NCJ Number
100037
Journal
American Behavioral Scientist Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (November-December 1983) Pages: 229-253
Date Published
1983
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This article presents a model of negotiation that takes into account differences within negotiating teams and between teams and constituencies, discusses the mediator's role, and critiques alleged differences between public-sector and private-sector negotiations.
Abstract
The common negotiation model assumes that negotiating team members agree on proposals and negotiating strategies. The proposed model realistically assumes differences among team members and between the team and the hierarchy of the constituency it represents. Teams typically have members who will settle at any cost ('stabilizers'), those against negotiation ('nonstabilizers'), and those who mediate between the 'stabilizers' and 'nonstabilizers.' The dynamics of negotiation within each team are similar to those of the negotiation between the teams. Central in these negotiations are raising and maintaining doubts about issues, proposals, problems, and assumptions as well as targeting concerns underlying specific proposals. The proposed model can be expanded to explain multilateral negotiations. The principal mediator tasks are to win the trust of the parties, nurture the parties' trust in the mediation process, and persuade the parties to trust one another. Although some have maintained that private-sector and public-sector negotiations differ in the range of their impacts, the long-term relationship of the parties, their leadership and cohesion, deadlines, and trust, these differences are not significant enough to warrant radical changes in negotiation techniques in the two sectors.