One most important challenge I identified negotiation process is inter-group trust. Notably, our workgroup has made numerous initial assumptions and offered multiple proposals prior to first, scheduled negotiation round. In so doing, our workgroup has attempted to perform an in-depth SWOT analysis and information-gathering activities in order to avoid a sense of clueless during actual negotiations. However, our group members and I have failed to properly consider for trust between negotiating parties.
If anything, trust and specific qualities are not built over one day. Predictably, given our workgroup members are hardly known to one another before our group formation, we could hardly assume common grounds of trust between workgroup members, let alone between our workgroup and opposing negotiating workgroup. The "100% sure" is simply absent. One incident in particular highlights our initial lack of trust.
The Avondale negotiation process has been particularly off-putting. Our workgroup and Avondale had a disagreement on GS prices. From Avondale's perspectives, GS has been made more sophisticated and should, accordingly, switch comparatively "easy" cases to Bridgewater. Grossly misunderstood, I headed off on a wrong implementation phase, dropping all along certain conditions Avondale has made a clear point of. This has, predictably enough, led to stagnant negotiations and only influenced trust level among our workgroup negatively. Notwithstanding Avondale's attempts to explain away presented conditions, our workgroup has become oversensitive to requests made by Avondale. Predictably enough, first negotiation round came to zero results.
Takeaways?
Do not make judgements or interrupt while others are presenting a proposal. Listen.
Be more attentive and make every possible effort to communicate in order to build trust
Share information. Sharing is one best way to build trust.
Following first negotiation round, our workgroup has come to realize our urgent need to build trust and agree on a common goal before proceeding. According to Choi et al. (2011), when different parties share a common vision of a best method of negotiating an agreement, negotiating parties are less likely to propose selfish offers.
Further, people who share similar backgrounds are more likely to reach an agreement. Indeed, negotiators are more likely to make concessions when negotiating parties know (and, for that matter, like) one another. According to reciprocity principle, people are more generous in "giving back" when offered a favor from a negotiating party (Thompspm, 2015). Accordingly, negotiating parties are most likely to reach an agreement, grant concessions and, not least, offer generous proposals only when background similarities exist and reciprocity principle upheld and, not least, proper psychological strategies are adopted in order to strike a balance between needs of different workgroups.
There is, however, a correlation between trust and deception since, as noted, no "100% sure" claim can be made, particularly during negotiation. The priority for each party is – in a negotiation process – maximizing benefits, not compromising one's own position. Thus, one hardly guess, let alone know, which negotiating party is credible and which is not. That is why in each and every round of negotiations, each party is not after an absolute optimum but only an acceptable range (or package) which can possibly satisfy negotiating parties.
