Fairness Issues in Negotiation: Structure, Process, Procedures and Outcome

One of the objectives of IIASA's Project on the Processes of International Negotiation PIN) is to examine how fair and mutually beneficial agreements on transboundary environmental problems can be reached, especially between parties who each wish to satisfy their own interests and their own criteria of fairness and equity which may not coincide. Scientifically reasoned solutions to transboundary problems -- the type that IIASA models often generate -- may represent ideal answers, but are practical only if they satisfy the disputants' principles of justice and fairness. Thus, a critically important dimension of negotiation analysis must be to identify these basic principles and assess the opportunities for convergence in fairness beliefs among disputants. If this can be accomplished, the scientific tools used to explore alternate scenarios and strategies can be more sharply honed to reflect the realities of national interests and acceptability by framing the problem and reasonable solutions in a practical light. This paper reviews the literature and develops a framework for conceptualizing the role played by fairness in international negotiation. It is planned that applications of this framework will be performed concerning transboundary environmental conflicts. A prime candidate for application will be the case of long-range transboundary air pollution in Europe, where PIN Project staff can collaborate with analysts working on IIASA's Regional Acidification Information and Simulation (RAINS) model

Increasing integrative negotiation in European organizations through trustworthiness and trust

Integrative negotiation in which employers and employees create value is a major necessity in the current challenging context. Collective labor negotiations in organizations are traditionally focused on mostly distributive issues, such as pay, working hours, and holidays. However, the current situation demands the inclusion of other issues of a potentially more integrative nature, such as telework, sustainability, and risk prevention, the enhancement of which is a major challenge for organizations. In this study, we explore the negotiation process between management and employee representatives (ERs), analyzing the roles of trust and trustworthiness. We collected data from 614 human resources managers from different organizations in 11 European countries. The results confirm that ERs who management perceive to be trustworthy have a greater influence on negotiation, particularly with regard to integrative as opposed to distributive issues, and that trust partially mediates this relationship.Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2019-110093GB-I0

Increasing integrative negotiation in European organizations through trustworthiness and trust

Integrative negotiation in which employers and employees create value is a major necessity in the current challenging context. Collective labor negotiations in organizations are traditionally focused on mostly distributive issues, such as pay, working hours, and holidays. However, the current situation demands the inclusion of other issues of a potentially more integrative nature, such as telework, sustainability, and risk prevention, the enhancement of which is a major challenge for organizations. In this study, we explore the negotiation process between management and employee representatives (ERs), analyzing the roles of trust and trustworthiness. We collected data from 614 human resources managers from different organizations in 11 European countries. The results confirm that ERs who management perceive to be trustworthy have a greater influence on negotiation, particularly with regard to integrative as opposed to distributive issues, and that trust partially mediates this relationship

Getting stuck or stepping back: effects of obstacles in the negotiation of creative solutions

"Difficult issues in negotiation act as interfering forces but their effects on negotiation processes and outcomes are unclear. Perhaps facing such obstacles leads individuals to take a step back, attend to the big picture and, therefore, to be able to craft creative, mutually beneficial solutions. Alternatively, facing obstacles may lead negotiators to focus narrowly on the obstacle issue, so that they no longer consider issues simultaneously, and forego the possibility to reach high quality, integrative agreements. Three experiments involving face-to-face negotiation support the “getting stuck” hypothesis, but only when negotiators are in a local processing mode and not when they are in a global processing mode. Implications for the art and science of negotiation, and for construal level theory, are discussed." [author's abstract

The False Promise of Principled Negotiations

For over two decades, the method of principled negotiation has been the dominant formative approach to negotiation. Its flagship book, Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991) remains the standard presentation of the method. Getting to Yes promotes the method of principled negotiation as an all-purpose strategy of negotiation. The authors of Getting to Yes developed the method of principled negotiation as an alternative to positional bargaining. In this article, the author contends that the method of principled negotiation is not the all-purpose strategy of negotiation promised in Getting to Yes. Furthermore, the author contends that the method of principled negotiation is not a strategy of negotiation at all. In addition, the author contends that by persuading that principled negotiation is an all-purpose strategy Getting to Yes misleads negotiators, hinders the development of actual negotiation strategies, and leads to suboptimal results in many negotiations. In this paper, the author discusses the main concepts used in building the method of principled negotiation and shows that the method is built on incomplete definitions and erroneous assumptions. The author argues in favor of moving beyond the method of principled negotiation in order to find actual solutions to the challenges posed by different negotiations. Thus, the author proposes using a variety of strategies designed to achieve different goals, instead of trying to use, in every case, the “all-purpose” method/strategy of principled negotiation

Strategies of the Emerging Countries in the World Trade Organization.

No abstract available

From consensus to confrontation - Studying strategies for states to negotiate with challenging partners in multilateral negotiations

The purpose of this thesis is to explicate different strategies that states can, and do, use to negotiate with challenging partners in conflict situations. A challenging partner, as defined in this thesis, refers to a key player in minority position who is blocking negotiations from reaching consensus agreements. A theoretical model containing five different strategies is developed using theories gathered from both political science and organizational theory. The theoretical model originates from Kilmann and Thomas (1976) but is adapted to fit new aspects of multilateral negotiations and conflict management in situations of deadlock. The study is a qualitative case study of negotiations taken place in Council of Europe surrounding the situation in Ukraine during 2014, depicting Russia as the challenging partner. Semi-structured interviews are used as the main data collecting method. The empirical analysis shows that three out of five strategies in the model are used by member states in practice and a comprehensive discussion is held regarding this result and its implications for theory. The question ‘why’ states choose one strategy over another and which factors have an impact on this choice is discussed with the aim of opening up for future research. The study has proven the adequacy of combining theories as done when exploring obstacles to multilateral negotiations and has laid a foundation for studying challenging partners as a phenomenon in the multilateral context

Addressing the Conflicting Dimension of Groupware: A Case Study in Software Requirements Validation

This paper addresses the conflicting dimension of groupware, seeking the reconciliation of two very different assumptions about the users' attitudes using groupware tools: users either collaborate or negotiate to reach consensus. We argue that groupware should integrate the full spectrum of attitudes occurring between these two extremes. The designed solution integrates content and process support in a coherent model supporting low and high conflict situations. Furthermore, we propose a set of benefits and resistances, developed at the user-interface level, aiming to influence users towards low conflict attitudes when interacting with groupware. This approach was applied in a case study involving the development of a groupware tool supporting Quality Function Deployment for software requirements validation in a real-world organization. The case study indicated that the proposed approach was beneficial promoting consensus

Win-Win Arrangements: Innovative Measures through Social Dialogue at Company Level

[Excerpt] This study examines how management, employees and their representatives achieve common solutions to common problems. It also identifies measures, particularly innovative approaches, that have been established through social dialogue in response to new workplace challenges. The qualitative research was based on 20 company case studies in five Member States in a sample drawn from the European Company Survey 2013