Negotiation Traps

There are many specific reasons for bad outcomes in negotiations. Negotiators often become their own worst enemies. Behaviors and psychological phenomena listed below interfere with effective negotiating and may lead to a deadlock.

1. Assuming that positions are the focus of the negotiation process. When positions become the primary focus during the value-creating phase, they often represent a major stumbling block. This is especially true when individualsbecome egoistically linked to a positionthat has been initially stated. If this has occurred, and a negotiator’s position is attacked, the position holder will likely take the attack personally. Individuals resist such attack for two reasons. First, individuals are often afraid of backing away from a position because they may be perceived as week and incompetent. Second, once a negotiator backs away from a position, it is difficult to regain what is already given away. Therefore, positions should play a secondary role. This can be accomplished by placing early emphasis on identifying and understanding each other’s interests rather than arguing for a particular position.

2. Assuming that participant interests are, by definition, in conflict. It is often possible for negotiators to recognize that many other positions have the potential of satisfying each negotiator’s interests. Perceived in this way, interests are inherently not in conflict. Find the right alternatives, when and where possible, and the conflict between interests disappears.

3. Assuming from the beginning that the pie available is fixed and cannot be expanded. Many negotiators function as if what is known, or available, at the beginning of the negotiation process is all that exists. Therefore, if one individual is to gain, someone else must lose. When this occurs, negotiators automatically bypass the value-creating stage and jump directly to the claiming stage of negotiations. The net result is that no attempt is made to expand their understanding of interests or to jointly create new alternatives capable of satisfying more than one negotiator’s interests.

4. Linking evaluation with creation. The identification of new alternatives often requires managers to engage in creative behaviours. Creativity can be stifled if criticisms are allowed too early in the creative process. When negotiators link either evaluation or the need to decide prematurely with the inventing efforts, excessive tension is often introduced into the negotiation process. To avoid this tension, or minimize personal attack, negotiators frequently reduce or eliminate their creative efforts. Instead, negotiators should attempt to separate creative activities and evaluation or decision-making by separating these activities in time, by altering the individuals involved, or structurally altering the manner in which decisions are made.

5. Viewing the problems facing others as their problems, not yours. Ineffective negotiators often take the position that problems faced by other negotiators are not their concern. Negotiators must learn that if it is important to the other parties, it must be considered important by them. If the others’ goals are not met, or they feel threatened, they will likely become defensive. Similarly, if the other parties’ goals or concerns are ridiculed as unimportant, they will respond in kind and treat the attacking parties’ goals or concerns as unimportant. The net result of either scenario is a strained relationship that prevents creativity and joint effort.