Communication and Persuasion in Negotiations
Professor Bruce Fortado
MAN 4441
University of North Florida
Communication = the verbal and physical transmission of information
Persuasion = the ability to influence (alter/convince) another person, including their positions, perceptions, opinions, attitudes, etc.
Over half of the ideas in conversations cannot be recalled immediately thereafter, and another quarter are lost after eight hours have passed (Schoonover, 1988: 53). Why is recognition and retention so poor?
Communication Problems or Barriers
* Specialized jargon from different backgrounds
* Antagonism distorts reception and blocks retention
* People receive many more stimuli than they can deal with (communication overload) = Do the stimuli contradict each other and confuse people? People also tend to see what they expect to see. Things that are contrary to our views are blocked out or denied.
* Some people learn much better through different media
* Distractions = including noise and thinking about several things at once.
* Avoidance = People do not want to upset another person, so they avoid sensitive matters or give excuses.
* Does the setting for the occasion fit the subject matter? For example, it would be unwise to deal with serious formal matters in an informal setting.
Perceptual Influences
(1) size of stimuli
(2) intensity
(3) contrast - expectation violation
(4) novelty or familiarity - expectation violation
(5) repetition
(6) ordering - primacy and recency effects (people tend to remember the first and the last, with things in the middle tending to get lost)
Can you trust actions more than words? It is normally assumed that actions are harder to control than words. Each person has his/her own unique style of communication (persuasion) and it takes time to get accustomed to it.
Five Major Perceptual Errors
(1) Stereotyping = false jumps made based on a person’s group membership (blonde = female sex symbol, dumb; overweight = lazy, jolly, no stamina, no pride; tall = leader)
(2) Halo Effect (Horns Effect) = false jumps made based on unrelated observations, where people who are liked are seen as having all positive characteristics, and people who are not liked have all negative characteristics For example, if the person is well dressed, has a firm handshake, and is very verbally fluent, one might jump to the conclusion the person is a good analyst and writer.
(3) Selective perception = people see what they expect to see
(4) Projection = people want to view themselves in a consistent, positive light, so they attribute negative (aggressive) feelings to the behavior of others (thereby justifying their position)
(5) Perceptual defense = people screen out, distort, and ignore information that is threatening and/or unacceptable
Perceptual errors tend to be more common between groups that are competing for resources. Self fulfilling spirals are certainly possible.
Status and Power Differences
Managers tend to edit the information they pass up the line. People want to look good, and protect themselves from a poor evaluation or other negative reactions (e.g. leaders killing the messenger). When force is used, there tends to be no meaningful feedback.
Persuasion
First impressions tend to be lasting. Patterns are often formed during the first five minutes of a negotiation. People tend to respond in kind. In other words, integrative remarks tend to be met with integrative remarks, and distributive actions with distributive actions. While setting a tone is important, exchanging information about issues and priorities early on may help the process.
People often spend too much time on why a result will be good for them rather than showing how it would be good for the other side.
When you are delivering important parts of your message, do you best to sit in an upright position and establish eye contact. In the U.S. people generally respond positively to this. In Asia, people may keep eyes down out of respect to the speaker.
If people perceive that you are trying to manipulate them, they will tend to get defensive and start generating counter arguments and excuses.
Do threats ever succeed in persuading people? The literature argues the best one can expect is short term capitulation. Long term subversion and resentment will then ensue.
If you have a good BATNA, it pays to tell the other side about it. However, this should not be done in a way that the other perceives as condescending or threatening.
Asking some questions may help the process, while other may hurt. Questions used to gain information or prepare the other person for what is to come should help. Questions evoke shame or guilt, and those that cut off further discussion of a matter, hurt. The former are sometimes called manageable and the latter unmanageable questions.
Does flattery ever work? The key issue is whether the remarks fit the person’s self image or not. You must know what the person’s self image is, and strive to be consistent with it. Otherwise, the situation may be made worse rather than better by what is perceived as insincere flattery.
You can try to suck the other party in one step at a time, slowly building momentum.
- Say something “yesable”
- Agreements in principle
- Get them to simply summarize your views to build empathy and improve retention
The messages structure makes a tremendous difference. You can try to educate people. Yet, it might be easier to weave some of their points into the document to make it seem legitimate and more appealing. Put your strongest points in the first and last passages. One must make a choice between selective presentation and a more balanced presentation including both strong and weak points.
When one is faced with very complex issues and numerous issues, some people recommend fractionating the dispute into smaller, more manageable pieces.
One might want to employ some repetition to insure certain points are made. Too much repetition, however, will turn people off.
It might be best to present them with information, and then let them draw their own conclusions. This lessens the likelihood they will feel you are trying to manipulate them.
The style of the presentation can make a big difference. Metaphors or stories can be powerful tools. Letting people participate is normally portrayed as a good way to get them to buy into the results.
People who are under stress tend to resist intense language. This means you must make some situational diagnostic decisions.
Those who seek help and advice may resent being in that role. They may actually end up resisting the very advice they were asking for.
Sources of Credibility
(1) trustworthiness
(2) qualifications
(3) what type of person they are
Are they in a position to have important information? Are they perceived as being neutral and have no vested interests in the outcomes? What type of reputation does the person have? Are they comfortable speaking in this sort of setting?
Do people trust or distrust strangers? Many people approach a new relationship with an unknown party with high levels of trust. This is true even when they have little information about the other party. Negotiators who are representing others’ interests, however, tend to trust the other side less. They also tend to expect the other will be less trusting.
A speaker can benefit by matching the characteristics of his/her target audience, including among other things, dress and speech (Mayor Dailey versus Mayor Washington).
Pre-giving = doing a person a favor, and/or giving them a gift, at an early point. The message being: “You owe me one.”
Cognitive dissonance = people seek consistency. If people have mixed views of a figure, something will have to give.
One should reinforce the points you like in the other party’s position. People tend to repeat rewarded behavior. Many times, people do just the opposite. They take the good points for granted, and go on to pick at the disagreeable points.
When one makes public commitments, several factors are introduced into the situation. The person must be concerned about losing face publicly. They have to be conscious about the political impact the prospective outcomes will have within their constituency. Further, there will be a psychological impact in terms of one’s own dissonance.
Inoculating Against Others Arguments
* Prepare data and charts that support your positions
* Present their points and show the problems associated with them
* Prepare Counter Arguments
Negotiators need to learn when it is time to stop talking near the end of negotiations. One can drive a person away from making an agreement by making “dumb remarks” (e.g. bringing up last minute problems, nit picking, and second guessing).