A wise guy once taught me that the key to gaining good results in negotiations is to develop strong ties with the opposing party. Is this advise correct? Explain how the strength of the relationship is connected to the results you can obtain for yourself in a negotiation.

USE THIS INFORMATION TO ANSWER:

Your reputation is a measure of how others regard you. Reputations can affect one-time negotiations (e.g., if I am negotiating with someone who has a shady reputation, I will adjust my preparations accordingly) but they are most important in the context of relationships. Reputations in negotiations are shaped over time, based on a variety of factors-- who you are, how you negotiate, what you've accomplished, who you know, etc. Reputations can be shaped based on personal experience negotiating with another party as well as from second-hand sources (e.g., a classmate tells you that your negotiating partner for an upcoming negotiation is a great listener).

Reputations are subjective in that they are based on the perceptions of others (recall what we learned about cognition and perception in lesson 5). It is possible for someone to have different reputations that vary across contexts. For example, sometimes you'll hear about individuals who are warm, friendly, and charitable in their personal lives but are cutthroat and ruthless at work. Within a particular context (e.g., as a negotiator), reputations tend to be fairly stable over time and across negotiators. FYI- that's what I have also observed reviewing the reputation ratings over the course of many years. There is remarkable consistency in how peers rate each other.

All negotiations require a minimum level of trust (e.g., that the other party is not lying, will keep their promises, etc.), but integrative negotiations require the highest levels of trust. Trust is so important because it facilitates information exchange (remember what we learned about the dilemmas in mutual adjustment) and allows negotiators to cooperate.

When I trust someone, I am confident that I know what to expect from them. In a relationship, trust is based on the characteristics of both parties. When deciding whether or not wecan trust someone else, wecan consider many dimensions including their ability (are they competent?), integrity (are they honest?), and benevolence (do they care about my interests?).We can trustsomeone not to do something (not to lie, take advantage of me, hurt my feelings, etc.). And, wecan trust someone to do something (keep a secret, deliver a quality product or service, fulfill a promise).

• People trust more than we realize- this might come as a shock, but many people are willing to give people the benefit of the doubt
• Agents are less trusting than principals- in part, this is because they have a duty to be skeptical in order to protect their client's interests
• Face-to-face negotiations generate the most trust - Although this finding has been true in the past, I wonder if it will continue to hold in the future, especially as COVID-19 demonstrated that many things can be done virtually that were previously thought impossible. I haven't seen good data that show how "close" virtual negotiations can get to face-to-face but today's video conferencing technologies really close the gap. In this course, the negotiated outcomes students achieve are remarkably similar to when I taught this class face to face (and students conducted most of their negotiations face to face).
• Dissimilarityleads to less trust- we tend to be attracted to and likepeople who are similar to us
• Trust is a multiplex construct- I can trust someone on one dimension and distrust them on another (I trust that person's integrity but I question their ability to get the job done right).

The last dimension of relationships we will cover is fairness. People want to be treated fairly in all social encounters (in personal relationships and at work). It is highly unlikely that an agreement will be reached in a negotiation unless all parties believe that the proposed deal is fair. There are a number of different ways to think about fairness in the context of a negotiation:

Distributive fairness concerns how outcomes are distributed in negotiations. When negotiations are nearing an end, negotiators will often decided that splitting the difference on the remaining issuesis the most fair way to reach a deal.

Interactionalfairness is determined by how parties treat each other during the negotiation. All parties expect to be treated with dignity and respect.

Procedural fairnessreflects theprocesses used to arrive at an agreement. Procedures are fair when they are seen as being from bias and all parties are given opportunitiesto voice their opinions.

Research shows that when parties commit to and encourage each other to negotiate fairly, they are more likely to cooperate during the negotiation, reach an agreement more quickly, and feel more positive about the results. On the other hand, unfair offers are more likely to be rejected even when a party's BATNA is worse than the offer on the table! Although this is irrational in terms of substantive outcomes, people feel better when they can walk away from an unfair deal, even if it means they settle for less.

• Remember that "good" negotiations often require attention to issues unrelated to outcomes
• Relationships are important, especially in integrative negotiations
• Reputations will proceed (and follow) you
• Trust and fairness characterize healthy relationships