The Ladder of Inference: A Resource List

A selection of negotiation resources to help you understand this decision making processes in both yourself and your counterpart(s).

PON Staff • March 12, 2024

The ladder of inference is a model of decision making behavior originally developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schoen and elaborated upon in the context of negotiation by Program on Negotiation co-founder Bruce Patton in his book Difficult Conversations, co-authored with fellow Program on Negotiation faculty members Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen. The model describes how individuals use available data to make decisions. The ladder of inference describes how a negotiator, or any decision maker, relies upon her personal knowledge, or observable data, up the ladder of inference to the next stage, which is selected data.

This is the data that the decision maker chooses to pay specific attention to, for one reason or the other. From this rung of the ladder the negotiator moves to the phase of reasoning and interpreting the available data based upon the selected data she has focused on. At this stage “past experiences, assumptions, and implicit rules influence the meaning I make of the data” (The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, Robert Bordone). After this stage, decision makers begin to draw conclusions based upon the culmination of the preceding three rungs, and from there actions are taken.

Beyond Winning by Robert Mnookin, Scott Peppett, and Robert S. Tulumello – A guide to dispute resolution that can help negotiators understand the conflict resolution process and the pressures influencing lawyers and clients.

The Art and Science of Negotiation by Howard Raiffa – A guide to negotiation using diagrams, case studies, and in-depth analysis of bargaining dynamics.

Getting to YES by Roger Fisher and William Ury – The definitive guide to negotiating agreements in any avenue of life, whether it is work, family, business, or personal matters. Written by Program on Negotiation founder Roger Fisher and based upon the work of the Harvard Negotiation Project, Getting to YES offers a groundbreaking approach that helps negotiators separate the person from the problem, focus on interests rather than stated positions, and approach bargaining with an integrative, cooperative mindset.

The Handbook of Dispute Resolution by Robert Bordone – An overview of the disciplines and theories, concepts, and practices that comprise the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution. With over fifty contributing authors, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution interrogates the relationship between Alternative Dispute Resolution and the legal system and “challenges the legal community’s existing understanding of and its relationship to ADR concepts, subject matter, and even its methods.”

Difficult Conversations by Sheila Heen, Bruce Patton, and Doug Stone – A roadmap for conducting the most difficult, challenging conversations one will face, whether in business or in personal life. Based on research from the Harvard Negotiation Project, this book offers guidance on beginning a difficult conversation, maintaining dialogue without resorting to entrenched positions, and keeping the conversation focused on what matters rather than on what happens.

The Manager as Negotiator by David Lax and James Sebenius – An approach to negotiation for attorneys, executives, and diplomats based upon research from Harvard University.

What do you think of this list? Would you add any other resources? Leave us a comment.

Salary Negotiations

Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage

When it’s time to renegotiate salary, we often downplay our contributions to the organization. Here’s advice on how to bargain up rather than down—and earn what you truly deserve.

Katie Shonk • March 12, 2024

As we prepare to renegotiate salary, most of us intend to ask for as much as we can without antagonizing our employer. But we sometimes undervalue our worth, with disappointing consequences.

To take one dramatic example, in 2013, the board of Chicago public radio station WBEZ offered a big raise—more than $100,000—to Ira Glass, the creator and host of the long-running radio show This American Life, to recognize his value to the organization. Glass’s salary would go from $170,000 to $278,000.

But the big bump in pay made Glass uncomfortable, he told the New York Times, so he asked the board to lower his salary to $146,000–less than the starting point of the negotiation. Later, he reportedly asked for his salary to be lowered again, even though he was having to book speaking engagements to cover his and his wife’s living expenses in New York City.

Why would Glass negotiate his salary down rather than up? He may have felt self-conscious about earning a high salary from a not-for-profit organization funded by grants and listener donations.

Negotiation is difficult enough without creating extra roadblocks for ourselves, yet that’s what we often do. This tendency can be particularly strong when we try to renegotiate salary, as we often feel vulnerable and insecure about our worth. Our salary negotiation tips will help ensure you don’t sell yourself short.

Get Out of Your Way

To renegotiate salary and other job terms more effectively, we have to recognize how we “get in our own way,” write Simmons School of Management professor emerita Deborah M. Kolb and Jessica L. Porter in their book Negotiating at Work: Turn Small Wins Into Big Gains (Jossey-Bass, 2015). Pitfalls include failing to recognize opportunities to negotiate, focusing on our own weaknesses, and making the first concessions in our own heads, before other parties have voiced their positions.

Bargaining ourselves down starts with self-doubt about our value. Before we renegotiate salary, we tend to think that the employer has all the cards—that our only choices are to acquiesce or reject an offer outright. These internal dialogues are where the first concessions in the negotiation are made, write Kolb and Porter. We might decide not to renegotiate salary because we want to negotiate hard on another issue, rather than looking for ways to negotiate across multiple issues.

When we fail to recognize our own value, we are vulnerable to accepting less than we’re entitled to. In addition, our beliefs about what will satisfy the other party may be incorrect. Glass’s employer, for example, might have wanted him to accept a raise that would enable him to focus fully on his work without the need to overtax himself with side jobs.

How to Bargain Salary

When preparing to renegotiate salary, there are a number of steps you should take to be an effective self-advocate, according to Kolb and Porter:

Gather information so that you will feel that what you are asking for is defensible. Prepare to explain the value you bring to the organization.
Develop alternatives to the current negotiation to increase your flexibility at the table. Keep in mind that the other party’s alternatives, such as losing you, may be less attractive than yours.
Examine your vulnerabilities and plan ahead to compensate for them. For example, if a project you worked on didn’t pan out, prepare to discuss what went wrong, what went right, and how you learned from the situation.

A Word about Anchors

Abundant negotiation research has found that whatever figure is introduced first into a negotiation—however arbitrary or unfair it may be—serves as a powerful anchor that pulls the discussion it its direction. When we renegotiate salary, what’s the most obvious anchor? Your current salary. Like it or not, whatever you earn now will anchor the salary discussion.

Fortunately, when asking for a raise, you may be able to identify another anchor that would be more advantageous to you. For example, suppose you believe you are significantly underpaid. Research what you believe you should be making and secure documentation, such as job postings and information from industry sources. Present this data when you meet to renegotiate salary. Although your current salary will remain salient in your boss’s mind, you might be able to lessen its impact with a new anchor.

What other business negotiation solutions have you found helpful when trying to renegotiate salary?

Conflict Resolution

The Two Koreas Practice Conflict Management

There is so much to learn about conflict management.

Katie Shonk • March 12, 2024

Back in August 2015, the decades-long conflict between South Korea and North Korea threatened to reach a breaking point. The causes of conflict between North and South go deep, but in this case, the South accused the North of planting landmines that seriously injured two South Korean border guards. South Korea retaliated with an old tactic designed to irritate its enemy: blaring propaganda into the North through loudspeakers lined up along the border. The North declared the provocation to be an “act of war” and threatened to take “strong military action,” including an attack on the speakers, if the South didn’t shut them off, the New York Times reports. Suddenly, the two nations’ actions had escalated into a dispute requiring a serious commitment on both sides to conflict management.

With their militaries exchanging artillery fire, the two governments agreed to emergency talks aimed at conflict management. Armed forces from the two nations were on standby as the South’s chief national security adviser and a leading military officer from the North met on the border to test their conflict resolution skills. Talks lasted three days, with North Korean officials reportedly taking frequent breaks to consult with their supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, on whether and how to move forward.

South Korean President Park Geun-Hye said the loudspeakers would continue to blare until North Korea apologized for the land mine incident. The North Korean government refused, creating an impasse in the conflict management effort. A compromise ultimately emerged, however, when the two sides hit upon a novel solution: the North agreed to express “regrets,” not responsibility, for the explosions.

In return for the South’s concession (accepting less than a full apology), the North agreed to hold a new round of reunions of families separated by the Korean War, which ended up taking place in the fall of 2015. The embattled neighbors also said publicly that they were planning to meet in Seoul or Pyongyang for “dialogue and negotiations on various issues to improve relations.” South Korea shut off its loudspeakers but warned it might turn them on again if an unspecified “abnormal case” developed.

For the North’s young and inexperienced leader, Kim Jong-un, the negotiation provided an opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship, authority, and conflict resolution tactics. One North Korea expert, Kim Dong-yup, speculated to the Times that the North was only feigning distress about the loudspeakers, whose impact has never been proven, to “drag the South into talks.” As for South Korea’s President Park, the compromise that resulted from the conflict management effort may have been designed to quell criticism that her tough rhetoric escalated tensions with the North.

In negotiation and conflict management, actions and statements designed to convey toughness can backfire by launching an escalatory spiral that is difficult to contain. Carefully negotiating and crafting the language of public statements can help parties save face. Similarly, recognizing that your adversary’s provocations could be intended to inspire steps in conflict resolution might inspire you to soften your position and look for solutions using novel conflict management techniques.

What do you think about this example of conflict management? Leave a comment.

Adapted from the article “Trying to Come to Terms with an Adversary?” first published in the January 2016 issue of the Negotiation Briefings newsletter.

Teaching Negotiation

Download Your Next Mediation Video

Lara SanPietro • March 11, 2024

Use Video Examples to Teach Your Students to Become Better Mediators

Parties engaged in disputes are often unable to reconcile their differences alone, or fail to reach outcomes that are adequate for everyone. Mediators can add a great deal of value by helping parties to efficiently and effectively examine the issues at hand, take the interests and perspectives of all the stakeholders into account, and identify creative solutions that leave everyone better off than they would be in the absence of agreement. Mediators offer a suite of techniques to support effective problem-solving. They must remain non-partisan while helping all the parties work through issues both together and separately, away from the table.

Video-based mediation scenarios convey lessons in a different way than a lecture, discussion, or even role-play. Video scenarios help students grasp the subtle nuances mediation requires, in a realistic context. The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC) offers a collection of mediation videos designed to highlight that many facets of mediation. Check out the complete list of TNRC mediation videos below:

In the Shadow of the City

In the Shadow of the City, simulates a mediation between an aid worker in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and a project funder. Bruce Patton of the Harvard Negotiation Project plays the mediator role in this simulation. He demonstrates many of the principles outlined in Getting to YES, such as active listening, trying to understand differing perceptions, and focusing on interests rather than positions. This video runs just under an hour. Download In the Shadow of the City today.

Live-Mediation Teaching Video

This unscripted video shows how one professional mediator handled a real small claims mediation. The mediator in this case is Charles Doran, Executive Director of Mediation Works, Inc. (MWI) in Massachusetts. It is available in both full and shorter edited versions, with the full version running about 90 minutes and the edited version running 25 minutes. Download the Live-Mediation Teaching Video today.

Mediating Public Disputes

The Mediating Public Disputes video runs about 90 minutes, and features a discussion of the role and functions of a court-appointed special master serving as a mediator in a case study of a scientific/technical dispute in New Jersey, featuring MIT Professor and experienced public disputes mediator Lawrence E. Susskind. Download Mediating Public Disputes today.

Mediator Responsibility and Accountability in Public Disputes

This 90 minute, educational video is for mediators or mediation students and dives into mediator responsibility when parties have unequal knowledge, skills or power. Professor Lawrence Susskind discusses how mediators should help parties speak clearly about their interests and inform the parties of the advantages of a principled mediation strategy, and the mediator responsibility to ask questions that address issues of fairness, efficiency, and stability. Download Mediator Responsibility and Accountability in Public Disputes today.

Mediators At Work: Breach of Warranty

This 1 hour video is an unscripted, realistic demonstration of the mediation of a commercial legal dispute. Mediators at Work: Breach of Warranty displays the mediation of a typical commercial legal dispute. The case involves a breach-of-warranty suit between two companies over damage that the defendant supplier allegedly caused to the plaintiff company’s fleet of trucks by selling it defective antifreeze. The dispute is complicated by the fact that the plaintiff has filed a bad-faith settlement practice claim against the defendant’s insurance carrier, as well as by the interests and emotions of the principals of the two family-owned companies. Download Mediators at Work:Breach of Warranty today.

Mediators At Work: Termination Tempest

Mediators at Work: Termination Tempest is a 90 minute unscripted, realistic demonstration of the mediation of an employment dispute. The mediation is based on the facts of the Termination Tempest role simulation, also available through the TNRC. The video features experienced mediator Margaret Shaw working with the two parties (played by actors) and their counsel (played by attorneys). Shaw uses a combination of joint session and private caucuses to help the parties settle their dispute. Download Mediators at Work: Termination Tempest today.

Politics of Discourse in Mediation

In The Politics of Discourse in Mediation, Sara Cobb uses these theoretical ideas as a foundation of her pragmatic lecture to a group of mediation scholars and practitioners. Interspersed with informational on-screen slides, this video runs just over half an hour. Cobb’s lecture provides mediators with practical tools to use in facilitating a process that includes two important aspects of mediation politics: the construction of complex stories and legitimizing disputants. Download Politics of Discourse in Mediation today.

Saving the Last Dance

Produced by the Program on Negotiation in collaboration with the Center for Mediation in Law, this 50 minute video demonstrates the “Mediation through Understanding” mediation model as applied to a highly charged business conflict. Focusing on a dispute between a dance company and its recently discharged choreographer, which raises intellectual and employment issues, the video alternates between excerpts from the mediation itself and an educational commentary. Download Saving the Last Dance today.

Take your training to the next level with the TNRC

The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC) offers a wide range of effective teaching materials, including

TNRC negotiation exercises and teaching materials are designed for educational purposes. They are used in college classroom settings or corporate training settings; used by mediators and facilitators seeking to introduce their clients to a process or issue; and used by individuals who want to enhance their negotiation skills and knowledge.

Negotiation exercises and role-play simulations introduce participants to new negotiation and dispute resolution tools, techniques and strategies. Our videos, books, case studies, and periodicals are also a helpful way of introducing students to key concepts while addressing the theory and practice of negotiation and conflict management.

Check out all that the TNRC has in store >>

Business Negotiations

Selling the Deal to Outsiders

We often overlook the importance of selling the deal to outsiders in business negotiations. That’s a mistake, as outsiders often have the power to sabotage agreements. Here are some tips for getting outsiders on board with your plans.

PON Staff • March 11, 2024

Business negotiations require intensity and focus. Unfortunately, the level of focus required to work through complex issues with our counterparts across the table often leads us to forget about the importance of selling the deal to outsiders.

As the following examples suggest, outsiders often manage to gain power in negotiation and play an outsized role:

In October 2023, Chevron announced it was buying energy company Hess Corp. for $53 billion. A few months later, Axios reported that Exxon and Chinese national oil company CNOOC believe they have the right to block the deal, saying they have a right of first refusal on some of Hess’s holdings. As of February 2024, Chevron said “constructive discussions” aimed at closing the deal were ongoing.
In late 2022, street improvements spearheaded by New York City mayor Eric Adams, including new bus lanes and bike and pedestrian infrastructure, reportedly were being thwarted by the Mayor’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, according to Streetsblog NYC. The department had become “far more deferential to opponents of projects—and less effective at negotiating solutions,” sources told the blog.
In February 2024, Capital One announced its intention to purchase Discover in a $35.3 billion all-stock deal—with the combined company expected to be the largest holder of credit card loans. But would U.S. regulators scuttle the deal on antitrust grounds?

These examples illustrate the importance in dealmaking of looking beyond the parties at the negotiating table to consider how other interested parties—including existing clients, customers, and partners; government entities; and the public at large—might view the agreement. Let’s take a closer look at how you can go about selling the deal to outsiders.

1. Broaden Your Perspective

When preparing for an important negotiation, consider the various outside parties that could be affected by an agreement. This list might include members of your organization or your counterpart’s organization; clients and customers on both sides; public-interest groups; and government agencies.

Next, consider the interests of these relevant parties in the negotiation. What might please or displease them about the outcome you’re envisioning? How might they respond if they are displeased by your negotiation process or outcomes? Is there a risk they could create problems for you or those you represent?

Rather than viewing such parties as potential deal blockers, think about what valuable perspectives they might offer. What important issues might they bring to the negotiating table? Should any of them play a role in the negotiation?

Even if you decide that an interested party shouldn’t have a direct role in your talks, you might decide to keep them apprised of your progress so that they can offer feedback. You could also launch separate negotiations with outsiders on issues that concern them. Finally, you might consider whether any parties should have the right to vote on or veto any negotiated agreement you might reach—essentially, turning outsiders into insiders.

2. Discuss the Risks of a Busted Deal

Despite your best efforts at selling the deal to outsiders, they may be upset by your negotiated agreement. If so, they may act impulsively to try to thwart the deal. What they may fail to consider is that their attempted sabotage could backfire on them as well, including in the form of missed opportunities, a damaged reputation, or bad press.

Try to highlight the risks of attempted sabotage before they have a chance to move ahead with such plans. Reminding outsiders of the potential downsides of trying to block your deal could motivate them to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement with you.

3. Work Around the Spoiler

What if, despite your best efforts at selling the deal to outsiders, a key player seems determined to remain a roadblock? If so, it may be time to try a work-around, writes Harvard Law School senior fellow Robert C. Bordone. A work-around is a strategic approach to reaching your goals by circumventing a deal spoiler.

One type of work-around involves building coalitions that exploit what Harvard Business School professor James K. Sebenius has termed patterns of deference, or the common tendency of people to follow influential others on a particular path. By bringing respected parties on board, you may be able to build a coalition in support of your plan that the spoiler will find difficult to resist.

If a department head in your organization remains opposed to your negotiated agreement, for example, try to identify other players who might influence her in your favor. Then encourage them to make your case. If the potential spoiler sees that you are supported by people she admires and respects, her resistance may wane. Because such efforts can backfire, however, when selling the deal to outsiders, you should be careful to enlist only those you know and trust to make your case.

What other advice do you have for selling the deal to outsiders?

Win-Win Negotiations

Labor Negotiation Strategies

Our labor negotiation strategies will help you not only avoid a strike, but help you secure a win-win negotiation. Thorough preparation and value creation across issues are the keys to success.

Katie Shonk • March 11, 2024

What labor negotiation strategies can help negotiators achieve avoid strikes and reach a win-win negotiation? Professionals seeking to avoid not only labor strikes but impasse in general can apply lessons from real-world labor disputes, including the 2012 Chicago teachers’ strike, to their own workplace negotiations.

Tackle Tough Issues Together

When a difficult negotiation such as a labor contract renegotiation looms, it can be tempting for each side to try to make unilateral decisions on certain issues in the belief that negotiations will be a dead end. This strategy may pay off in the short term, but it’s important to factor in the long-term costs of failing to negotiate key issues.

Take the 2012 contract negotiations between the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the City of Chicago, which led to a 10-day strike. After being elected mayor of Chicago in February 2011, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, lobbied the Illinois state legislature hard for an education-reform bill targeted at Chicago’s troubled school district that included changes to collective bargaining between the city and the CTU. Specifically, the bill, which passed in May 2011, raised the percentage of CTU members who must vote in favor of a strike from 50% to 75%. The new law, known as SB7, also effectively prevented the CTU from striking over issues other than teacher salaries and limited the issues that could be negotiated—leaving out class size, for instance.

Outraged, the union viewed the law as a signal that the new mayor was aggressively anti-union. Chicago’s Emanuel-appointed school board then further alienated Chicago teachers by rescinding a promised 4% pay raise and, at the same time, upping the salaries of newly installed CPS executives. Emanuel then began a campaign, ultimately successful, over a single education issue—his quest for a longer school day. But instead of negotiating with the CTU, he launched negotiations with individual schools.

Entering the Strike Zone

The union was further frustrated when the Chicago School Board delayed negotiations over the teachers’ new contract, leaving only weeks for the parties to come to agreement on a host of issues, including teacher salaries, evaluations, availability of books and other supplies, and air conditioning in schools.

On June 6, 2012, an overwhelming 90% of CTU members voted to strike, far exceeding the 75% required by the new state law. Both sides turned down the recommendation of an independent arbitrator on the issue of teacher salaries. As thousands of Chicago Public Schools teachers joined picket lines across the city on September 10, Chicago parents scrambled to make arrangements for their children’s care. Ten days later, the CTU and the school board finally reached a breakthrough on a deal that provided victories for both sides, including a longer school day and annual teacher raises.

5 Top Labor Negotiation Strategies

A case could be made that dramatic reforms were needed to improve Chicago schools. But if one of Emanuel’s goals was to avoid a teacher strike, as suggested by his support of SB7, then his strategy of dodging and delaying negotiations with the CTU and limiting the number of issues on the table was counter to a win-win negotiation strategy.

The combative and destructive nature of this strike suggests the following 5 labor negotiation strategies and win-win negotiation skills for others engaged in potentially contentious labor negotiations:

Keep it cordial. Prior to negotiations, avoid provoking the other side with legal maneuvers, side deals, and other tactics that could worsen tensions.
Start early. When you engage your counterpart as early as possible in the timeline of a negotiation, you demonstrate your interest in building rapport and exploring options together.
Imagine worst-case scenarios. Recognizing that overconfidence could inspire unrealistic expectations on both sides, thoroughly assess the potential ramifications of a prolonged strike.
Make a realistic offer. Prepare an opening offer that is aggressive but not insulting, and back it up with a compelling argument.
Put it all on the table. By refusing to put limits on the number of topics under discussion, you exponentially improve the chances of discovering tradeoffs that will satisfy both parties—and head off a strike.

What other labor negotiation strategies and win-win negotiation techniques have you found to be helpful?

Negotiation Skills

Fairness in Negotiation

Understanding the norms of fairness in negotiation

Silvia Glick • March 11, 2024

Imagine that you and your business partner agree to sell your company. You end up getting an offer that pleases you both, so now you face the enviable task of splitting up the rewards. How do you ensure that there is fairness in negotiation?

Some background: Your partner put twice as many hours into the firm’s start-up as you did, while you worked fulltime elsewhere to support your family. Your partner, who is independently wealthy, was compensated nominally for her extra time.

Fairness in Negotiation: Be Wary of Gains at Your Counterpart’s Expense?

For her, the profit from the sale would be a nice bonus. For you, it would be a much-needed windfall.

Researchers have identified three fairness norms that people frequently invoke: equality (in this case, a 50-50 split of profits), equity (a split in proportion to input, which would favor your partner), and need (a split that favors you and your family).

Psychologist David Messick has found that people commonly choose among these fairness norms based on their self-serving desire for more. That is, our greed determines how we define fairness in a given negotiation situation.

When splitting up the business, you might be tempted to give extra consideration to your family’s needs and overlook your partner’s investment of time and energy. Your partner, of course, is likely to view the situation in the opposite light. You may both end up being insulted and wronged.

How to Create Fairness in Negotiation While Maintaining a Status Quo

Recently, Max Bazerman, Straus Professor at Harvard Business School and Program on Negotiation faculty member, found that professional arbitrators relied on a fourth fairness norm: maintaining the status quo. Many organizations resolve a conflict by resisting radical change.

Your annual raise, for instance, is probably a percentage increase from last year’s salary – the status quo. What if last year’s salary wasn’t fair, to begin with? Then the organization has simply institutionalized a pay inequity.

In any negotiation, you should strive to bring fairness considerations to the surface, so that everyone will understand one another’s needs and wants.

How do you create fairness in negotiation? Share your experiences with our readers in the comments section below.

Related Negotiation Article: Ethics in Negotiation: How to Avoid Deception in Employment Negotiations – One of the more common hurdles negotiators face when bargaining for salary is the tendency to strive for the highest value, no matter the cost. In this article, deceptive bargaining strategies are examined and tactics for overcoming deception at the bargaining table are offered.

How a Short-Term Focus Contributes to Disasters in Business Negotiations – Don’t focus on the here and now at the expense of future prospects at the bargaining table and beyond. Not only should a long-term focus inform a negotiator’s strategy, but it should also be the basis upon which solid business relationships are built. When discussing ethics and fairness in negotiation, a long-term outlook has immediate benefits for business negotiators seeking to establish successful bargaining relationships or maintaining current business negotiated agreements.

Dealing with Difficult People

Consensus-Building Techniques

Consensus-building techniques can help parties facing a group decision reach longer-lasting, more harmonious outcomes than resorting to an up-or-down vote. Several different approaches are available to parties engaged in consensus building.

Katie Shonk • March 11, 2024

What’s the best way for members of a group to reach a decision jointly? Majority rule, or an up-or-down vote, is one commonly used method. But voting can lead to unstable decisions, as those in the minority may fail to back the final outcome or even try to sabotage it. By comparison, a process known as consensus building tends to lead to more stable, lasting decisions. You may be able to help improve group negotiation and decision making in your organization by adopting consensus-building techniques.

What Is Consensus Building?

In consensus building, group members commit to “seek overwhelming agreement among all relevant stakeholders,” writes Lawrence Susskind in his book Good for You, Great for Me: Finding the Trading Zone and Winning at Win-Win Negotiation. “The result is a negotiated decision that is as close to unanimous as possible. From an organizational standpoint, consensus-building techniques help groups as a whole win . . . to reach the broadest agreement possible, not just one that is barely acceptable to a majority.” By giving all parties a voice, consensus-building techniques tend to produce better long-term results than majority rule, according to Susskind.

Useful Consensus-Building Techniques

In their book The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer explain the benefits and best practices of consensus building. They also describe key consensus-building techniques. In particular, the authors discuss three common consensus-building approaches, which we summarize here.

1. A Conventional Problem-Solving Approach

In this common consensus-building approach, participants begin by working together to clarify and agree on a definition of the problem to be solved, perhaps with the aid of a neutral facilitator. Next, they discuss and decide on the procedures they will use to conduct their deliberations over possible solutions.

During the education phase that follows, participants share information about the context of the problem, articulate the issues and interests that are most important to them, and offer relevant technical information, drawing on their own knowledge or that of experts. Next, parties work together to generate possible solutions, then “establish and apply criteria to evaluate the options they have developed,” write the authors.

The next stage is to seek agreement on a package they can all support. Recommendations aimed at meeting everyone’s interests are added to the package of proposals. If someone opposes a proposal, they should be required to suggest ways to make the overall package acceptable to them without worsening it for others. Finally, the parties should set up successful implementation by staying in close contact with other parties after the agreement is reached to ensure it succeeds.

2. Working with a Single-Text Document

The single-text approach to consensus building involves “introducing a working draft of an agreement early in a process for parties to discuss and revise,” according to the authors of The Consensus-Building Handbook. The single text might be developed by a mediator who has gathered the information needed to draft a document by interviewing all parties. Or it could be drafted by someone with technical expertise who has knowledge about the issues and is familiar with participants’ views on those issues. Finally, a subgroup of stakeholders could work together to draft a single-text document.

“The single-text method provides a clear structure for discussions and a focal point for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement,” write Susskind and colleagues. This approach can be particularly useful when technical, regulatory, or statutory language is needed and when a large number of stakeholders are involved.

3. A Visioning Approach

The third and final of the consensus-building techniques involves focusing the attention of participants on the future during the process of identifying options and working toward agreement. A visioning approach typically involves the group asking and answering the following questions:

“What do we have?” This question offers an opportunity for participants to assess the strengths and weakness of their current situation.
“What do we want?” This question asks group members to describe an ideal outcome that would meet the underlying interests of the various parties. “Parties in conflict frequently find it easier to think about solutions in the future than in the present,” write the authors. Doing so “frees them up to be more creative.”
“How do we get there?” During this stage in the consensus-building process, participants put forth possible strategies for implementing their plan, which can be included in the consensus agreement.

While visioning can be useful in most contexts, it can be particularly helpful when parties are entrenched in firm positions, according to Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer. In such situations, they write, “The exercise of thinking about the future can produce more common ground than discussions that remain focused on the present.”

What other consensus-building techniques and approaches have you found to be useful in group negotiation and decision making?

Negotiation Skills

Is Humor in Business Negotiation Ever Appropriate?

Use humor in business negotiation as a way to answer difficult questions and make interactions more memorable.

PON Staff • March 11, 2024

Have you ever wondered if humor in business negotiation is appropriate, and when? We spoke with Alison Wood Brooks, O’Brien Associate Professor of Business Administration and Hellman Faculty Fellow in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit at Harvard Business School to find out.

Imagine this scenario. You’re sitting among some of your company’s partners. Just when it seems that they have reached a stalemate, your boss cracks a joke that instantly lightens the mood. Almost magically, she is able to rejuvenate the conversation—and reemphasize her position—in a way that proves effective.

Certainly, you’ve also encountered times when jokes have flopped in meetings. So, when and how should you use humor in business negotiation (if at all)?

Humor may seem like a frivolous distraction, but few other conversational strategies have the ability to transform moods (in both positive and negative directions) as quickly and with such impact. Humor influences whom we are drawn to and whom we trust, can help us cope with negative circumstances, and can make work and life more enjoyable. However, in the workplace, where norms of appropriateness and professionalism are often stringent, ambiguous, and consequential, it can be tricky to figure out when humor can or should be used as a means of improving our social interactions.

There’s something funny about humor in business negotiations

Several benefits come with using humor in business negotiation successfully. For example, research led by Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock at Universiteit van Amsterdam shows that using humor induces positive emotion, which in turn triggers positive communication and better team performance. Furthermore, humor has been shown to boost creativity. When coworkers with high levels of trust among one another used sarcasm (a specific type of humor in which you say the opposite of what you mean) in their conversations, they performed better than others on tasks that required creative insight, Li Huang of INSEAD found in her research.

In research conducted with Brad Bitterly and Maurice Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, I found that telling a joke that elicits laughter and is viewed as funny and appropriate projects confidence and competence (by conveying an accurate read of social dynamics), and also increases our status.

Although the benefits of well-timed quips may sound appealing, a joke can fail in many ways. Jokes can be perceived as unfunny or inappropriate (or both). Because an inappropriate joke can be damaging, you should keep lewd, derogatory, or other deprecating jokes to yourself.

Negotiations are often fraught with tense moments and negative emotions. In fact, I recommend a strategy, first proposed by the late Harvard professor Howard Raiffa, called a post-settlement settlement—continuing to negotiate after a deal has been reached—because some of the best outcomes can be uncovered after the tension of the negotiation has been cut by reaching a deal. Using humor in business negotiation has the same effect: A well-timed, sincere, successful joke can help break the tension, increase social closeness, build rapport, and foster an enjoyable, positive tone during your negotiation.

You might also use humor in business negotiation as a way to answer difficult questions. One of the most challenging aspects of negotiating is being asked questions that you don’t want to or shouldn’t answer—because by answering directly or transparently, you would put yourself in a weak or compromised bargaining position. In those scenarios, you may be able to use humor to divert or distract—even for a moment—so you can think more carefully about what information you can and should disclose.

Finally, humor makes our interactions more memorable. The best negotiators make their counterpart feel great about the outcome, even if it isn’t in the counterpart’s favor. Finding the humor in your negotiation will increase your counterpart’s subjective sense of satisfaction and help you both remember the interaction in a favorable light.

I will end with one word of warning: Know thyself. Humor comes easily to some people. But if you are not a natural jokester or witty conversationalist, you can also score interpersonal-warmth points by laughing authentically at others’ jokes. Very few people enjoy interacting with someone who is overly serious or never laughs. Don’t be afraid to make your negotiation light and fun. When you do, you and your counterpart will enjoy it more, be more likely to uncover creative, cooperative deals, and remember the interaction more fondly.

It’s your turn to share. What’s your experience with witnessing or using humor in business negotiation?

Teaching Negotiation

Bidding in an International Business Negotiation: Euro-Idol

Lara SanPietro • March 7, 2024

Euro-Idol is a four-party, two-round international business negotiation over the selection of the host country and city for the upcoming Euro-Idol music competition. In this bidding simulation from the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC), cities must place bids to host the Euro-Idol competition, and therefore gain the economic benefits that come with hosting such a large event.

Euro-Idol – Featured Simulation

Euro-Idol is the longest-running international singing competition featuring contestants from European and other invited countries. Every year, each participating country independently conducts a national song competition to choose its country’s “Idol” to represent it at Euro-Idol. Hosting the Euro-Idol competition is one of the most prestigious and sought-after events a country and city can bid for, often compared to hosting the Olympics or the World Cup. Euro-Idol has the potential to bring economic benefit and prestige to cities that are granted this privilege. Typically, the winning country of the previous year’s competition has priority in conversations about hosting, if they choose to be considered. But this pattern was disrupted after the 2020 competition was cancelled, due to coronavirus. Now, countries are free to directly apply to host Euro-Idol’s competition. After a country is chosen by the Euro-Idol Corporation, it is up to the country to choose the city. The Kingdom of Denion is entering the negotiations with the Euro-Idol Corporation in an attempt to secure hosting the upcoming competition.

This negotiation takes place in two rounds. The first round is between the Euro-Idol Corporation and the prospective host country of Denion. If the Euro-Idol Corporation and Denion can come to an agreement, the second round of negotiations takes place between the cities of Bardane and Eindborg, as well as the Denion Office of Special Events, to determine which city will host the competition. Major lessons of this simulation include:

Acquire competencies in negotiation preparation, defining BATNA, process, management and agenda setting, uncovering interests, sequencing and packaging issues, and uncovering sources of power in negotiation.
Acquire skills in negotiating based on changing information and/or information decided by others.
Understand sequencing issues between rounds and how to build momentum for a deal.
Negotiate effectively in a process set up to incentivize winner take all (a bidding process).
Manage waxing and waning relevance.

To learn more about this simulation, download a free preview copy of the Euro-Idol Teacher’s Package.

______________________

Take your training to the next level with the TNRC

The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center offers a wide range of effective teaching materials, including

TNRC negotiation exercises and teaching materials are designed for educational purposes. They are used in college classroom settings or corporate training settings; used by mediators and facilitators seeking to introduce their clients to a process or issue; and used by individuals who want to enhance their negotiation skills and knowledge.

Negotiation exercises and role-play simulations introduce participants to new negotiation and dispute resolution tools, techniques and strategies. Our videos, books, case studies, and periodicals are also a helpful way of introducing students to key concepts while addressing the theory and practice of negotiation.

Check out all that the TNRC has in store >>

How to Bargain Salary

A Word about Anchors

Use Video Examples to Teach Your Students to Become Better Mediators

Take your training to the next level with the TNRC

1. Broaden Your Perspective

2. Discuss the Risks of a Busted Deal

3. Work Around the Spoiler

Tackle Tough Issues Together

Entering the Strike Zone

5 Top Labor Negotiation Strategies

Fairness in Negotiation: Be Wary of Gains at Your Counterpart’s Expense?

What Is Consensus Building?

Useful Consensus-Building Techniques

There’s something funny about humor in business negotiations

Take your training to the next level with the TNRC

Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for Negotiation

Articles & Insights

Login