Negotiation Tactics: Case Studies in Conflict Resolution
Essential Negotiation Vocabulary and Principles
- 1. Common, human, acknowledge, flexible
- 2. Concessions, trust, readily, exploited
- 3. Position, unwise, inefficient, either
- 4. Mutual, judging, easy
Four Pillars of Interest-Based Negotiation
- Separate people from the problem
- Focus on interests, not positions
- Invent options for mutual gains
- Insist on using objective criteria
- 6. Negotiation, rules, motivated, essential
- 7. Fairness, standards, open, pressure
- 8. Adversaries
- 9. Day, conflict, decisions, negotiate
- 10. Substance, fears, react, active
Case Study 1: Real Estate Price Discrepancy
This case presents a negotiation between Caroline, the seller, and a potential buyer regarding the price of a house. Caroline seeks €160,000, while the buyer offers €100,000. Although the visible conflict is the price, the deeper issue is the differing perception of value. Caroline believes that the new windows, air conditioning, conservatory, and decoration make the house significantly more valuable. Her main interest is to recover her investment and ensure she receives a fair price. Conversely, the buyer’s interest is to purchase a home at a realistic market price; he does not believe all improvements are essential, as a new owner might change the carpets or decoration.
The negotiation is primarily distributive because both sides focus exclusively on money. Caroline wants the highest price, and the buyer wants the lowest. They fail to discuss alternative options, such as including furniture, adjusting payment conditions, making repairs, or agreeing on a flexible moving date. Caroline appears to have a weak BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) because the house has been on the market for five years. This suggests she should be more flexible. The buyer likely has a stronger BATNA as he can pursue other properties. While Caroline uses anchoring by maintaining a high price, she fails to utilize objective criteria, such as the market rates for similar houses in the area.
The final result is no agreement. Caroline should have listened more carefully to the buyer, researched market prices, and offered a more realistic figure. This approach could have improved the chances of reaching a fair agreement for both parties.
Case Study 2: Employee Reward and Budget Constraints
This case involves a negotiation between a supervisor, Lidya, and Joseba regarding a reward trip to Portugal. Both employees had a successful sales month and earned the trip as a corporate reward. However, the company budget is insufficient to cover both couples and their partners. Initially, the supervisor suggests that one couple travels this year and the other the next. Lidya and Joseba reject this, as they earned the reward simultaneously and wish to travel during the summer. The supervisor then proposes they pay for half of the flights, which Joseba rejects because the trip was promised as a full reward.
Initially, the negotiation is distributive due to limited funds. However, it becomes integrative when the supervisor seeks a creative solution. By consulting the department head, he identifies surplus funds in the office supply budget. He proposes that Lidya and Joseba help reduce future office supply expenses so the saved money can be transferred to the travel budget.
This results in a win-win agreement. Lidya and Joseba receive their full trip, while the company maintains cost control. Communication remains respectful and problem-focused. The supervisor successfully creates value rather than simply defending the original budget, leading to a beneficial outcome for all parties.
Case Study 3: Emotional Value in Vehicle Sales
This case features a negotiation between Nacho, the seller, and Patricia, the buyer, over an old Toyota Land Cruiser. While the conflict initially appears to be about the €20,000 asking price versus an €18,000 offer, the real conflict is deeper. Nacho has maintained the car carefully for years; for him, it holds significant emotional value and personal memories. Patricia intends to use the vehicle as decoration for her new restaurant, transforming it into an “oldies dream car” for customers.
The negotiation begins as distributive bargaining over the price. Eventually, Patricia accepts the full price of €20,000, yet the negotiation still fails. The reason is that Nacho does not want the vehicle modified or damaged. For him, the future use of the car is more important than the financial gain. Patricia views the vehicle as a business object, whereas Nacho views it as a personal legacy. Although Nacho may have a weak BATNA if Patricia is the only buyer, he is not desperate to sell. He prefers keeping the car over selling it for a purpose he does not respect.
The final result is no agreement. Patricia should have explained her plans earlier, and Nacho should have been transparent from the start regarding his concerns about the vehicle’s future use.