Roy J Lewicki, David M Saunders, Bruce Barry, Negotiations: readings, exercices and cases

Résumé du document

A dispute occurs when one person makes a claim on another who rejects it. In a dispute each person has an interest (in the stolen boots affair, the miner has an interest in boots and the firm has an interest in miners working). Interests are the things one cares about or wants. Interest-based negotiation = problem-solving negotiation: treating a dispute as a mutual problem to be solved by the parties. Resolving such a problem can be accomplished by diminishing the hostility. This solution tends to generate a higher level of mutual satisfaction, better relationships and less recurrence resulting in less transaction costs. Disputes may be resolved by determining who is right. It is difficult to rely on some independent standard, with legitimacy as rights are rarely clear. Parties can turn to a third party to determine who is right. In this resolving solution there is a loser, because it turns into a competition between the parties. Yet, it is less costly than a power approach. In a power approach, a conflict is resolved by determining who is the more powerful. Ex: sabotage, physical attack, or employee strike. In a conflict, it difficult to determine who is more powerful, as this depends on individual perception. The process costs more due to resources consumed and opportunities lost, and lead to greater recurrence. In resolving a dispute the focus may shift from interests to rights and then to power because even if a party wins a court judgment, the dispute can continue. Sometimes, a party decides to withdraw from the dispute, because he thinks it is not in his interest to continue or because he thinks he is not powerful enough to continue. This is called ?Lumping it'. When a party decides to withdraw by quitting the organization, divorcing or staying out of the other party's way, it is called avoidance. Which is the best solution from the point of view of transaction costs, because of the satisfaction with outcomes, concerns the fairness of the resolution, because of the effect on a relationship, and because of the durability of the solution found? These 4 criteria are called the total costs of a dispute.

Extraits

[...] Go for quantity Agreement about the way to evaluate the options to measure, judge and compare options. Selection of the options (not evaluating each option with each criteria, too long) : focusing on a few ones. We can use the fishbowl technique : a large U-shaped table, and each spokeperson designates someone who knows well the issue, and who is going to explain seats are free, in order for other participants to come and make comments. Integration of these options in a comprehensive solution, written contract. [...]

[...] Trying to discover the needs, objectives and desires of the other party. Begin with the less important or the more important topic of the negotiation The competitive phase : what each negociator must get for his client, articulation on their own side's demand, give their arguments, threats and promises, keep silent and patient (because when you talk you give much information about your goal, etc), try to say that you don't have the final authority about the matter in dispute (it helps you to reserve the right to check with the client before agreement, and is called limited authority agreement), try to remain not angry because you may divulge some information, don't loose your temper, don't have an aggressive behaviour, use (or not boulwareism : best- offer-first or take-it-or-leave-it bargaining). [...]

[...] Accomodating strategy : High importance of relationship but low importance of outcome (lose to win). To back off the concerns for the outcome in order to preserve the relationship. Collaborative strategy : High importance of relationship and of outcome (win win). The parties attempt to maximize their outcomes while preserving their relationships. Competitive strategy : high importance of outcome and low importance of relationship (win-lose) : When a party wants to win at all cost without being interested in pursuing the relationship after. [...]

[...] Use or face a passive-aggressive behaviour (not directly aggressive but passive resistance such as forgetting important documents The cooperative phase : Because many arrangements are not Pareto- optimal, you have to be very careful even when a tentative accord has been achieved Secrets of power negociating Most of negotiations can't be win-win ones. Ask for more than you expect to get. Never accept the first offer (or the counterpart is going to think that something is wrong or that he could have done better). Flich (tressaillir) for each proposal, because the other party is looking at your reaction. [...]

[...] Only helps the parties to develop themselves a solution. Steps: Selection of the negotiator Invites both parties to attend a meeting Sets ground rules Listens to each party to understand the dispute Tries to identify the issues Looks for interests, priorities and concerns Brings the parties together and encourages exploration of possible solutions or concessions May suggest possible solutions but not impose them Why using mediators? Help the parties to save face when they make concessions May offer the parties incentives for agreement or concession or offer negative incentives for noncooperation Maintain control over the process What is needed for success in mediation: mediators must be seen as neutral, impartial and unbiased they need to be experts in the field where dispute occurs Parties have to be highly willing to solve the problem The dispute has to be moderate (not to high) It has to be not too emotional Resources have not to be too limited Values must not be a big problem between parties Power has to be relatively equal between the parties Mediation must be seen as an advantage in comparison with arbitration Bargainers have to be aware of the cost of non agreement Difficulties: When negotiators think that the other party is about to give up When parties can't agree on priorities among many issues When emotion is too strong When parties differ on major values How to help the mediator? [...]