Você está na página 1de 40


Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC)

Maxwell AFB, AL 36118

1 Oct 13


TIME: 5 Hours
METHOD: Guided Discussion/Experiential
Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1-1, Leadership and Force Development. 18 Feb
Albin, C. Justice and Fairness in International Negotiations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Blake, Robert, et al. Managing Intergroup Conflict in Industry. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company, 1964.
Blanchard, Kenneth and Paul Hersey. Management of Organization Behavior, 6th edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1993.
Camp, Jim. No: the Only Negotiating System You Need for Work and Home. New York:
Crown Business, 2007.
Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2008.
Cohen, Herb. You Can Negotiate Anything. Secaucus, N.J.: L. Stuart, 1980.
Cohen, Raymond. Negotiating Across Cultures. United States Institute of Peace.
Washington, DC. 1997.
Cohen, Steve. Negotiations for Managers. McGraw-Hill Professional. New York, New
York. 2002.
Coltri, L. (2010). Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Conflict Diagnosis Approach.
Prentice Hall.
Department of the Air Force (2009). Air Force Instruction (AFI) 51-1201, Alternative
Dispute Resolution in Workplace Disputes.
Eisen, Stephan and Hudson, Kimberly, Warrior Negotiator: No Longer an Oxymoron, but
a Necessity. Air Force Culture & Language Center, 2010.
Eisen, Stephan. Practical Guide to Negotiating in the Military. Air Force Culture and
Language Center. 2010.
Fisher, R.., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without
Giving In. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Fisher, R.., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Get to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving in, Second
Edition. New York, 1991.

Goodwin, Deborah. The Military and Negotiation: the Role of the Soldier-diplomat.
London: Frank Cass, 2005.
Hudson, Kimberly, Cross Cultural Conflict Management. Air Force Culture & Language
Center, 2010.
Hudson, Kimberly, Expeditionary Skills Training Cross Cultural Negotiation Course.
Air Force Culture & Language Center, 2010.
Kraybill, R. S., Evans, R, A., & Evans, A. F., (2001), Peace Skills: A Manual for
Community Mediators, San Francisco, CA.
Lederach, J. P., (1997), Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies,
Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lewicki, Roy J., Bruce Barry, and David Saunders. Essentials of Negotiation (4th
Edition). McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York. 2007.
Lund, Michael. Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy.
Washington, D.C. United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996.
Nichols, Ralph. Are You Listening? McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, NY
Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
without Giving In. New York: Penguin, 1991.
SAF/GCD (2012). Air Force Mediation Compendium: How to Manage and Mediate
Workplace Disputes (4th Ed.).
Spector, Bertrom. Approaches to Peace building. Negotiation Readiness in the
Development Context: Adding Capacity to Ripeness. Palgrave Macmillan: New York,
NY 2002.
Thomas, Kenneth. Conflict and Conflict Management. Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company, 1976. 889-931.
Thomas, Kenneth. Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations. Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1992. 659-717.
Tracy, Brian, Persuading Others. Speak to Win: How to Present with Power in Any
Situation, American Management Association: New York, NY 2008.
Ury, William. Getting to Yes: Negotiating with Difficult People. New York: Bantam,
Zartman, I. William. "Ripeness-Promoting Strategies. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado,
Zartman, I. William, The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond in Stern and Druckman, eds.,
International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War, National Academy Press/National
Research Council: Washington DC, 2000.

UM05SG - 2

Read the student guide (14,000 words, approximately 120 minutes)
GENERAL LEARNING OUTCOME: Students who graduate from the
Noncommissioned Officer Academy are better prepared to foster collaborative
relationships as evidenced by their comprehension of negotiating.
The Introduction to Negotiating lesson supports the following AF Institutional
Competency / Sub-competency:
Fostering Collaborative Relationships Negotiating
TERMINAL COGNITIVE OBJECTIVE: Comprehend negotiating concepts and their
impact on subordinate, NCO, unit, and mission effectiveness.
1. Explain negotiating concepts and their impact on NCO, unit, and mission
2. Give examples of negotiating concepts and their impact on NCO, unit, and mission
3. Predict the impact of negotiating concepts on subordinate, NCO, unit, and mission
AFFECTIVE OBJECTIVE: Value negotiating concepts.

UM05SG - 3

INTRODUCTION: Attention, Motivation, and Overview
MP 1. Key Terms
MP 2. Trust, Information, Power, and Options (TIPO) Model
MP 3. Negotiation Preferences and Styles Chart (NPSC)
MP 4. Negotiating Across Cultures
MP 5. Mediation
MP 6. Paying Attention during Communication
CONCLUSION: Summary, Re-motivation, and Closure

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But, let us never fear to negotiate.
- John F. Kennedy
35th President of the United States
As members of the US Armed Forces, we constantly interact with civilian employees,
contractors, and members of our service as well as our sister services. In addition, many of
us have worked with members from other nations, in various environments and situations.
Our interactions include solving problems and settling disputes that involve two or more
people or groups, who must decide on a course of action necessary to accomplish a goal. It
may be hard to believe, but every situation like this involves some form of negotiations.
Your current rank not only includes leading others, it often requires you to negotiate on
their behalf. As we examine negotiations, understand that negotiations techniques and skills
can be very useful in the workplace, in the civilian marketplace, and even at home.
The institutional competency People & Teams and the Air Force Policy Directive 36-26,
Fostering Collaborative Relationships identifies Negotiating as a critical skill. In todays
complex working and military environment, your span of authority is often less than your
span of responsibility. The need to operate in peer-based relationships across joint services
and cross-cultural environments include inter/intra-agency and coalition environments.

UM05SG - 4

Understandably, there are situations in the military that require immediate decisions and
there is no time for lengthy, relationship-centered negotiations. However, this reading
provides information pertaining to the importance of developing relationships in any
situation with the goal of helping you to be more successful in any negotiations situation.
You will learn several key terms and examine the TIPO Model, a tool many negotiators
reference as they prepare to negotiate and build trusting relationships. You will also read
about the five essential negotiating styles, the strengths of each, and when it is appropriate
to use each one. With an understanding of these five strategies (and effective
communication skills), you will be better prepared to evaluate any given situation and
correctly select and apply the most appropriate strategy. Next, you will learn about
negotiating in cross-cultural environments. We will then briefly explore the concept of
mediation followed by the importance of paying attention and actively listening as we
communicate and negotiate.
NOTE: As you are reading this material, keep in mind that a negotiation can be as simple
as a five-minute discussion or as complex as a three-month long, multiparty process. The
knowledge and understanding gained from this lesson can be applied to many different
situations. What might change is the length of preparation and execution.
Anchoring is an offer that is at (or slightly more aggressive) than the aspiration point.
Offers can indicate ones aspiration point and bargaining zone. The expectation is that the
anchor pulls or secures an agreement close to ones aspiration point. Research strongly
suggests that in simple bargaining situations the stronger ones anchor, the closer the final
agreement is to the negotiators aspiration point.
Aspiration Point is the best outcome each party hopes to achieve from a negotiated
Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA): Defined as an alternative that,
should negotiations fail, you are willing and able to execute without the other partys
participation or permission. Understanding your BATNA and the opposites BATNA will
help you determine when or if you should walk away from the negotiation table. To
formulate a practical BATNA, you must have both the capability (resources) and the will to
execute this alternative on your own without any assistance.
Convergent and Divergent Thinking:

Convergent Thinkers tend to be reliable, rational, and principle-based. They

constantly work to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer thorough plans
that fully address all contingencies.

Divergent thinkers mental processes tend to be creative and spontaneous. They are
comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They prefer flexible plans with as
many options as possible.

Demand: A demand is a statement of terms with no room for adjustment. It is positional

and embodies the most precise use of a take it or leave it option.
Interests are the reason behind your position. It is the why behind what you want. To
help determine interests, investigate your position through a series of critical thinking (CT),

UM05SG - 5

questions that begin with who, what, when, where, and why. There are three basic types of
interests; procedural, psychological and substantive.

Procedural interests are those concerning how a process is conducted. Negotiators

with procedural interests are not as concerned with the actual details of the outcome
as they are with how an outcome is determined.

Psychological interests (sometimes called relationship interests) are concerned with

how people feel, how they are perceived, and how they relate with others.

Substantive interests, which are perhaps the most important, have to do with things
such as schedules, prices, salaries, etc. These make up the bulk of most negotiations.

Interest-Based Negotiations (IBN), also referred to as Interest-based Problem-Solving, is

the practice of focusing on the interests, and not the positions of the two negotiating parties.
It is the preferred style by the Air Force mediators because, in most instances, there will be
a continuing relationship between the parties after mediation, and negotiations adjourn. In
IBN, parties are more likely to come to a mutually satisfactory outcome when their
respective interests are met. Typical negotiations concentrate on a tangible or intangible
object (e.g. money, property, benefits, or obligations) and how to distribute it among the
disputing parties. With IBN, the focus is placed on the interests of each party and how to
satisfy them. The mediators challenge is to guide these parties to focus on their interests
instead of their positions.
Negotiation is a process involving two or more people or groups who have a degree of
difference in positions, interests, goals, values, or beliefs and who are striving to reach
agreement on issues or courses of action. Negotiation can also be defined as a dialogue
intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for
individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests.
Position: In negotiating, a position is what you want. Your position is what you envision
as your best possible outcome. This is the stance one takes that is usually founded on his or
her underlying interests.
Reservation Point is the bottom line or least favorable option or offer you will accept.
Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): The bargaining range defined as the overlapping
(common) area of each partys aspiration point and reservation point. No overlap, no
Heres a simple example of how these terms
apply in a negotiation between an Airman and
his supervisor:
The Airman, a single parent, is the primary
representative for the sections safety program
which is scheduled to be inspected by the Wing
Safety office in two days. Unfortunately, for
him, his primary child caregiver had to leave
town unexpectedly for a family emergency and
he is struggling with a limited income.

UM05SG - 6

Figure 1, Airman and Supervisor

Therefore, he is requesting three days of leave to care for his child (position). He needs a
trusted person to care for his child for the next three days (interest). The Airman has six
days of accrued leave, which he mentions to his supervisor to solidify her approval
(anchor). If necessary, he can take all six days of leave to cover the three days and extra in
case the caregivers return is delayed (aspiration point). The Airman would be willing to
take two days of leave in order to buy time to arrange an alternate caregiver for the
remaining days (reservation point). Worst case scenario, he would have to take his son to a
local daycare; to people he does not know and using money he does not have allocated for
this pricy service (BATNA).
The Supervisor is quite a divergent thinker (one who tends think in unusual and way and
eager to generate several possible solutions to a problem). In fact, her motto, Flexibility is
the key to success! is a welcomed attribute. She wants the Airman to find an alternate
caregiver instead of taking leave so he can complete the self-inspection of the safety
program (position) in order to ensure the unit is prepared and in compliance with set Air
Force Safety Program (interest). She decides that two days is appropriate to find alternate
childcare, returning to work to complete the self-inspection checklist in time for the wing
safety inspection (anchor). However, she is okay with the Airman taking one day of leave
to arrange an alternate caregiver, thus returning in time to complete the self-inspection
(aspiration point). She supposes he could take the three days necessary to care for his child
with no additional time off (reservation point) but this would force her to either find
someone else competent enough to complete the inspection, or worst case scenario, she
would have to do it herself, which adds to her already strenuous workload (BATNA). Now
the supervisor could demand the Airman not take leave, but that would be convergent
thinking (one who relies solely on rules and authority). As mentioned earlier, the
supervisor is a divergent thinker.

Figure 2, ZOPA Example

ZOPA Example (see Figure 2). This provides a visual representation of the Zone of
Possible Agreement. Remember, ZOPA is just the bargaining range. Also, notice how
the reservation and aspiration points are reversed for the Airman and NCOIC. The reason:
the Airmans goal is more days off (his aspiration point); the NCOICs goal is to give fewer
days off (her aspiration point). The above illustration provides a visual representation of the
Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), which is the bargaining range of the two parties.
Notice how the reservation and aspiration points are reversed for the Airman and
supervisor. The Airmans goal is more days off (his aspiration point), whereas the
UM05SG - 7

supervisors goal is to reconcile the situation with fewer days of leave (her aspiration point).
With an understanding of terms associated with negotiating, it is time to explore an
instrument known as the TIPO (pronounced type-o) Model.
The purpose of this model is two-fold. First, it illustrates how trust influences ones use of
information and power, and how information and power influence the way one develops
options to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, and find a solution. Second, understanding
how trust, information, and power impact any negotiation session should motivate one to
assess situations beforehand. Essentially, a careful proactive assessment can give you a
good idea of the strategy your opposite plans to use which allows you to select the most
effective negotiation strategy.
When used correctly, the TIPO model can help you negotiate effectively with subordinates,
supervisors, or any person whose position, interests, goals, values, and beliefs differ from
your own.
A. Components of the TIPO Model

Figure 3, The TIPO Model

Trust, as it pertains to TIPO, is defined as:
Your belief and/or evidence that the opposites interactions with you are or will be
genuine, sincere, and honest.
The more you trust the opposites actions and interactions, the more you are willing to share
and to be open about your actions and intentions. Usually, high trust is associated with
positive outcomes (i.e. believing the opposites information is accurate and they will act in a
trustworthy manner).
There are two major categories of trust - trust in a process and trust in a person.
Trust in a Person
Personal trust stands alone. It is not reliant on any institution or third party. At the most
basic level, personal trust is established between two people (e.g. supervisor and
subordinate). As supervisors, we trust our subordinates to do their job, be respectful,
and permit us to lead them. As subordinates, we trust that our supervisors have our best
UM05SG - 8

interests in mind, will represent our interests, demonstrate ethical behaviors, make sound
decisions, and are always willing to consider our ideas. In negotiations, personal trust
improves options and ultimately the negotiated outcome.
As mid-level supervisors, we build personal trust by taking into account how well we
conduct ourselves, by completing assigned tasks, and by considering our reputation,
status, and standing in society. For example, if we consistently commit untrustworthy
acts, micromanage our people, and fail to keep our word; it will be difficult (if not
impossible) for our opposite (the other disputing party) to trust us.
Trust in a Process
Process trust exists when both parties have faith in a governing institution and believe
that it supports their negotiations. You trust that these processes promote outcomes that
are justified (fair and impartial), legal, ethically acceptable, and also satisfy the interests
of both parties.
The Inspector General complaint system, Equal Opportunity policies and programs, Air
Force instructions, and the Air Force Core Values are examples of process trust.
Successful negotiations among military members who do not know each other depend
on the belief that all parties will adhere to these institutional policies and values.
It should go without saying that building trust takes time. However, once established, trust
helps facilitate more effective communication and potentially more efficient negotiations.
Here are just three trust-building measures that help set the expectation for an honorable
exchange between parties involved in negotiations:

Providing (or being provided) information in a way that both parties understand

Fulfilling promises made

Taking a genuine interest in your opposites interests

The level of trust directly influences the amount of information shared between and among
negotiating parties. When we trust our others, we believe the information he or she is
presenting is truthful, essential, and accurate. As a result, we feel more comfortable sharing
information with those we trust which results in more meaningful discussions, more
effective brainstorming sessions, and a greater selection of mutually-satisfying options.
However, if we distrust the opposite, we may believe he or she is withholding or offering
false information, our options may require validation by a third party source, a
confrontation with our opposite regarding out concerns pertaining to the information,
dismissing the information altogether, or continuing to negotiate based only on the
information provided.
Unfortunately, trusting information from others can be a bit challenging. Trusting
relationships allow for honest disclosure of information, which includes unpleasant,
unpopular, or less preferred information. Depending on ones approach, trust can be either
cultivated or destroyed.
Consider the following example:
While shopping for a new car, you consider purchasing a vehicle for a price
UM05SG - 9

significantly less than the dealers asking price. If the salesperson values the
relationship, he or she may accept your offer, make a fair counter offer, or show
you another vehicle within your price range. The goal here is to provide you with
such a wonderful car-buying experience, that you cannot help but tell others about
your experience with the dealer as well as the great deal.
On the other hand, if the salesperson does not value the relationship or believes
you are capable of paying much more than you are offering, he or she will reject
your offer and pressure you into purchasing the car at or close to the dealers
asking price. In this case, his or her insistence may amplify your mistrust of that
Trust and information not only influence your negotiating strategy, they influence the
amount of power you need to draw upon to execute your strategy.
As we learned in the Leader Influence lesson, we have personal and position powers that
enable us to accomplish various actions. Determining our opposites powers helps in
deciding whether we should use power over or power with them during negotiations.
Here is a quick review of the powers:
Position Powers:

Coercive and Reward: These powers depend on ones belief that his or her
opposite is willing and able to inflict punishment and/or offer incentives. Often
used to pressure or force someone to do something, some examples of coercive
power can be pursuing disciplinary (administrative) actions, taking away ones
privileges, posing restrictions, and recommending non-judicial punishment. On
the other hand, reward power is used to positively influence another persons
situation using incentives that the other party values like time-off, a promotion,
public recognition, etc. Although both are valuable tools in negotiations, do not
threaten or inflict undue punishments or promise rewards you cannot deliver.
This will negatively affect trust, which will minimize available options, thus
hindering negotiations.

Connection: This power pertains to who you know or are affiliated with.
This power depends on the others belief you have powerful connections
with others who can support and strengthen your position.

Legitimate: This is based on ones rank, position, or level of authority.

Although you may be able to use this power over your opposite, consider the
relationship and only use this power when your intentions are legal, ethical, and

Personal Powers:

Referent (or Charisma): People respond to this power because they have a high
identification with a person, respect and admiration for a person, or tend to
follow and agree with a person because he or she wishes to be like that person.
This power affords the opportunity to encourage, motivate, and inspire others.

UM05SG - 10

Information: This power comes from ones knowledge, use, and sharing of data
or information that others may need or desire. Access to secure data systems,
leadership meetings, briefings, even gossip, increases information power base.
Some tend to withhold information from others so they maintain the advantage
and the informational higher hand. The bottom line here is when you trust
others and share information; you increase their information power as well as
their trust in you.

Expert: This power comes from ones expertise in a specific task, subject, or
career field. Subject-matter experts are valuable members of any organization.
How you use and share this power base can improve or reduce trust and
ultimately the outcome of your negotiations.

When negotiating, you should assess which of these powers you have, which ones are
available to the opposite, and how the opposite perceives your power. As the TIPO Model
depicts (Figure 3), trust impacts the amount and reliability of the information you acquire
and the power you should or need to execute during a negotiation. With high levels of trust,
information and power may be actively shared between you and the opposite. For example,
you may have expert power on a topic but are fully willing to listen to the opposites
perspectives on how to solve the problem because they have additional information you
need. Lets consider the story of a Swiss engineer and his amazing invention.
George de Mestral was hiking through the
woods one day and noticed mountain thistles
tenaciously clinging to his pant legs and
beloved dog. After realizing what made the
thistles so effective, he designed a prototype
that mocked this action and presented it to
several manufacturing companies. After many
meetings and much ridicule, he eventually
convinced a French fabric company to
produce his concept. The company
Figure 4, Mestral and Velcro
representatives were experts in the fabric
industry and, though hesitant, shared their
expertise with George de Mestral. The collaboration of these two parties resulted in the
production of an incredible hook-and-loop fastener system we know today as Velcro.
If you have low trust in the opposite, you may need to apply more power over instead of
power with. For instance, you may use your expert power to discredit whatever data the
opposite brings to the table, a tactic familiar to trial lawyers. You may try to force or insist
a course of action (a more coercive technique) if your opposite disregards your requests or
terms. In other words, we share, relinquish, or hoard power and information depending on
the level of trust that exists between our opposites and ourselves.
The final part of the TIPO Model uses the foundation of trust and the elements of
information and power to develop options. Options, also referred to as the possible
solutions, choices, and alternatives, are just different ways of coming to a mutual agreement

UM05SG - 11

to solve a problem, resolve a dispute, reach a mutually satisfying outcome.

When seeking options, there are two important steps that must be accomplished first:
1. Define the problem, situation, or dispute, and
2. Identify the required and available resources (information, power, time, people,
money, etc.) needed to solve the problem, improve the situation, or settle the dispute.
More resources usually lead to more options.
Notice information and power are the first two resources listed. Information is critical to
developing options and power is critical to making the options possible. The more
trustworthy information you receive from (and about) your opposite, the more potential
options you have. Our trustworthy opposites usually offer ideas and perspectives that we
would never consider on our own. Conversely, low trust between parties negatively
influences information, undermines option development, and results in the use of power
over rather than the use of power with.
At its very worst, there may only be one option. This forces us to use our power to
operationalize it over our opposites objections. Using Insisting (competing or forcing) to
implement one solution may lead to less-than-satisfactory results.
Our understanding of the TIPO model is important but to take full advantage of its
usefulness, we also need to assess who we are dealing with, know what is at stakes, and
know the criticality of the current situation.
B. Categories of Negotiation

Figure 5, Negotiation Categories

Negotiation is a complex skill that involves people with different positions, values, and
interests striving to reach an agreement. This often leads to conflict that can be resolved in
various ways depending on who is involved, the stakes, and the situation. Now that you
have a better understanding of conflict management, lets begin with the two basic
negotiating categories. There are two basic categories that virtually all negotiation
strategies fall into: distributive and integrative.

UM05SG - 12

This category assumes resources are limited. The task of any distributive negotiating
process is to divide up a fixed set of resources. It is also known as value claiming.
Distributive negotiations objective is to claim a portion of whatever value is on the table.
Negotiators meet to exchange proposals, offers, and counter-offers.
Distributive negotiations are used usually single-issue negotiations and considered zero
sums. This approach to negotiation is used when the parties are attempting to divide, divvy,
or distribute something. Because resources are seen as fixed and limited, any gain by one
side represents a loss for the other. Conflict is seen as inevitable, and competition rather
than cooperation guides negotiations. Parties involved in the negotiations often perceive the
other side as an enemy, which hinders their success. In a competitive situation, information
is regarded as a source of power, and is, therefore hoarded and controlled.
Because information is so valuable to negotiations, deception may occur resulting in
distrust, a characteristic of the Distributive category and one of the most serious drawbacks
of distributive bargaining for military negotiators. In distributive negotiations, it is common
to run into whats referred to as hardball tactics. As an NCO, you must be aware of these
tactics and the appropriate countermeasures. Some of these tactics include:

Good Cop-Bad Cop. When faced with a case like this, counter it by naming it for
what it is; you two arent playing the old good cop/bad cop routine are you? I can
see what you are doing.

Highball-Lowball. This tactic takes advantage of you being hard-wired for

reciprocity. The other side sets a very high anchor and then offers a concession, and
you feel obligated to respond with a concession. This sets you up to feel you are
getting a fair deal, since the other party will likely say something like lets split the
difference from an overly high price. Counter this by refusing to negotiate unless
they give you a more realistic opening offer or by countering with a high/lowball of
your own.

Snow Job. This tactic aims to overwhelm you with too many details; one person can
only absorb so much. It becomes extremely difficult to determine what is real
and/or important and what is and is not a distraction. Wear the opponent down by
making him or her explain each element. The snow job counts on the person giving
up on understanding. Make them slow down and go through each piece in
painstaking detail.

Exploding Offers. These offers are only good for 24 hours and may be while
supplies last! or until the last one is sold! Counter this by asking for more time.

Lying. Always avoid dealing with someone who is not bargaining in good faithyou should evade. What does it take to rebuild trust when youve been lied to? You
can counter with a statement similar to the following: The way things have been
going the last week or so, Im confused. Could you explain what is going on
because its hard for me to work with you if I dont understand whats happening?

Intimidation/Aggressive Behavior. Attempting to force the other party to agree by

means of emotional ploy, this tactic usually incorporates anger and fear. Change the

UM05SG - 13

game from hard bargaining to interest based negotiation and use active listening by
rephrasing his/her demands as his/her interests. If he/she is being rude, you can call
him/her on that.
The integrative category, while still acknowledging that in the end resources must be
distributed (there is value to claim at some point in any negotiation), does not see
resources as necessarily fixed and means that integrative negotiations are not
necessarily zero sum. Conflict is not seen as inevitable; there is the possibility for
mutually beneficial, value creating cooperation between the parties involved.
Negotiators see the other party as partners in the process. Cooperation between the
parties has the potential to create new value from existing resources by combining or
using them in new or different ways.
In this value-creating process, trust-building measures are actively pursued to help develop
a highly-cooperative relationship. Information and power is shared between the parties.
This approach can be executed through a collaborative (or win-win) negotiation strategy
The cooperative negotiator is concerned with maximizing absolute gains while
simultaneously meeting the counterparts interests, rather than maximizing his/her relative
gains over the other party. In this strategy, the negotiators goal is to arrive at an agreement
that satisfies the most important interests of all parties.
As a general rule, except in cases of an emergency, authors argue that military negotiators
achieve better solutions by utilizing the integrative category. One hallmark of integrative
negotiation is asking open-ended questions regarding the other partys interests, concerns,
and circumstances. As mentioned in AFDD 1-1, Leadership and Force Development,
leaders must consider underlying consequences for key stakeholders while seeking and
negotiating win/win solutions.
The authors argue that agreements reached by integrative means will be more sustainable
and will tend to enhance relationships, whereas distributive negotiation tends to degrade
relationships. Lack of cross-cultural competence intensifies this harm. It is suggested that
combining cross-cultural competence with integrative negotiation skills leads to better
relationships and better agreements, and, therefore, serves tactical and strategic objectives.
Negotiations have infinite number of variables because they occur in such a wide range of
circumstances. Understanding these variables can help us select the most effective strategy
for the situation which improves our chances for success. When a situation changes,
changing strategy is usually prudent. For example, trust, information, power, and options
often shift during negotiations. An awareness and critical evaluation of these changes can
guide our change in strategy. Two of the most important variables (task and people) fit
nicely with our assessment of the Who, Stakes, and Situation.
C. The Who, Stakes, and Situation
Who are you dealing with?
A subordinate, peer, supervisor, someone from another unit, service, or country? When
dealing with supervisors and peers, insisting may not be appropriate as our opposite
may have more position power than us. For instance, its doubtful any of us could

UM05SG - 14

force our commander to act in a given situation. Therefore, cooperating, settling, or

complying may be more appropriate. On the other hand, if we have position power,
and time is short, insisting may be the most appropriate style. Understanding who
we are dealing with and the importance of the relationship can help us decide the best
negotiation strategy to use.
What are the Stakes (what do you stand to gain or lose)?
If the issue is unimportant (the stakes are low), you could evade it or even comply with
the other party. Conversely, if the issue is critical to you (the stakes are high), insisting
or cooperating may be appropriate. Even evading may be the right choice at first in
order to allow time to gather enough information to better understand the issue and to
consider all options.
What is the Situation (current and future consequences)?
In a worst-case scenario like an emergency, you may only have a few seconds to act or
make a decision. If there is no time to make an informed decision, you may have to
flex your position power to at least impose a short-term solution. On the other hand,
if time is not an issue and all parties are willing, you can take your time, gather more
information, and seek more appropriate options.
Now that we know about the TIPO Model and how to assess the Who, Stakes, and
Situation, lets examine the Negotiations Preferences and Styles Chart.
D. Task and People Orientation
Every negotiation involves some sort of task and the interaction of two or more people or
groups of people. These two variables form the framework used to visualize and
understand the differences between the five negotiation strategies. The first step in
selecting a negotiation style that is most appropriate for the situation is determining whether
the task or the people or both are important.
People Orientation: This approach centers on the who relationship that exists between
individuals or groups involved. In some situations, developing and/or maintaining the
relationship is more important than the task at hand. This focus on the relationship is
not necessarily about developing a friendship; it is about understanding the importance
of the relationship, past, present and future. People orientation (i.e. time spent on
cultivating a relationship) is in direct proportion to the amount of power our opposites
wield and how much of that power we need to accomplish the task.
Task Orientation: Depending on the stakes and situation, this approach places more
importance on reaching an outcome, solution, or resolution. In the military context, it is
getting the mission done. High task orientation means we are very motivated to resolve
a problem or respond to a critical situation. Conversely, low task orientation means we
do not wish to (or need to) resolve the situation at this time.
Maybe we are satisfied with the current situation or status quo or perhaps we do not
agree with any of the proposed solutions, or we do not understand the problem and need
more time to gather data. Whatever the situation, it is vital that we consider connections
between task and relationship or (people orientation).

UM05SG - 15


Figure 6, NPSC

A. Negotiation Styles
Figure 5 shows five negotiation styles: 1) Evade, 2) Comply, 3) Insist, 4) Settle, and 5)
Cooperate. Note how task and people orientation fits into this model. For example, the
Evading style sheds little emphasis on either orientation, and thus fails to consider the
importance of the task or the people involved. However, the Cooperating style emphasizes
both the task as well as the people involved. What follows is a description of each strategy
and its appropriate use.
Evade (Not now, can you come back later?)
Use this passive, unassertive, strategy to maintain the current situation. It is useful when:
1. The current situation favors any proposed solution
2. The issue at hand is unimportant to one or both parties
3. There are other, more pressing priorities; and/or
4. The opposite is way too powerful or competitive

UM05SG - 16

When assessing TIPO, the Evade strategy may be appropriate:

Trust: When trust is low and/or we believe our opposite is not willing to work with us
or we believe they intend us ill will. Use of this strategy can buy time and with the
passage of time, conditions may change in our favor.
Information: When opposites provide little to no information to work the issue, we are
not motivated to gain the needed information, or we dont trust the information
provided. Sometimes our information discourages us from engaging in the issue, even
though our opposite is interested in engaging.
Power: When we have little or no power and/or our powers are being diverted to tackle
other pressing issues.
Options: When we have little or no control over the outcome of a selected option, and
want to wait for conditions to change.
Comply (Yes, absolutely, lets do it your way!)
Use this passive strategy when preserving the relationship between you and the other party
is more important than the task. Under this strategy one party complies with or gives in so
the opposite (more assertive party) gets what they want. Use of this strategy tends to
delegate responsibility to the other person or party.
When assessing TIPO, the Comply strategy may be appropriate:
Trust: When there is a trusting relationship between the parties, and there is a desire to
continue trust-building.
Information: When we have information that we are willing to share and the opposite trusts
our information (and we trust their information).
Power: When we have little or no power, our opposite perceives us as having no power, or
we have no power, but have high trust. This strategy may also be appropriate when we
have sufficient power to deal with the issue, but want to maintain the relationship.
Options: When options favor our opposite. However, this does not always mean a bad
outcome for us. Complying is useful for establishing rapport and building goodwill for
future negotiations. On the other hand, we must carefully evaluate the potential impact on
long-term relations when using comply strategy. If we comply too quickly or too often, our
opposite may see that as a sign of weakness, which can make future negotiations more
Insist (Take it or Leave it)
Use this assertive, winner-takes-all, task oriented strategy when obtaining your objective is
paramount, regardless of the cost to the opposites interests or to the relationship. The Insist
strategy is usually used to resolve an emergency situation but is also associated with ones
position whose authority and power affords him or her to command and demand
compliance without compromise. Under this strategy, we may hoard information, damage
relationships, and put long-term negotiating relationships in jeopardy. Although one of the
most effective task oriented strategies, it is also one of the most misuseduse it with

UM05SG - 17

When assessing TIPO, the Insist strategy may be appropriate:

Trust: When trust does not exist or is not needed or valued. Simply put, the Insist
strategy is not IF we win, but HOW MUCH we win.
Information: When our assessment reveals our opposites information is suspect or,
though truthful, is of little or no value to us. This strategy is also appropriate when we
have all the information we need or the information is of sufficient quality for making
clear decisions.
Power: When we have overwhelming power during the negotiation process and the
power to see the agreement through during the execution phase. Too often we use our
power to dominate our opposite during negotiations, but then watch helplessly as the
agreement falls apart because our opposite has more power than we do during the
execution phase.
Option: When we have no time to gather information, share power (even though we
trust our opposite), or discuss options (e.g. crisis, emergency, short notice task). Often
in a crisis, the Insist strategy dominates until the crisis subsides, then other negotiating
strategies are more effective at developing more durable, long-term solutions. Under
this strategy we may ignore, intentionally or unintentionally, the other partys interests.
Settle (Lets just split the difference and call it a day)
Use this compromising strategy when there is little chance of getting everything you want
but a solution is needed. This strategy minimally satisfies the task interests of both parties
and begins with a soft offer in order to leave room for maneuvering toward a solution.
The people orientation is moderate to low, as we expect the opposite to take care of their
interests while we take care of ours. Settling is most useful where only one variable is at
stake. It usually results in a quick negotiation which makes it an efficient strategy.
However, use of this strategy rarely results in an optimal outcome. This strategy is neither
antagonistic nor nurturing.
Trust: When trust exists between the negotiating parties and there is a desire by both
parties to reach a solution quickly.
Information: When both parties are willing to share enough information that at least
supports a short-term solution
Power: When we have as much power as the opposite or have less power than the
opposite believes we have.
Option: When options favor both parties interests and a quick solution is necessary
(even if it is a short-term solution that enables more time to build trust, gather
information, or gain power).
Cooperate (Lets work together and come up with an even better idea)
The strategy, known as the Cooperative Negotiation Strategy (CNS) depends heavily on
each partys collaborative efforts and desire to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome
(task orientation) while simultaneously managing a trusting relationship (people
orientation). CNS focuses on the basic and perhaps common interests that drive each
partys position. These interests are not always evident and may take time to uncover, but

UM05SG - 18

lead to common ground, generating options valued by both parties, and possibly a solution
even better than what they could have created on their own.
For this to occur both parties must be willing to trust each other (or be willing to
cultivate trust), share information and power (to include decision making authority),
and suspend judgment on possible solutions (options).
When assessing TIPO, the Cooperate strategy may be appropriate:
Trust: When a great deal of trust exists. Although process trust may be evident,
personal trust is also critical, because this strategy depends on the sharing of information
and power. Trust building is a foundational tool of the CNS.
Information: When trust between parties is strong, thus information is reliable and
freely shared. With unconditional trust (primarily personal trust) full disclosure is
Power: When trust between parties is strong, defensive mechanisms are not as
important and people feel less vulnerable to manipulation, thus all parties are willing to
share power.
Options: Strong trust leads to a free exchange of ideas and information, which in turn
leads to multiple ways of solving the problem.
Conflict and Negotiations

Figure 7, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model and NPSC

The potential for conflict exists whenever two or more people are present. Dr. Kenneth
Thomas, author of an article entitled Conflict and Conflict Management defines conflict as
the process that results when one person (or a group) perceives that another person or
group is frustrating, or about to frustrate, an important concern.1 Incompatible differences
in values, interests, beliefs, opinions, worldviews, and perspectives are all contenders to fuel
dispute. As supervisors and leaders within our organizations, how we manage conflict has a
tremendous impact on team cohesion, unit effectiveness, and ultimately mission success.

UM05SG - 19

Conflict can be constructive or destructive. Constructive conflict spurs creative thinking

between two or more parties which result in more detailed and feasible solutions to
problems and options when negotiating and mediating. Destructive conflict produces
hostility between parties which in turn produces barriers to cooperation, destroys morale,
and thwarts efforts to solve problems and reach mutually agreed upon options. Therefore,
conflict management is deeply-rooted in the art and science of negotiation and mediation.
Comparing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model and Air Force Negotiation Center of
Excellences Negotiation Preferences and Styles Chart (NPSC), we find some intriguing
connections. For example, a person who competes (forces) his or her will on others during
conflict is highly assertive and uncooperative. This is comparable to one who insists his or
her position on the other party. An insistent negotiator is concerned more about the mission
at hand (task-oriented) then the relationship involved (people-orientation). One who
accommodates others in conflict is highly cooperative and unassertive while a compliant
negotiator is more concerned about the relationship and pleasing others then accomplishing
the task to his or her liking.
Those who avoid conflict may do so out of the shear dislike for confrontation just as a
person may evade negotiations; however, there are advantages to avoiding conflict and
evading negotiations. For instance, a person may need time to gather more information to
better understand what caused the conflict whereas a negotiator may realize the situation is
not ripe enough for resolution or the opposite is not ready to negotiate. Compromising in
conflict resembles settling in negotiations. Both parties elect to meet-in-the-middle, giving
in a little to gain a partially satisfying outcome. This is advantageous when time is short
and the need for some sort of reconciliation is critical.
Whether in conflict or negotiations, win-win situations transpire when all involved parties
are willing to cooperate and collaborate. Here, disputants consider the needs and interests
of those involved voluntarily share information with one another, and work together to
constructively brainstorm ideas that lead to mutually satisfying resolutions and agreed upon
B. The Cooperative Negotiation Strategy (CNS)
CNS concentrates on both the task and the relationship. When applying the CNS, you trade
positions for interests and find complementary differences and similarities that can help all
to move toward a mutually satisfying agreement. Cooperative negotiators purposefully seek
opportunities to create a new value from the available resources, while maintaining or
developing a relationship. The central idea is for two parties, by working together rather
than competitively, to potentially come up with a better solution as a team than either could
invent on their own. They approach negotiation as a creative problem solving exercise, not
a win lose situation and seek to equitably exchange information with the other party.
Since there is no advantage in misleading the opposite, honestly sharing information about
your interests leads toward more valuable options. Furthermore, the process of exchanging
information is part of the trust-building process that is so essential to building relationships,
partnerships, and alliances.
CNS is based on four key principles featured in Fisher and Urys book Getting to Yes. If

UM05SG - 20

done correctly, this can lead to effectively reaching a mutually desired outcome.

Focus on the problem, but continuously manage the relationship.

Acknowledge that there are positions, but focus on interests. Find common ground
between the negotiating parties by understanding both sides underlying interests.

Mutually propose solutions through use of divergent thinking. Develop options that
satisfy interests without passing judgment on any individual proposal developed.

Agree to converge on a solution that best satisfies each partys top priorities and
meets a legitimate standard.

Within these four principles is a 5-Step CNS Process you can follow when preparing to
negotiate. These are five distinct steps, but remember; once a step of the process is
completed does not mean it cannot be revisited, especially in light of new circumstances or
C. 5-Step CNS Process
The first three steps (pre-negotiations or the planning phase) should be well developed
before the first meeting. The three steps of positions, interests, and BATNA draw no
conclusions, but help to organize thoughts. Use the remaining two steps during
Step 1: Positions
Establish what your position should be based on your interests and estimate what you think
your counterparts position might be. Think about WHAT each of you may want.
Step 2: Interests
Assess why you think the position from step one is the one you need and estimate why you
think your counterpart might desire his or her position. Integral to this step is to ensure you
prioritize what interest is most important to you and what you think is most important to
your counterpart. This step helps supply the essential topics you will want to cover during
the actual negotiation meetings.
Step 3: BATNA
As mentioned earlier in this reading, BATNA is a negotiators best alternative to a
negotiated agreement (BATNA). During the planning phase, it is important to predetermine what your best alternative action is in the event negotiations fail. It is also
important to consider what your opposites BATNA is as well. This allows you to estimate
how much power each party may possess and use during negotiations or how interested
each disputant is at reconciling the issue (perhaps the stakes arent high enough for him or
her to care). One partys BATNA may not be a bad option. This negotiator may simply
evade negotiations and resort to their BATNA to avoid confrontation with their opposite.

UM05SG - 21

Step 4: Brainstorming
You are now engaged in negotiating with your counterpart and using divergent thinking
skills to develop ideas that will satisfy the interests you have developed. As this step is
executed, remember that developing good options is only possible after you have a robust
discussion about both sides interests.
You cannot brainstorm proposals until you have a good mutual understanding of interests
and priorities. Negotiation effectiveness and efficiency are negatively affected when
information about interests is not shared.
Once you begin brainstorming options for mutual gain, it is essential to list all the options
developed without judgment -- often the best solution is one that grows out of an initially
incomplete or weak option. The only way such options can be transformed into good
options is if both parties suspend judgment on the original idea; this allows the idea to
improve through subsequent suggestions. It is also advisable to set a ground rule during this
phase that you are only brainstorming; no party is committed to any option put forward
during brainstorming. If you cannot come to any kind of agreement in this step, then you
may need to go back and start again with positions.
Step 5: Solution
In this final step, the best idea from all of those presented is selected by all negotiating
parties. In the military context, select option(s) that meet(s) the most important priorities for
both sides. To help this process along, it is suggested that critical thinking questions
continue to flow as options are suggested as the best. For example, if your counterpart
suggests Option D is the best, you might ask the counterpart which of his/her interests
Option D satisfies, as well as which interests of yours they think the option satisfies. Be sure
any solution you come up with meets a legitimate standard. In the Air Force, many
standards are set for you in AFIs, OIs, or Core Values. For the solution to be feasible, it
must meet the following standards.
D. Key Features of the Cooperative Negotiation Strategy:
CNS Changes Negotiation from a Contest of Wills to a Search for Solutions. By
focusing on the underlying interests, we treat disputes and issues as mutual problems to
solve rather than a contest of wills and personalities. Use of the CNS shifts the focus away
from making concessions to a genuine search for solutions that meet the interests of both
CNS not only Focuses on the Problem, but also actively Manages the Relationship. In
a negotiation, developing friendships is not the goal. Although we do not have to like our
opposite, we need to respect them just as they need to respect us. Respect helps develop
trust, which then helps open communication channels so that information about interests
may be shared and used to develop potential solutions.
CNS Focuses on Understanding the Underlying Interests. CNS recognizes that parties
underlying interests (desires, values, concerns, and fears) are often at the heart of the dispute
and are the reason why parties insist on their positions. It is more important for parties to
know WHY they want something (interests) rather than just focus on WHAT they want
(position). CNS requires each party to focus on listening, uncovering, and understanding

UM05SG - 22

both parties interests.

CNS Recognizes that Information Sharing and Critical Thinking Are at the Heart of
Problem solving. CNS rests on a skill set that includes open communications, active
listening, and critical thinking. These skills are needed for parties to understand perceptions
of events, priorities concerns, fears, and any other piece of information that helps in the
search for viable solutions. In CNS, sharing information and thinking critically and
understanding information is in sharp contrast to the tendency to withhold and manipulate
information characterizing other negotiating strategies.
MP 4. Negotiating Across Cultures

Figure 8, CNS 5-Step Process and the 3C Model

Negotiating with a fellow American or someone from Northern Europe may come rather
easy since these geographic regions are predominately low-context cultures. As we learned
from the OA03, Cross-Cultural Awareness lesson, individualistic or low-context cultures
are rule-oriented societies where interpersonal contact is minimal and actions focus on
accomplishing the task as soon as possible. However, suppose you were required to
negotiate with a member of a more collectivistic or high-context culture where establishing
the relationship is just as important as reaching a mutually satisfying outcome? Would you
feel confident and comfortable in such a situation?
As you learn about and hone your negotiation and mediation skills, always keep in mind
that the person, people, or parties you encounter may have a set of values, beliefs, and a
worldview that is vastly different from yours. In the Cross-Cultural Awareness lesson, we
learned that being cross-culturally competent (or 3C) means possessing the ability to quickly
and accurately comprehend and then act appropriately and effectively in culturally complex
environments. Possessing an appropriate level of cross-cultural competency enables us to
achieve desired effects without necessarily having prior exposure to, or experience with, a
particular social group, geographic region, or foreign language. A lack of awareness can
lead to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and unintentional insult. Therefore, with

UM05SG - 23

increased knowledge about other cultures, the willingness to learn and increase our crosscultural competence, and taking advantage of opportunities to apply ourselves using various
learning approaches; we will be better able to relate, communicate, negotiate, and positively
influence others and the situation (see Figure 8).
For example, if you were walking into a room where you were expected to negotiate with a
Kenyan host, you may be a bit surprised when he grabs your hand as soon as you enter the
room. You may react abruptly, withdrawing your hand from his grasp, thus offending him.
However, researching the Kenyan culture will reveal that Kenyans are very personable and
a hand greeting is an accepted behavior. If he or she were Japanese, you may want to plan
on bowing with them during initial salutations. With 3C, you have an opportunity to
prevent and remedy false stereotypes to ultimately build trusting relationships across
cultural lines.
A. Low- and High-Context Cultures
When interacting with foreign cultures, effective negotiators must determine whether their
opposite is a member of a high- or low-context society and consider the perspectives,
beliefs, values, and worldviews associated with that culture. As we learned in the CrossCultural Awareness lesson, low-context cultures are commonly found in North America and
Northern Europe, are task-oriented, and diligently work to find a solution and are quick to
decide and declare what they believe to be the best solution for all parties without ever
considering the interests or even including their opposite. This I have a problem and know
whats best for me and you approach often clashes with high-context cultures. Highcontext cultures (typically found in Southern Europe, Latin America, Asia, Middle East, and
Africa) are more people-oriented and believe that establishing rapport and a trusting
relationship is just as (or more) important as reaching a mutually satisfying solution. To
better understand some of the differences that exist between high- and low-context, lets
examine a few of the values that influence a cultures worldview:

(North America/North Europe)


May believe they represent the

more supreme culture (based on
wealth, military strength,
intellect, etc.) and therefore
possesses greater power
Task-Oriented: Believe the task
is most important and that the
solution must comply with its
cultures laws, policies,
regulations, and social standards


(South Europe, Latin America, Asia,
Middle East, Africa)
May hold a prestigious position within
the community (i.e. an elder or wealthy
businessperson) which grants them
more power
People-Oriented: Believe establishing
a trusting relationship is just as, or even
more important than the task and that
the solution should uphold its cultures
religious and ethnic beliefs, values, and
social standards

UM05SG - 24

Self-direction Strive to reach a resolution

quickly, low-context cultures
will likely overlook or even
disregard the thoughts, feelings,
and ideas of the other party

Anticipate their opposite will

recognize its culture and, for
their own sake will refrain from
acts of discrimination like ethnic
and cultural prejudice,
stereotypes, and intolerance

Wish to establish rapport and a shared

understanding for one another, highcontext cultures will expect to feel
comfortable expressing thoughts,
feelings, and ideas without fear of
Expect their opposite will consider and
respect its culture and will abstain from
discriminatory behaviors like ethnic
and cultural prejudice, stereotypes, and

As you can see, these differences could be quite detrimental to cross-cultural negotiations.
Therefore, to be successful; all parties must realize that establishing a trusting relationship
and understanding for one another is an essential first step toward reaching and mutually
satisfying resolution that meets each partys interests-not their positions. We can apply
principles from both the TIPO Model (Figure 3) and the NPSC (Figure 5) to emphasize the
impact a trusting relationship (founded on free-flowing information and shared power) and
the negotiation strategies used has on cross-cultural negotiations.
Low-context cultures are primarily task-oriented and work toward negotiating a resolution
as quickly as possible. The task-oriented person would most likely use the Insist strategy
and their position powers to get what they want. In this situation, they desire a speedy
resolve that would most likely satisfy his or her position, rather than interests. Because of a
lack of trust in the opposite (and/or for the sake of time), a low-context disputant will
relinquish little or no information to the opposite. The Insist strategy disregards the other
partys interests and needs and usually results in a short-term solution.
High-context cultures are more people-oriented and prefer to establish trusting relationships
with others prior to engaging in negotiations. High-context negotiators use the Cooperative
Negotiation Strategy (CNS) with the expectation that both parties will collaborate as
partners, sharing information and power in order to reach a mutually satisfying solution.
The use of the Cooperate strategy will most likely result in a long-term relationship and
outcome. Notice here, that the party exercising the Insist and Cooperate strategies is not
confined to its BATNA so long as a resolution is reached with consent of all involved
parties. The below table explains the how the differences between a low-context culture
and one that is high-context and how they can affect negotiations.


Immediately places greater faith in
the negotiations process instead of
the opposite, believing only the
procedure is needed to quickly
move the parties toward a

UM05SG - 25

Initially makes efforts to develop a
trust with the opposite instead of the
process (of negotiations) with the
assumption they too will be trusted

Efforts and willingness to share

information with the opposite
diminish once it is apparent the
opposite is reluctant to share
Relies on perceived positional
May resort to a either using positional
power and the Insist negotiation
power and the Insist strategy to
strategy to force the opposite
retaliate, or succumb to the opposites
toward a pre-determined resolution power and assume a more passive
or outcome
negotiation strategy like Comply,
Settle, or Evade
This lack of trust and shared
Due to a lack of trust and shared
information will most likely:
information, this party will most
- have fewer options to consider
- leave negotiations without
- satisfy its position, not interests
- resort to their BATNA
- forfeit their position and interests
- resort to using their BATNA
If a mutually agreed upon solution is not reached, one or both disputing parties may resort
to using one of the other negotiation strategies which are not specific to either the low or the
high cultural context. For instance, a disputing party may exercise the Evade strategy when
it believes it lacks the power and information necessary to successfully negotiate with a
more powerful and informed opposite. As this strategys name implies, this party may
avoid the situation and resort to its BATNA until more information and/or power is

Due to the lack of established trust

with the opposite, disclosure of
pertinent information with the
opposite is extremely limited

The Comply style may be used when a disputing party feels it has less power than its
opposite but has some level of information to offer (i.e. intelligence pertaining to the region,
resources, or enemy). Because he or she believes their BATNA is too weak to consider, a
negotiator from a high-context region whose country is poor and vulnerable to attack may
submit to a more powerful opposite with the hope that establishing an alliance with a
formidable opposite will satisfy its needs for security. Lastly, there is the Settle negotiation
strategy where both disputing parties feel their levels of power and information rivals that of
their opposites. Realizing their BATNAs are too weak to consider, both parties decide that
a compromise is necessary to reach a solution that somewhat satisfies their needs.
B. Using CNS in Cross-Cultural Negotiations.
To successfully negotiate in a cross-cultural setting, each party must keep the keys of CNS
in mind. Remember, CNS is taking the time to consider the people involved in the
negotiations as well as the task at hand. By taking the time to establish a trusting
relationship and an understanding of one anothers culture, values, beliefs, and worldview,
parties are better able to collaboratively search for a solution that satisfies the needs
(interests) of both parties instead of engaging where the disputing parties are seen as
adversaries in a contest of wills. CNS cultivates a common respect, assisting negotiators
and mediators alike to reveal the underlying interests of all parties that ultimately lead to
long lasting relationships and solutions for all. Remember, with increased knowledge about
UM05SG - 26

other cultures, the willingness to learn and increase our cross-cultural competence, and
taking advantage of opportunities to apply ourselves using various learning approaches; we
will be better able to relate, communicate, negotiate, and positively influence others and the
C. Readiness and Ripeness
Readiness. Readiness is defined as the ability and willingness of involved parties to
negotiate an agreement rather than to continue a dispute. Even when both parties decide to
negotiate, failure to deal sensitively with each other can jeopardize negotiations. You must
ask yourself, "Am I ready to be reasonable, has enough time passed that I can put aside my
feelings and deal rationally with the issues and decisions that need to be made, am I
fundamentally ready to do "business" with the other person/party involved, and is the other
person/party is ready to be reasonable with me? If any of the principal parties are not
ready to negotiate, progress comes to a halt and conflict may reemerge.
When preparing to negotiate, use these questions to examine your readiness:

Do I want to resolve these issues equitably?

Are these issues negotiable?

Am I willing to make compromises and give some things up?

Am I willing to work to keep the channels of communication open?

Can I accept that there will be differences of perception and what I think is fair?

Do I feel that the other party is basically fair minded?

Am I ready to actively listen?

Am I prepared to manage conflict appropriately if it occurs?

Note: Though you may be ready to negotiate, the situation may not be ripe for negotiation.
Ripeness. Timing is critical to successful negotiations. Conflict scholars and negotiators
often use the concept of ripeness, comparing negotiation to fruit. If fruit is picked too early,
it is not ready to eat; however, pick it too late and its inedible as well. Negotiation works
the same way. After determining whether you are ready for negotiation, use these questions
to test whether the situation is ripe for negotiation:

Are the issues negotiable?

Are all the parties interested in negotiating? If not, why is one or more of the
parties reluctant?

Can anything be done to make negotiation more attractive to them?

Do all parties know their alternatives to a negotiated settlement?

Now assume for a moment the answers to the questions above indicate the situation is not
ripe for negotiation. What can be done? Fortunately, there are some methods you can
employ to try and ripen the situation.

UM05SG - 27

Mutually Hurting Stalemate: The first method is to create a Mutually Hurting Stalemate.
Sometimes situations, whether its negotiations or conflict, reach a point where a sort of
deadlock occurs. This is where neither side is able to move any closer to achieving its
desired objective and no one is satisfied with the current situation. Each side realizes the
costs of continuing the struggle exceeds (oftentimes greatly) the benefits to be gained. Once
all sides realize they cannot win and the status quo is unacceptably damaging the conflict is
said to be "ripe" for resolution, also known as a mutually hurting stalemate.
EXAMPLE: MSgt Thomas needs to print a critical report for SMSgt Davis but her printer
is out of ink. Although she ordered some, its not due to arrive for another two weeks. She
asks SMSgt Davis if she can borrow ink from his section. He refuses ink claiming his staff
only has enough to complete their mission. However, MSgt Thomas will not be able to
print the reports for SMSgt Davis to complete her mission. This situation is known as a
mutually hurting stalemate because MSgt Thomas cannot print and SMSgt Davis cannot get
the critical reports he needs. This situation is ripe for negotiation.
Way Out: The concept of a ripe moment centers on each parties' perception of a mutually
hurting stalemate, a situation in which neither side can win, yet continuing the dispute will
be very harmful to all involved. Ripeness is also influenced by past, recently avoided, or
impending consequences that jeopardize both parties. This, in turn further encourages all
involved to seek an alternative policy or way out. The perception of a way out need not
identify a specific agreement, but rather a belief that an agreement may be reached. It is as
much a perception of the other party's willingness to bargain as it is of a bargaining range.
A third party or internal faction can be used to encourage the perception of a way out, to
encourage thinking about possible solutions, and to serve as a go-between, to carry each
party's perception of a possible agreement to the other.
EXAMPLE: After several days of conflict between two section chiefs about which section
can afford to fill a one-year base honor guard requirement, CMSgt Thomas is forced to
intervene. Acting as a third party, or mediator, Chief Thomas tells one section chief, If
youre willing to fill the next tasking, the other section chief says shes willing to fill the
current one. In this situation, the Chief has created the perception of a way out because
each section chief perceives the possibility of a settlement.
Creating a mutually hurting stalemate or the perception of a way out is not easy to
accomplish. However, rather than allow conflict to continue, professionals continuously
work toward making situations ripe for negotiation for the good of the mission.
Mediation is an alternative form of dispute resolution where parties turn to (rely on) a
neutral third party who uses interest-based problem-solving techniques to assist in resolving
their dispute. The interest-based problem-solving approach to dispute resolution is
characterized by focusing on interests, not positions, creating options for mutual gain, and
using objective criteria to ensure legitimacy of any agreement. As mentioned earlier in the
Negotiations section, positions are the pre-determined outcomes or demands that each party
believes will resolve the dispute. However, it is the interests (those underlying needs,
wants, and desires) that must be satisfied, not the positions. Therefore, the mediator must
effectively facilitate negotiations between the two disputing parties, reveal the interests that

UM05SG - 28

exist, and reach a mutual agreement and/or resolution.

Although mediation can be effective at any stage of a dispute, it is generally most effective
when used early. A reason for this is that the disputing parties harden their positions as
time goes by and the dispute escalates. There are other times when the disputing parties
may feel uncomfortable entering mediation at such an early stage in the dispute. Due to a
lack of knowledge regarding the Who, Stakes, and the Situation, they may think they are
steering uncontrollably toward an unfair resolution (a bad deal). However, before we
venture too far into the realm of mediation we should consider some associated terms and
A. Key Terms

Evaluative Mediation: Evaluative style of mediation, a subject-matter expert

mediator describes the issue, offers an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of
each partys side, and suggests options to resolve the matter.

Facilitative Mediation: Involves an active third party (mediator) who enhances

communication and encourages the parties to discuss matters freely and voluntarily
participate in the mediation process. In facilitative mediation, the parties clarify
issues, reevaluate positions, and analyze interestsall with an eye towards
resolving the dispute that brought them to the mediation table. The Air Force has
adopted the facilitative style of mediation for all workplace disputes, as it is
currently the best practice for AF workplace dispute mediations.

Stakeholders: Stakeholders are other outside parties who have a vested or personal
interest in the initiation, processing, and resolution of an existing dispute.
Commanders, first sergeants, supervisors, subordinates, neighbors, family members,
as well as legal and other intra-agency representatives (e.g. labor unions) are all
potential stakeholders of mediation.

Caucus: A caucus is a confidential and private meeting between each of the parties
and the mediator. Caucuses offer the mediator the behind-the-scenes perspective
from each party to ensure there is a potential zone within which the parties can
reach agreement.

Mediator: A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, and

focuses negotiating parties on their interests (rather than their positions), and seeks
creative problem solving to enable the parties to reach their own agreement.

Impasse: This occurs when there is the failure to make progress toward resolution.
It is a significant challenge in any mediation and moving past impasse is a skill that
separates great mediators from the rest.

Reality Checking: This is a process where the mediator gets the parties to
understand, typically through a series of questions, the weaknesses of their case,
issue, or demand. When parties have a very weak position (argument), no claim for
what they seek, no legal basis for the settlement they desire, or unrealistic demands
of the other party, reality checking is necessary.

Fostering Understanding of Others Views: One of the strongest barriers

encountered in negotiation and mediation is the inability or unwillingness of the
UM05SG - 29

parties to see the problem from their opponents point of view. A skilled
mediator can assist in overcoming this obstacle by using empathy. Empathy is
understanding another persons situation, feelings, and motives. It is the ability to
put oneself in the other persons position and walk a mile in their shoes.
Understanding the other sides point of view does not mean the mediator shares,
agrees, or even sympathizes with it. Empathy merely provides new perspectives
that may open options previously hidden.

Emotional Control: For the mediator, it is very important to have no outward

reaction to a partys emotional display. A reaction can jeopardize the mediators
all-important neutrality and credibility. Throughout the session, the mediator
retains the responsibility for maintaining the safety of the participants. While
venting should be embraced and not feared, mediators must end joint sessions if it
appears that either or both parties are close to losing control of their actions. It
always remains the mediators responsibility to remain calm and maintain the
quality of the proceedings. While venting should be embraced and not feared,
mediators must end joint sessions if it appears that either or both parties are close to
losing control of their actions. It always remains the mediators responsibility to
remain calm and maintain the quality of the proceedings.

UM05SG - 30

B. Stages of Mediation
Like other processes (i.e. assembling an automobile, developing a well-formatted research
paper, preparing for a counseling session) mediation occurs in stages. Figure 9 identifies
the five stages of mediation (mediator opening statement, parties opening statements, joint
discussion, caucus, and closure), however; like anything worth doing well-you must first
prepare for it. This includes developing effective communication skills, understanding of
the four previously mentioned interest-based tools, and preparing for the actual session.

Figure 9, Stages of Mediation

STAGE 1, Mediator Opening Statement. This is where the mediator meets with both
parties together for the first time. The mediator begins the session with introductions
followed by an opening statement. The purpose of the opening statement is to establish a
structure for the mediation session, ensure the parties understand the mediation process, and
gain their commitment to it. Proficient public and interpersonal communication skills are
critical for mediators, especially when delivering the opening statement. Therefore,
mediators are strongly advised to prepare their opening statements in advance and practice
delivering it prior to initiating the session.
The first item of any opening statement is the mediators introduction of themselves and
explains the credentials and qualifications they possess that make them a suitable mediator.
This not only includes the mediators identity, but also their qualifications to include that
they were selected or duly appointed as a mediator and have the experience to mediate.
Secondly, the mediator assures the disputing parties that they will maintain a neutral and
impartial position throughout the session. He or she should also confirm the parties
consensual agreement to mediate, that their attendance is strictly voluntary, and that they are
prepared to (or at least attempt to) resolve the dispute. This noted agreement can be
referenced later in the process, especially when attempting to move beyond impasse. The
third element of any successful opening statement is the establishment of ground rules for
the mediation session. These guidelines will set the tone for the following stages, offer an
opportunity for the mediator to establish some credibility among the disputing parties, and
help to ensure the discussion remains positive and productive. For example, the mediator
may require each person to:

UM05SG - 31

Take turns speaking and not interrupt one another, they must call each other by their
first names instead of the impersonal "he" or "she"

Refrain from blaming or attacking one another

Ask questions for gaining understanding

Before moving to the next part of the opening statement, mediators should offer an
opportunity for the parties involved to add any additional ground rules they feel are
important. The fourth part of a sound opening statement is explaining the mediation process
(the five stages) and reiterating the confidentiality of the process ensuring each party
understands what can and cannot be held (or withheld) in confidence. Lastly, the mediator
should congratulate the parties for being willing to attempt to settle their dispute through
mediation and assert a note of confidence in the process of which they are about to undergo.
STAGE 2, Parties Opening Statement. In the second stage, the disputing parties have an
opportunity to offer their opening statements. Here, they are given adequate time to speak
without interruption regarding the issue at hand and share their side of the issue. Each party
should fully explain the issue, their interests, and positions as they see it so that all parties,
including the mediator understand. This may be the first time that each party hears the other
partys view on the issues. Because of this, the mediator should allow both parties to fully
explain their position even if they become emotional. Furthermore, venting by the parties
can be the first step in putting the dispute behind them and moving toward resolution. It is
extremely important for the mediator to actively listen and take notes during these opening
statements, paying careful attention to the issues as articulated by the parties. Many times
the issues defined by the parties in these opening statements differ from those articulated or
understood previously.
Mediators can learn a lot about the parties and the issue during this stage. During the
parties opening statements, he or she may discover hidden concerns or interests, thus
revealing the true source of the dispute. This type of information is invaluable later when
getting the parties to focus on interests instead of positions. The mediator can also
determine the severity of the differences that exist between the disputing parties and the
challenges which may lie ahead of them as they attempt to reach a mutually satisfying
resolution. This can also help the mediator determine who may need caucuses more often
and how much they will need to assist them in understanding the other partys views on the
issues. Always remember, for mediation to work, all parties should view it as a means of
communicating to potentially reach a settlement, rather than a forum for evidence gathering
and accusations. The mediator must recognize when parties are not able to effectively
convey their issues and interests due to observed poor attitudes and emotional loss of
control. For this, it is critical that the mediator makes the parties aware of the dangers of
their words and actions especially when they are fueled by their uncontrolled emotions.
STAGE 3, Joint Discussion. At the conclusion of stage 2, mediation moves into a forum
of joint discussion. This is the first opportunity for the parties and the mediator to interact
with and assist the parties in focusing less on their positions and more on their interests.
Here, the mediator facilitates a conversation between the disputing parties. Effective
questioning (using open-ended and follow-up questions) are extremely useful here. The
mediator should ask the parties questions that clarify the issues in controversy. As the
communicative exchange develops between the parties, the mediator may find that he or she
UM05SG - 32

may only need to actively listen. It is in this stage where the mediator and disputing parties
begin to consider possible options to resolve the situation. After they have brainstormed
options, parties should agree on criteria for selecting the options that satisfy the interests of
both parties. If joint discussion breaks down or issues arise that are sensitive or
confidential, the mediator should suspend the joint discussion and move to caucus.
STAGE 4, Caucus. Simply stated, the term caucus means private meeting. This is an
optional stage that can occur at any time during the mediation process but, when needed,
usually occurs when joint discussions collapse. These are private, confidential one-on-one
discussions between the mediator and each party. Maintaining confidentiality after the
caucus is most important for promoting and providing a free and open environment. To
avoid confusion, the mediator should verify, at the end of each private caucus, what
information the party wishes to keep confidential and what information the mediator can
disclose to the other party. Parties must understand they have the power to ask for an
individual meeting with the mediator. The mediator may request one at any time as well.
In caucus, the mediator has an opportunity to cultivate a relationship with each
party. The mediator may call a caucus when:

The parties need to cool off and refocus.

The mediator needs a break.

A meeting with a subject matter expert is necessary.

The mediator needs to discuss confidential information with the proper


The mediator and a particular party can explore options for settlement in a
secure setting.

Remember: Anything discussed during a caucus is confidential and should not be

revealed to the other party unless the sharing party grants the mediator permission.

STAGE 5, Closure. This is the final stage of the mediation process; however, it must be
clearly understood that not all mediations end in a mutually agreed upon resolution. When
settlement no longer seems possible, and the parties and mediator have exhausted all
available mediation tools and possibilities, or one or both parties have removed themselves
from the mediationthe mediation should end. If a resolution is not reached, the closure
stage may require the mediator reconvene a second mediation session, refer the parties to
another mediator, or even recommend other resolution methods like litigation.
In most cases, the mediation session will usually conclude with some form of resolution.
For mediations that do end in a mutually-satisfying outcome, this stage could become quite
lengthy, especially if there is legally binding documentation and administration involved.
Appropriate follow-up by the mediator may be necessary which requires the parties to
return and assess how effective the selected resolution was, adjusting it as needed. Once a
solution is proposed and the mediator works through the details of the proposal with both
parties to see if it satisfies their interests, the mediator should document the selected option.
The mediator will develop a document (i.e. memorandum for record) and advise the parties
to review the resolution in writing prior to signing it. During the closure, the mediator

UM05SG - 33

should arrange a follow-up session to discuss the selected options effectiveness in meeting
the interests of both parties. Regardless of the outcome, the mediator should congratulate
the parties for considering and participating in mediation and encourage (reassure) them by
recounting any progress made during the session.
Mediators are more effective in finding mutually satisfying options when the interests of all
parties are known and considered. However, the mediator should not propose the solution,
but instead should ask questions of the parties designed to elicit potential solutions. The
relationship can be impaired if one party wins at the others expense. Consider the
following mediation example aptly named, The Orange.

The Orange
Two teenagers are found by their mother arguing over the last orange in the refrigerator.
Trying to find a way to satisfy both teenagers position of who gets the orange, she
considers some options. For instance, she could cut the orange in half, leaving each child
only half-satisfied (positions). Another option would be to ask them why the orange so
important to them (interests). The mother decides to ask the children why they want the
orange. One teenager states he wants the orange to make orange juice. The other explains
that she needs the rind for baking. Knowing this, the mother peels the orange and gives the
desired parts to each teenager, thus satisfying the interests of both parties.
From this, we can see that a mediator is more effective in finding more mutually satisfying
options when the interests of all parties are known and considered. However, the mediator
should not propose the solution, but instead should ask questions of the parties designed to
elicit potential solutions. The relationship can be impaired if one party wins at the others
A considerable challenge in effectively
negotiating is the ability to pay attention. As we
communicate with others in any social situation,
we take notice of the various verbal and
nonverbal cues that occur during the interaction.
These cues assist the interaction to progress, and
determines whether the communication is
purposeful and progressive, or meaningless and
regressive. During negotiations, communication
can become one-sided and defensive. Therefore,
it is important to pay close attention to the
Figure 10, Paying Attention
messages we and our opposite transmits so we
can make adjustments as needed to ensure a successful and collaborative communication.
Guidelines for becoming an attentive negotiator include:

Listen for and observe the speakers verbal and nonverbal signals

Respond accordingly and appropriately to ensure a meaningful and progressive

UM05SG - 34


Avoid making predictions as to what the speaker will say next (we typically stop
listening when we believe we know what the person will say next)

Focus on the message and not the distractions (we can be easily drawn to other
objects in the room, a persons clothing, etc.)

A. Active Listening
The skillful listener remains constantly aware of the verbal (e.g. vocal pauses, interjections
like uh-huh, oh, wow, and really?) and nonverbal cues the other party transmits. Eye
contact is one such cue that is extremely important to communication. We can pick up on
those unspoken subtleties that represent emotion, confusion, resentment, anger, frustration,
fatigue, lack of concentration, and the like. Receiving the whole message enables us (the
active listener) to respond appropriately; and thus, maintain a purposeful and progressive
Your body language also affects your active listening ability. For instance, a closed body
position (crossed arms and legs) is considered by others to be representative of an uncaring
or judgmental listener. The way you face the speaker also affects your attending skills.
Facial expressions, hand movement, verbal pauses, etc. all contribute to the conversation.
Therefore, to avoid misrepresentation, face the speaker squarely and maintain attentive eye
contact, acknowledge and respond to the message (using your own verbal and nonverbal
and body cues) language used and express interest, empathy, concern, and a genuine desire
to listen.
B. Active Listening Techniques
The best way to become a more effective active listener is to simply practice active
listening. It requires a conscious effort on your part to not only hear the message a person
shares, but how he or she sends the message. Consider the following techniques to
becoming an active listening.

Minimal Encouragements. Minimal encouragements are questions, comments, or

sounds that do not interfere with the flow of conversation, but let others know you
are there and listening. They build rapport, encourage the speaker to continue, and
include statements like Oh? When?, and Really?

Paraphrasing. Paraphrasing demonstrates evidence that you were listening and

understand. It clarifies content, highlights issues, and improves active listener
techniques. Usually, paraphrasing begins with the statements like, Are you telling
me? or So what you are saying is

Emotion Labeling. This is often the first active listening skill used in a
communicated crisis situations. Although it is important to be attuned to the
emotion behind the message, we often attempt to get into the problem-solving phase
too early. In this case, the speaker is not prepared to reason just yet because he or
she has not provided all the information needed for solution development. Common
phrases include, You sound, You seem, or What I hear is Do not be
concerned about making a mistake in labeling emotions. The speaker will correct

UM05SG - 35

you and will often appear grateful for your attempt.

Mirroring (or Reflecting). This is the technique of repeating the last word or
phrase spoken in the form of a question. This asks for more input
without guiding the direction of the speakers thoughts and elicits information
when you do not have enough to ask a pertinent question. Mirroring is useful when
you are at a loss for words.

Open-Ended Questions. The purpose of open-ended questions is to help the

speaker to start talking. Open-ended questions encourage a person to say more
without actually directing the conversation. They are questions that cannot be
answered with a simple yes or no and usually begin with how, what, when, where,
and why. However, be careful using the why question as these tend to steer the
conversation toward blame and shut down communication.

I Messages. I messages let speakers know how they are making you feel, why
you feel that way, and what the speaker can do to remedy the situation. This is a
nonthreatening approach that usually does not put the speaker on the defensive. I
messages are used when communication is difficult because of the intense emotions
being directed at you. Negotiators, after being verbally attacked, also use this
technique to refocus the speaker.

Effective Pauses. Silence is an extremely effective form of communication. Most

people are not comfortable with silence and will speak to fill the uncomfortable
void. Silence can also be used to emphasize a point just before or after saying
something important. Oftentimes, this is used to encourage participants to reflect on
their thoughts, ideas, and perspectives.

You began by defining negotiation and learned when to negotiate. To better understand the
basics, you moved to conflict management examining the different types of conflict and
how conflict can escalate. Next, you also explored the five conflict management styles
available for use and how to determine which style is appropriate to reach a resolution. You
returned to negotiations and learned the two negotiation categories, distributive and
integrative, and how active listening supports negotiations efforts. By examining the fivestep Cooperative Negotiation Strategy, you learned how this can help achieve maximum
results when negotiating. You concluded this section by learning when a situation is ready
and ripe for negotiations. Finally, you wrapped up the chapter by applying whats been
taught in a risk-free negotiation exercise.
Throughout life you have had to cooperate with others to reach a mutually-desired result.
Effective communication has been an integral part of resolving conflicts and reaching an
agreement during negotiation. As you can see, being an effective negotiator is not easy; it
requires education, training, and, mostly, experience. The rewards that come from
developing these skills are not only advantageous for you, your people, and your
organization, but ultimately result in expertise in effective negotiations toward reaching
solutions and resolutions with representatives from other countries in cross-cultural

UM05SG - 36

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT (to be reviewed in class)

MATCHING EXERCISE: Match the descriptions in the right column with the
corresponding term in the left. Use all answers only once.


1. H___ Negotiation

a. This is the reason behind your position

2. K___ Opposite

b. Refers to those who are rational,

reliable, and prefer thorough plans

3. D___ Position

c. Alternative option you are willing and

able to pursue if negotiations fail

4. A___ Interests

d. This is what you want

5. F___ Aspiration Point

e. Least favorable option or offer you are

willing to accept

6. E___ Reservation Point

f. Best outcome each party hopes to

achieve from a negotiated agreement

7. J___ Zone of Possible Agreement


g. Offer that pulls the agreement toward

ones aspiration point

8. C___ Best Alternative To a Negotiated

Agreement (BATNA)

h. A process involving two or more

people or groups

9. G___ Anchoring

i. You can take it or leave it

10. I ___ Demand

j. Range where everyones aspiration and

reservation points overlap

11. L___ Divergent Thinkers

k. Person or group with whom you are

negotiating with

12. B___ Convergent Thinkers

l. People who are comfortable with

uncertainty, and prefer flexible plans

13. M___ Mediator

m. Facilitates communications, promotes

understanding, and focuses negotiating
parties on their interests

UM05SG - 37



14. T ___ Evaluative Mediation

n. This can jeopardize the mediators allimportant neutrality

15. P ___ Facilitative Mediation

o. Confidential and private meeting

16. ___ Stakeholder

p. Here, the parties clarify the issues,

reevaluate positions, and analyze
interests to resolve the dispute

17. ___ Caucus

q. Found in Southern Europe, Latin

America, Asia, Middle East, and Africa
and are more people-oriented

18. ___ Impasse

r. Focuses on the interests, not the

positions of the two negotiating parties

19. ___ Reality Checking

s. When there is the failure to make

progress toward resolution

20. ___ Emotional Control

t. Where subject-matter expert describes

the issues and offers his or her opinion

21. ___ Interest-Based Negotiations

u. Found in North America and Northern

Europe are task-oriented

22. ___ Low-Context Culture

v. Where a mediator helps the parties to

understand the weaknesses of their case,
issue, or demand

23. ___ High-Context Culture

w. Outside party who has a personal

interest in the initiation, processing, and
resolution of an existing dispute

UM05SG - 38

CROSSWORD PUZZLE EXERCISE: Complete the following crossword puzzle using the below clues. Use all
answers only once.


1 Down: This active listening technique includes phrases like, You sound, You seem, or What I hear
is which addresses ones feelings behind the message.
2 Down: This inventor shared information what he knew about hook-and-loop fastener systems with a fabric
company and together, they created Velcro .
3 Down: This refers to a negotiating partys willingness and ability to be reasonable during negotiations.
4 Down: This category of negotiations is rather aggressive. Here, disputants are viewed as enemies, pressure one
another with their position, and use tricks to get what they want.
5 Down: We do this when we remain cognizant of another persons verbal and nonverbal cues during

UM05SG - 39

1 Across: When this hardball tactic is used, simply pose the disputing partys demands as
their interests while actively listening to their position.
2 Across: In this type of negotiations, parties look for a win-win outcome by working
together to determine who gets what and use reasoning (not pressure) to reach a mutuallydesirable outcome.
3 Across: These options are proposed by a disputant for a limited time only (example: while
supplies last).
4 Across: Ask yourself these questions when determining if it is the right time to negotiate:
How can I make this deal more appealing to the other party? Can the other party tell what
my BATNA is?
5 Across: These are active listening techniques that do not interfere with the flow of the
conversation and include questions, comments, and sounds.

Thomas, Kenneth. Conflict and Conflict Management. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976. 889-931.

UM05SG - 40