Global Summit of Women 2004
Seoul, Korea

Effective Negotiation Strategy 

Oknim Chung
Sunmoon University

Overview

 With the advent of globalization in the 21^st century, various forms of conflict have come to the fore in the domestic, regional and international arenas. Accordingly, how to tackle these conflicts, or frictions in interests, among or between the parties concerned becomes an important topic in almost all the social behaviors. As a way of conflict resolution, negotiation draws more attention from every field of human interaction. It is defined as a dialogue process through which differences or conflicts in interests can be dealt with in a mutually acceptable compromise. The key to negotiation is how to frame the issues at stake and set in motion the tradeoffs which allow the bargainer to get most, if not all, of what he or she wants. (Deborah M. Kolb. etc.) Truly, negotiation can be applied in every subject of social science, such as trade, mergers and acquisitions, management-labor relationships, politics, arms control, prisoner exchanges, and so on. Frictions in interest, common decisions, and conflict resolution are key elements comprising negotiation, whereas interdependence, strategic interaction, cooperation, competition, and confrontation, non-zero sum approaches, and the idea of a variable sum game are its key characteristics. The efficiency of negotiation (or bargaining in the broader sense) depends on continuance, ratification processes, deadlines, the binding ++force of the law, linkage with other issues, and the existence of conciliators, and/or mediators (or arbitrators). Negotiation emphasizes moderate and rational methods of conflict resolution, seeking compromise or the middle-of-the-road between the contrasting interests. True negotiation not only facilitates a party’s occupying a favorable position, but also prevents a party from falling into an unfavorable position. In this manner, it is quite different from avoidance, conquest by violence (including war), or the customary legal approach to conflict resolution.

 Negotiation can be classified as:  bilateral or multilateral, based on the number of parties involved in the conflict; individual, organizational, or state, based on who is the main protagonist in bargaining; and political, economic or trade, environmental, or armistice, based on what is to be negotiated.

 With regard to the effectiveness of negotiation, experience and history stress that negotiation skills and strategy are more important than negotiators’ personal characteristics or capabilities. In other words, in making excellent negotiators, innate talent in bargaining is not as significant as acquired learning in negotiation skills or strategies.

This said, I have briefly dealt with the definition, classification, and key factors of effective negotiation. Now, let me touch on negotiation strategies, the importance of cultural factors to negotiations in the new century, and finally women’s role in bargaining, in whatever field of social interaction.

Effective Negotiation Strategy

 It needs to be remembered that negotiation manages or mollifies conflicts, but does not fundamentally root them out. Simply put, as long as pending issues are successfully addressed, if not solved, the negotiation may be regarded as successful. This is the main difference between negotiation and other extreme methods of conflict resolution. A case in point might be the North Korean nuclear issue. This issue has overshadowed the Korean peninsula for almost two years with North Korea’s secret development of nuclear weapons. However, in order to tackle the thorny problem, the six party talks involving six countries in Northeast Asia are being held, if not regularly. They function as a good brake on the escalation of tension on the Korean Peninsula. Of course, there remains a risk of time buying, which could worsen the current situation by giving North Korea more time to produce more deadly weapons in the near future. Yet, at least, as long as dialogue is continued among the parties concerned, no unexpected variables or provocations occur, just because the parties anticipate finding solutions through diplomacy. More than that, the talks allow the parties to determine more clearly what the other parties really want.

 One of the most important tenets in negotiation strategies is an effort at putting each party in the shoes of the other (the “if-I-were-in-your-shoes mind-set.)  In negotiating with others, it is imperative to find the real interests behind any superficial stance across the bargaining table, because it is frequently true that hidden agendas are real agendas. Effective negotiation also requires letting counterparts find their own honorable exit. This is important, particularly when bargaining with Asian countries. As an example, the utmost goal of North Korea in dealing with its nuclear issue must be regime survival. Yet, Pyongyang also wants prestige or an honorable exit, which to the North Korean leadership is the key to maintaining its grip on domestic power within the North. Pyongyang’s emphasis on having an equal footing, its demand for US concessions before giving up its own nuclear program, and China’s expression of commitment and economic aid to the North in return for participating in the six party talks, are representative of the “focus on prestige” on the part of North Korea. 

 In the bargaining process, skilful actors purposefully raise secondary issues as part of extracting greater concessions from their counterparts. This makes a convenient and effective negotiation strategy, in that the secondary issues can be used as a carrot for the counterpart in order to gain concessions on the primary issue. One example is the opening of South Korea’s rice market. South Korea is economically sensitive and politically vulnerable to opening its market to rice products. Foreign countries exporting other agricultural products, having realized this fact, put pressure on Korea to open its rice market, although they are not as interested in exporting rice as other products such as fruit, vegetables, and so on. First, they pretend to make concessions to the South Korean government on rice exports.  Then, they gain greater concessions from South Korea on other agricultural products, which is their real purpose in the bargaining.

 This said, the fundamental elements in effective negotiation strategy involve creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding or trust, differentiating one’s counterparts’ stated positions from their real interests, and locating trade offs or common denominators with which to optimize both one’s own interests and others’ interests. Mutually acceptable principles or an ultimate compromise are also important factors in effective bargaining.

Cultural Factors Matter

 The 21st century has been dubbed the era of globalization. As Thomas L. Friedman appropriately noted in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, the end of the Cold War was followed by democratization and the expansion of the market economy. Economic interdependence and cooperation/competition in political and security areas are added to the complex phenomena of globalization. Time and again, cultural differences or cultural variables appear as important elements in understanding tension, conflicts and even war. Samuel P. Huntington has already predicted a clash of civilizations in world politics. By the same token, whenever it comes to negotiation or bargaining, cultural differences become key factors in solving critical issues. Different cultures not only display differences in language, attitude, and social customs, but also in value systems and fundamental ways of thought. Negotiators’ perceptions of reality, culturally fixed ideas, and preprogrammed prejudices have a huge impact, positive or negative, on dialog. Some observers and negotiation experts reject this idea, arguing that negotiation becomes a universal process and therefore cultural differences can only a exercise minor influence on negotiation styles. They believe that globalization is helping to create universal standards of negotiation with similar behavioral patterns. Nevertheless, differences in emotional responses revealed during negotiations between heterogeneous cultures can easily be found in every form of bargaining. Diplomats are not independent of their own history, politics or national perceptions. For example, in the United States, compromise is essential in bargaining, being considered a reflection of rationality. Meanwhile, in Korea, compromise simply signifies the behavior of cowards, an expression of weakness, or a reflection of opportunistic egoism. In a word, Koreans have a very negative perception towards compromise.

 A case of cultural differences in negotiation was reflected in the bilateral high-level talks between the US and the DPRK in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue held during 1993 and 1994. As Scott Snyder pointed out, the two countries revealed severe differences in culture and had difficulties in reaching a compromise. More than that, from the viewpoint of the US, there is little difference between the North (an enemy) and South Korea (an ally). Koreans in general, exhibit hierarchical, collectivist patterns and remnants of Confucian tradition in their respective bargaining. In fact, North and South Korea have been divided for half a century, displaying clear gaps in political systems, economic structure, and social tendencies. However, the two Koreas share the same historical and cultural background, thus exposing similarities in behavioral patterns and negotiation styles.

 As a matter of fact, in any society, common experiences, values, and ideals create common worldviews through the process of socialization. Thus, despite the uniqueness North Korea possesses, including the ideology of self-reliance, its personality cult centered on KIS and KJI, North and South Korea display similarities in their respect for authority, national sovereignty and pride, prestige rather than real interest, emotional nationalism, and an emphasis on the importance of such social factors as “clientele”- school ties, family background, regional affinities, etc. Networking behind the scene of negotiations is also an important element for both Koreas. The shrimp-among-whales complex (or victim complex) derived from Korea’s geo-strategic circumstances is expressed as exclusive nationalism on the one hand and toadyism on the other. In addition, perhaps the most important factor in Koreans’ negotiation style is the role of leaders behind the scenes or outside the negotiating venue. When it comes to North Korea’s negotiation pattern, the negotiators’ personal capacity matters little. They simply act on directives from the top leader in Pyongyang. Quite frequently national interest is set aside to highlight the leader’s personal interest or prestige.

 South Korea’s stance and interest in maintaining control over its rice market by restricting imports has to do with cultural factors, too. South Korea is an exporter of industrial goods. Semi-conductors, cellular phones, hi-tech IT products, cars, and ships are the main products South Korea exports. Nevertheless, South Korea reveals a conservative and even exclusive tendency in importing agricultural products. Generally speaking, Koreans are one of the most globalized people in the world. Yet, they still cherish traditional Confucian culture. Confucian teaching that agriculture is the fundamental element in the universe is shared among Koreans. As a result, Korea’s negotiators dealing with this issue frequently display toughness and exclusiveness, conscious of their cultural background, let alone domestic political pressure. To almost all Koreans, as is seen in other Asians, western culture is not necessarily regarded as being desirable or even acceptable. In bargaining with tough counterparts, it is more than necessary to try to understand the cultural factors involved.

The Role of Women in Negotiation

 Negotiation includes competition, confrontation, and potential conflict within itself. No one party leaves the table with everything, but nobody goes away empty-handed either. The process is ‘good’ for every sort of business and relationship.  (Deborah M. Kolb, etc.) Therefore, it is argued that female negotiators can function better than male negotiators in turning around an unfavorable or awkward atmosphere, in demonstrating flexibility, extracting more concessions with soft and persuasive measures, and in maintaining good relationships and mutual trust. Women are less aggressive or brash. Yet, they are still active, nailing down the issues and mounting strong arguments for their case. Such an assumption does not mean a sexually discriminatory approach in  reverse. Rather, it means maximizing the strong points women possess in their feminine characteristics as seen in women’s participation in the fields of politics, economics, and other social fields.

 In fact, women are more tuned in to subtle clues and the feelings of the other, which all together comprise the key to effective negotiation strategy. Unfortunately however, women do not always realize their own merits. A regrettable truth is that so far little opportunity has been provided to women to demonstrate their potential capability in strategic bargaining. Structural restraints still prevent women from actively taking part in various activities including negotiations.  It is necessary to utilize and train female resources in every field of activity, including negotiation, which will make a good venue for women to demonstrate their feminine potential.

 The 21st century is the century of women. In order for women to contribute to social development, it is necessary not to be afraid of seizing the moment in demonstrating the real power of women. The field of negotiation is no exception. According to Deborah M. Kolb and others, steps to an effective advocacy include offering incentives, raising the costs of not negotiating, enlisting support, and anticipating challenges. These are exactly the areas in which women can demonstrate their feminine potential. Change is accelerating in business, in technology, in the economy, and in politics. It is not an accident that women, the newest entrants, see with a vision which reveals, perhaps, different and powerful insights into the negotiation processes needed in such a new environment. For this, it is imperative that women cherish strategic thought, train themselves in bargaining strategy, and analyze various past or present negotiations so as to become capable negotiators.
 

Copyright © 2007-2008 Globewomen. All rights reserved. "Corporate Women Directors International",
"Global Summit of Women" and "Global Diversity" are trademarks of GlobeWomen.

Any Questions & Comments, contact GlobeWomen at summit@globewomen.com.  Or, write to us:

Globewomen, Inc./ 666 11th St. NW, Ste. 700/ Washington, DC 20001/ USA

[Home] [About Us] [CWDI] [Global Diversity] [Summit] [WEXPO Online]