There is a clear link between the concepts of argument and negotiation; but do negotiation and argument always function hand in hand? And does negotiation rely solely on social, face-to-face interaction; or is it possible to engage in negotiations with the quick and efficient use of a telephone, laptop, or other mobile device?
In his study Persuasive Negotiation for Autonomous Agents: a Rhetorical Approach, researcher Sarvapali Ramchurn, from the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, attempts to shed light on this question. Ramchurn breaks down negotiation in a sort of scientific way, incorporating both the ideas of persuasion and argumentation as factors in the overall success of gaining rhetorical strength in a deal; yet Ramchurn’s initial obvious analysis, “a strong argument is one that quickly persuades an opponent…while a weak argument is one that is likely to be less persuasive” (Ramchurn, 1), does not seem to provide a very thought-provoking study. In fact, much of the negotiation literature and resources available bear similar analyses to Ramchurn.
However, in a book entitled, The Art of Negotiating, by Gerard I. Nierenberg, the idea of negotiation conceptualized in a more concise and innovative way. Nierenberg proposes negotiation as an art that has strict codes, techniques, and characteristics that enhance overall rhetorical strength. Nierenberg specifically discusses important characteristics that enhance rhetorical strength in negotiation: reason, emotion, patience, accuracy, and the art of listening. He then references the term psychodrama, which involves bringing out hidden feelings, attitudes, frustrations, and emotions as a valuable way to prepare for negotiation, shedding light on the importance of a sort of rehearsal prior to the actual interaction between “instigator” and “opposer.”
He goes on to describe the “opposer’s basic need of esteem.” The opposer should, “become genuinely interested in people, smile, always remember that a man’s name is the most important sound to him, encourage others to talk about themselves, talk in terms of the other fellow’s interests, [and] strive to make the other person feel important,” ultimately stating that the art of negotiation is “fundamentally an emotional social interaction” (Nierenberg, 117). Nierenberg reinforces the idea that negotiation is a tool of human behavior, finally defining this art as a completely emotional, in person interaction between opposer and instigator. This fact brings up an interesting point: does the art of negotiation vary in success between face-to-face interaction and technological interaction?
Business Place or Domestic Realm? How Environment Affects Negotiation
Case studies performed at Harvard University discuss various techniques and effects that are associated with face-to-face interaction in negotiations. Take a business transaction for example. Negotiation research conducted at Harvard University studied “The Robin Hood Effect.” The Robin Hood Effect states that during business meetings and transactions with “people of different socioeconomic levels, . . . our choice of clothing, cars, and other material possessions can signal differences”(Gino, Lamar, 2). The Robin Hood Effect states that while we may intend to treat everyone equally, factors like these may affect the nature and outcome of negotiations.
The study results and analysis discuss a sort of tension that exists between empathy and envy between negotiators of different status and wealth. Those who flaunt their wealth may instill envy into their opposer; while those who seem moderately wealthy may instill empathy in their opposer. The Robin Hood effect attempts to prove that socio-economic factors can affect decision-making in negotiations. But how can we fix these inequalities in negotiations? Authors Francesca Gino and Lamar Pierce propose solutions to this problem: “hold negotiators accountable for their decisions, monitor their behavior, and foster an organizational culture that rewards impartiality” (Gino, Pierce 5). Rather than implicate these supposed partialities, Gino and Pierce propose that negotiations should be monitored in a stricter way, resulting in a more fair outcome.
How about discussing negotiation outside of a formal business environment? In the domestic realm, the household and family dynamic differs in how negotiation is handled and carried out. The disparity between formality and informality comes into play here. In informal situations, depending on the nature of the argument, convictions can be carried out in divergent ways in comparison to a formal environment. In referencing an argument between husband and wife, this Harvard study poses this question: “How can you persuade other negotiators to bend on the issues that matter most to them?” (Harvard Law School, Program on Negotiation), especially if the opposer is your spouse, friend or family member.
The dynamics differ in how one arrives at the terms of the negotiation. While environmental differences play a large role in how we negotiate, it is difficult to pinpoint exact behavioral patterns in each informal and formal setting. Behavior and household environments vary greatly depending on the person, family, location, problem at hand, etc. and in this way are difficult to classify.
Social factors and face-to-face interaction greatly influence how we behave and carry-out negotiations. Emotions, feelings about the opposer, and environments to name a few, affect the way in which we negotiate and arrive at a settled product. The next section focuses on technological communications, specifically internet applications and computer programs that influence how we behave and interact with opposers in a negotiation.