In one study, the researchers asked passersby to evaluate a job candidate by reviewing resumes on either light or heavy clipboards. Those who were given heavy clipboards rated the candidate as better overall and more interested in the position than those who were given light clipboards did. The results suggest that the physical heft of the clipboards affected how “weighty” participants viewed the job applicant to be.

In another study, passersby were given the opportunity to hold either a hard block or a soft blanket, ostensibly as part of a magic trick. Next they were asked to read a passage describing an ambiguous interaction between a boss and an employee. Participants who had handled the block judged the employee to be more rigid and strict than those who had handled the blanket.

In a final experiment, participants set in either a wooden chair or a cushioned chair while reading the same scenario used the previous experiment. Those who sat in hard chairs judged the employee to be significantly more stable and less emotional than those who sat in soft chairs.

Next the same participants were asked to negotiate for a new car with a sticker price of $16,500. Though chair hardness did not affect the size of the participants’ first offers, it did affect their willingness to raise their offers in a second round of haggling. Those who sat on soft chairs raised their offers by and average of $1,243.60; those who sat on hard chairs raised their offers by significantly less – $869.50. The experience of sitting in a hard chair appeared to unconsciously translate into a more hard-line approach to negotiation, such that these participants were reluctant to deviate from their initial decisions.

In Ackerman, Nocera, and Bargh’s experiments, the feel of an object seemed to unconsciously trigger metaphorical thinking – light or heavy, soft or hard – that influenced people’s choices. What does this mean for negotiators? By putting a counterpart in contact with certain objects, you might influence him in a certain direction (a strategy with ethical implications).

A final note: Nonverbal cues often do lend useful infights into a counterpart’s emotions. Face-to-face negotiations tend to be more successful than telephone or online talks for this very reason. So go ahead and meet in person when possible, but be aware that what you touch and see during the negotiations could have a subtle but real effect on your judgments.

Adapted from “Negotiating with All Your Senses,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, December 2010.

That conventional wisdom is contradicted by new research by professors Jean Poitras of HEC Montréal; Arnaud Stimec of the Université de Nantes, France; and Jean Francois Roberge of the Université de Sherbrooke in Canada. In a study of workplace disputes handled by a professional mediatory in Québec, Canada, mediations conducted with attorneys present were just as likely to be settled as were those without attorneys present. More good news: the presence of attorneys didn’t significantly slow down the mediation process, affect how fair parties viewed the process to be, or alter how satisfied they were with the agreement.

A couple of difference did emerge. First, when attorneys were present, parties viewed their mediators to be somewhat less useful. Second, parties were less likely to reconcile with each other when attorneys were present. Overall, though, the study finds some evidence that lawyers, contrary to their reputation, do not obstruct agreement in mediation.

Adapted from “Should You Bring Your Lawyer,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, April 2010

Resource: “The Negative Impact of Attorneys on Mediation Outcomes: A Myth or Reality?” by Jean Poitras, Arnaud Stimec, and Jean-Francois Roberge. Negotiation Journal, 2010.

One lesson from these findings for negotiators? To maximize satisfaction and build a strong working relationship, don’t leave the negotiation process up to chance. Instead, take time to discuss how you will negotiate before discussing substance.

Here are just three of the questions you might ask and answer together about the negotiation that lies ahead.

1. Who will be at the negotiating table? Aside from the principal parties you have already identified, is there anyone else who should be present at your talks? Are lawyers, assistants, or other experts invited to attend? If you are negotiating in teams, who will be present on each side and what role will each person play at the table?

When you jointly decide who will be present at your first official meeting, you avoid unpleasant surprises. For complex talks you might also consider setting up smaller working groups or subcommittees to tackle specific issues. In the case of the teams discussing a possible merger of their companies, one group might be assigned to prepare to deal with the companies’ labor unions, another might be in charge of assessing technology issues, and so on.

2. Where will we negotiate? Don’t assume that the other side will be coming to you or vice versa; your counterpart may have an entirely different idea than you do about where you should negotiate.

Negotiating on your home court can bring a decided advantage, as it allows you to control the environment and feel at ease. But traveling to the other party’s turf can communicate that you are serious about making a deal, notes professor Jeswald W. Salacuse of Tufts University, and also gives you opportunities to observe your counterpart in his surroundings. You might also choose to negotiate on neutral territory (such as a hotel conference room) or remotely via email or telephone.

If you have a preference regarding the location or communication mode of your negotiation, prepare to make a case that will appeal to the other side’s interests and possible concerns. Otherwise, talk through the pros and cons of your possible meeting locations together. Keep in mind that conceding to your counterpart on relatively minor process issues, such as where to meet, builds trust and goodwill that may come in handy later.

3. What ethical standards will guide us? Most negotiators enter talks with the intention of being fair and just. Yet people often have different standards of fairness, depending on their perspective. Moreover, we sometimes unintentionally violate our own moral code – for example, by justifying unethical behavior or imitating the bad behavior of others.

In one recent study, Lisa L. Shu and Max H. Bazerman of Harvard Business School and Francesca Gino of the University of North Carolina found that asking college students to sign a university honor code before they solved a series of math problems reduced cheating significantly. Even if you and your counterpart don’t sign a formal honor code, expressing your intention to behave fairly and honestly throughout the negotiation will bring ethical concerns to the surface. This in turn could inspire all involved to be especially vigilant about their manner of decision making.

Adapted from “Start Your Talks Off On the Right Foot,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, September 2009.

with

Mr. Debi Prasad Dash

Coordinator

United Nations Panel of Experts on the Sudan

When: Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Time: 12 – 1 p.m.

Where: Wasserstein Hall, Room B015, Harvard Law School Campus

Please bring your lunch. Drinks and desserts provided.

About the Presenter:

Mr. Debi Prasad Dash heads the United Nations’  five member International Panel of Experts on the Sudan.  The Panel of Experts was established in 2005 to provide advice to the Security Council regarding the conflict in Darfur and implementation of U.N. resolution 1591.  Mr. Dash was appointed to this role by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon.

A professional with over 29 years experience, Mr. Dash has worked in the Legal, Customs, Police and Banking Departments of the Government of India, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the UN. He served as Consultant Counter-Terrorism in the Commonwealth Secretariat, London. The Commonwealth Training Manual on Counter-Terrorism, drafted by him, was highly appreciated by the Secretary-General of the INTERPOL.  He served as an Expert Member in the INTERPOL Working Group on Terrorist Financing and has been a guest faculty in many national and international training institutions including the Cambridge University and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Vienna.  As a Member of the Multi-organizational Group (IMF, World Bank, UNODC), he drafted Model Laws on Money Laundering and CFT. He was a Member of the UN Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate Mission to Kenya to monitor compliance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373; Represented Commonwealth in the fourth special meeting of the UN-Counter-Terrorism Committee held in Almaty, Kazakhstan; Invited by the Secretary-General of the INTERPOL to participate in the 1st INTERPOL Global conference on Bio-Terrorism in Lyon, France in 2005.

Women who negotiate good deals on automobiles approach negotiations with an objective orientation and ask different and more probing questions about their intended purchase. While aesthetics and mechanical performance were among the top concerns for male customers, female customers placed premiums on price and reliability. Moreover, the expectation that a female car buyer may be less knowledgeable than her male counterpart when making a vehicle purchase allows female customers the advantage of surprise, because their preparation quickly overcomes gender expectations.

The value in preparation and limiting expectations combined with an objective outlook can pay big dividends in future negotiations, whether it is for a car, a home or your salary.

When negotiators fail to map out the negotiation process in advance, they can encounter detours and dead ends, write David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius in their book 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals (Harvard Business School Press, 2006). One common mistake: beating down the wrong door.

Looking beyond common rules of thumb such as “get your allies on board first,” Lax and Sebenius advise you to map backward from your goal to identify the correct sequence for your negotiation. The process of mapping backward entails envisioning your preffered outcome and then thinking in reverse about how to get to your desired end point.

How does backward mapping work? Start by drawing a “map” of all the parties in your organization who are currently involved in the negotiation as well as those who might have something to contribute. Identify their interests in negotiating with you and consider the likelihood that each party will cooperate with you. In addition, think about how the parties relate to one another. Who influences whom?

Next, consider how you can reach your ultimate target – the person or people you need to help you achieve your goals. Who can help you win over that target? How can you win that party over?

Often this type of analysis leads to the conclusion that you’re approaching people in the wrong order. Instead, focus on winning support from those who can influence your ultimate target.

Adapted from “Negotiating for Change in Your Organization,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, June 2010.

The tool: A hybrid mediation-arbitration approach called med-arb combines the benefits of both techniques. In this increasingly popular process, parties first attempt to collaborate on an agreement with the help of a mediator. If the mediation ends in impasse, or if issues remain unresolved, the parties can then move on to arbitration. The mediator can assume the role of arbitrator (if qualified) and render a binding decision quickly, or an arbitrator can take over the case after consulting with the mediator.

Operating instructions: In med-arb, parties first attempt to hammer out a collaborative agreement, working together and in private sessions with a mediator or “med-arbiter,” a neutral third party trained in med-arb. (For a review of mediation, see “Make the Most of Mediation” in our October 2009 issue.) In most cases, the med-arb process turns into a successful mediation with no need for arbitration.

What if all of the dispute remains unresolved? The matter would then be arbitrated. I a med-arbiter is handling the entire process, she would impose a binding decision based on her judgments about the case. If parties had reached an agreement on some issues, the med-arbiter would rule only on the issues that remained. Alternatively, as mentioned, an arbitrator could take over all or part of the dispute from a mediator.

What it can do: The threat of having a third party render a decision in a binding arbitration often inspires disputants to work extra hard in mediation to come to an agreement. Med-arb can be especially effective when you’re under time pressure, as in a labor dispute, and when you need to work with the other party in the future. And if you hire one person as mediator and arbitrator, you save time and money by eliminating the need to strat arbitration from square one if mediation fails.

Safety warning: When you know that your mediator may ultimately decide your fate, you might feel inhibited about sharing confidential information with him about your interests. After all, what if the mediation moves on to arbitration and he uses that information against you? You’ll need to weigh this legitimate concern against med-arb’s proven ability to get disputes resolved quickly.

Adapted from “Capture the Best of Mediation and Arbitration with Med-arb,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, November 2009.

In a 2009 study, researchers Michelle Marks of George Mason University and Crystal Harold of Temple University surveyed 149 professional employees who had been hired in the previous three years – specifically, tenure-track faculty at a university and part-time MBA students – about their negotiations for their current position. The participants were questioned about their attitudes toward negotiation and risk, their negotiation strategies and outcomes, and their level of satisfaction with the process of negotiating their jobs. In addition, their degree of of power in the negotiation was measured based on their work experience, other job offers, and knowledge of the organization’s past salary offers.

The researchers identified five types of negotiating strategies: collaborating (engaging in problem solving to reach the best possible outcome for both sides); competing (trying to maximize one’s own outcomes with little concern for others); accommodating (putting the other party’s concerns first); compromising (trying to reach middle ground); and avoiding (dodging negotiation altogether).

Independent of the power the applicants had at the table, choice of negotiation strategy turned out to be a critical factor in determining the size of the salary increase that the participants negotiated, In the study, those who chose to negotiate salary, rather than avoiding negotiation and accepting the offer on the table, increased their starting pay by an average of $5,000 primarily by using competing and collaborating strategies. Those who behaved competitively did better than those who focused on collaboration, but collaborators were more satisfied than competitive bargainers with the negotiation process.

By contrast, compromising and accommodating strategies were not linked to salary gains. Participants who were risk averse were less likely to negotiate a salary, and when they did, they had an accommodating style that left them feeling dissatisfied with their results.

Female participants in Marks’ and Harold’s study were no less likely than male participants to negotiate their salaries; however, the men negotiated higher salaries than the women did. Interestingly, among participants who faced a competitive opponent, women responded more competitively than did men, suggesting that women may be more likely to adapt to their counterparts’ negotiating style.

Based on their results, the study’s authors conclude that it pays to negotiate assertively for a salary increase upon being offered a job. They also encourage employers to recognize that giving employees wiggle room to bargain up their starting pay could help create a more satisfied, productive workforce. We add the caveat that if you don’t have a competing job offer, you should negotiate with caution, since there’s always a chance bargaining may cause the employer to revoke the offer that’s on the table.

Adapted from “For a Higher Salary, Choose the Right Strategy,” first published in the Negotiation newsletter, December 2010.

In this video, Professor Robert H. Mnookin, Chair of the Program on Negotiation, reflects on his experience leading a negotiation workshop for high school students in Israel. The key negotiation skills emphasized in the workshop were active listening and the ability to understand the perspective of the other side. As Professor Mnookin states in the video, “I told them the secret weapon to being a successful negotiator is to be a good listener.”

The negotiation skills training program was part of an ongoing partnership between the Amal School Network and PON, sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in partnership with PON, and developed under the guidance of PON Senior Fellow Shula Gilad and Amal Network’s Director of English Studies, Rachel Tal. To date, the program has brought more than three hundred Arab and Jewish students from 6 different Israeli high schools together to learn negotiation and conflict resolution skills.

While in Israel, Professor Mnookin also gave a talk on “When to Negotiate and When to Fight,” as part of the Distinguished American Speaker series, hosted at the home of U.S. Ambassador Daniel Shapiro. Mnookin’s lecture was attended by over one hundred people, including many Israeli officials involved in formal negotiations with Israel’s neighbors.