Negotiation

For Wikipedia's negotiation policy, see Wikipedia:Negotiation. For other uses, see Negotiation (disambiguation).

Signing the Treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920. Albert Apponyi standing in the middle.

The ministers of foreign affairs of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, China, the European Union and Iran negotiating in Lausanne for a Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme (30 March 2015).

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome.

This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just for one or some of them, in situations in which a good outcome for one/some, excludes the possibility of a desired result for the other/others.

It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making small concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful. Negotiation is not a zero-sum game; if there is no compromise, the negotiations have failed. When negotiations are at an impasse it is essential that both the parties acknowledge the difficulties, and agree to work towards a solution at a later date.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations, and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers.

Strategies

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

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

One very common distinction concerns the distribution of gains (distributive versus integrative models):

Distributive negotiation

See also: Zero sum game

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

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

Integrative negotiation

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

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

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

Elements of negotiation

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

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

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

Adversary or partner?

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

Employing an advocate

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

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

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

Perspective taking for integrative negotiation

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

Negotiation styles

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

1. A concern for self (i.e. assertiveness), and
2. A concern for others (i.e. empathy).

Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others. The following five styles can be used based on individuals’ preferences depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals. These styles can change over time, and individuals can have strong dispositions towards numerous styles. 1. Accommodating: Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal relationships. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties. They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship. 2. Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic. 3. Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties. They can, however, create problems by transforming simple situations into more complex ones. 4. Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships. 5. Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.

Types of negotiators

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

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

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they are facing in order to come to the best overall conclusion/solution, but this is often not the case (as when you may be dealing with an individual utilizing soft or hard bargaining tactics) (Forsyth, 2010).

Bad faith negotiation

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

In international relations and political psychology

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

Emotion

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

Affect effect

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

Positive affect

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

Negative affect

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

Conditions for emotion affect

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

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

According to this model, emotions are expected to affect negotiations only when one is high and the other is low. When both ability and motivation are low the affect will not be identified, and when both are high the affect will be identify but discounted as irrelevant for judgment. A possible implication of this model is, for example, that the positive effects PA has on negotiations (as described above) will be seen only when either motivation or ability are low.

Effect of partner's emotions

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

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

Problems with laboratory studies

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

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

Team negotiations

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

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

Etymology

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

Barriers

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

Tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that will never be achieved. The theory is that the extreme offer will cause the other party to reevaluate his or her own opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement). Another advantage is that the person giving the extreme demand appears more flexible he or she makes concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.

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

Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that he or she has difficulty determining which facts are important, and which facts are diversions. Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert.

Nonverbal communication

Main article: Nonverbal communication

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

Examples in negotiation

Non-verbal "anchoring" In a negotiation, a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing his or her position first. By anchoring your position, one establishes the position from which the negotiation will proceed. In a like manner, one can "anchor" and gain advantage with nonverbal (body language) cues.

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

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

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

Conveying receptivity

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

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

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

See also

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

Further reading

See also: List of books about negotiation

• Camp, Jim. (2007). No, The Only Negotiating System You Need For Work Or Home. Crown Business. New York, NY.
• Movius, H. and Susskind, L.E. (2009) Built to Win: Creating a World Class Negotiating Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
• Roger Dawson, "Secrets of Power Negotiating - Inside Secrets from a Master Negotiator" Career Press, 1999.
• Davérède, Alberto L. Negotiations, Secret, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1
• David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
• Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005.
• Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
• Catherine Morris, ed. Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers Trust.
• Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Belknap Press 1982, ISBN 0-674-04812-1
• David Churchman, "Negotiation Tactics" University Press of America, Inc. 1993 ISBN 0-8191-9164-7
• William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, revised second edition, Bantam, January 1, 1993, trade paperback, ISBN 0-553-37131-2; 1st edition under the title, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, September, 1991, hardcover, 161 pages, ISBN 0-553-07274-9
• William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Revised 2nd edition, Penguin USA, 1991, trade paperback, ISBN 0-14-015735-2; Houghton Mifflin, April, 1992, hardcover, 200 pages, ISBN 0-395-63124-6. The first edition, unrevised, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, hardcover, ISBN 0-395-31757-6
• The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has advanced a distinction between negotiation and conversation and criticized those methods of conflict-resolution which give too much weight to the former. See his From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-19-829688-6, a work of political philosophy; and his Shall We Dance? A Patriotic Politics for Canada, Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen's University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-7735-2596-3, which applies that philosophy to the Canadian case.
• Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall 0ct.2005.
• Nicolas Iynedjian, Négociation - Guide pratique, CEDIDAC 62, Lausanne 2005, ISBN 2-88197-061-3
• Michele J. Gelfand and Jeanne M. Brett, ed. Handbook of negotiation and culture, 2004. ISBN 0-8047-4586-2
• Emotion and conflict from the Beyond Intractability Database
• Nierenberg, Gerard I. (1995). The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains. Barnes and Noble. ISBN 1-56619-816-X.
• Andrea Schneider & Christopher Honeyman, eds., The Negotiator's Fieldbook, American Bar Association (2006). ISBN 1-59031-545-6 [4]
• Dr. Chester Karrass [5] Effective Negotiating Tips
• Richard H. Solomon and Nigel Quinney. American Negotiating Behavior: Wheeler-Dealers, Legal Eagles, Bullies, and Preachers (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010); 357 pages; identifies four mindsets in the negotiation behavior of policy makers and diplomats; draws on interviews with more than 50 practitioners
• Charles Arthur Willard. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996.
• John McMillan "Games, Strategies, and Managers" Oxford University Press. 1992. ISBN 0-19-507403-3. [6]
• Charles Arthur Willard. A Theory of Argumentation. University of Alabama Press. 1989.
• Charles Arthur Willard. Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge University of Alabama Press. 1982.
• Short definition of negotiation
• "Negotiation Etymology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
• Trotschel; Hufmeier; Loschelder; Schwartz; Collwitzer (2011). "Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101: 771–790. doi:10.1037/a0023801.
• Hames, David. "Integrative Negotiation: A strategy for creating value. Negotiation: Closing deals, settling disputes, and making team decisions". Sage Publications.
• Marks, M; Harold, C (2011). "Who Asks and Who Receives in Salary Negotiation". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 32: 371–394. doi:10.1002/job.671.
• Sorenson, R; Morse, E; Savage, G (1999). "The Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model". The International Journal of Conflict Management.