflict Management 

External links

negotiation, negotiation articles, negotiation meaning, negotiation process, negotiation skills, negotiation strategies, negotiation tactics, negotiation techniques, negotiation tips, negotiation training

Negotiation Information about


  • user icon

    Negotiation beatiful post thanks!


Negotiation viewing the topic.
Negotiation what, Negotiation who, Negotiation explanation

There are excerpts from wikipedia on this article and video

Random Posts



A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or...
Boston Renegades

Boston Renegades

Boston Renegades was an American women’s soccer team, founded in 2003 The team was a member of the U...
Sa Caleta Phoenician Settlement

Sa Caleta Phoenician Settlement

Sa Caleta Phoenician Settlement can be found on a rocky headland about 10 kilometers west of Ibiza T...

Bodybuildingcom is an American online retailer based in Boise, Idaho, specializing in dietary supple...