Credible Negotiation Leadership: Using Principled Negotiation to Improve International Negotiation

Credible Negotiation Leadership: Using Principled Negotiation to Improve International Negotiation

Larry W. Long (Illinois State University, USA & International Academy of Public Safety, USA), Mitch Javidi (North Carolina State University, USA & International Academy of Public Safety, USA), L. Brooks Hill (Trinity University, USA) and Anthony H. Normore (California State University Dominguez Hills, USA & International Academy of Public safety, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9970-0.ch023
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to integrate credible leadership into the authors' previous work in principled negotiation. After the introduction, international negotiation is conceptualized with an in-depth description of the process. This is followed by description of negotiation styles and eight propositions for credible negotiation leadership that are predicated upon intercultural communication study. The conclusion is an application of Credible Negotiation Leadership with recommendations.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

In 1994, “Principled Negotiation” (Hill, Long, & Javidi, 1994) was proposed as an approach to peaceful international negotiation and conflict management. Two decades ago, the authors noted that:

The increasing interdependence among peoples and nations is a double edged sword: on the one hand, it compels attention to differences and thus fosters conflict; on the other hand, it provides a wonderful prospect for development of the ability to resolve our differences and conflicts. Despite the promising opportunities presented by this interdependence and an amazing technology the world is a boiling cauldron of conflicts which threaten harmony and the social fabric of many nations and regions of the world. Instead of using the available potential constructively, people are so blinded by self-interest that they engage in destructive actions which sacrifice mutual development. Unfortunately, these episodes are common throughout the world. (Hill, Long, & Javidi, 1994, p. 194)

Although this observation was made in the 1990’s, there is evidence that these circumstances still exist and will continue in the foreseeable future. Projections for the years 2010 to 2030 suggest that leading nations, such as G-20 (the 20 major world economies), will not develop and implement appropriate policies to manage international weapons proliferation, deal with increasingly bitter socio-economic divisions, and adjust global environmental constraints (Rogers, 2004). These circumstances underscore the importance of leadership to effectively use negotiation as a key tool for international conflict management now and for the future (Creede, Fisher-Yoshida, & Gallegos, 2012; Hackman & Johnson, 2013; Normore & Erbe, 2013). Recent negotiations (August, 2015) to avoid escalation of military conflict between North and South Korea are a case in point. Furthermore, conflict projections for the future provide justification for revisiting and expanding the concept of “principled negotiation” to include elements of leadership and credibility.

In the latter portion of the Twentieth Century, experts studied the international negotiation process from diverse viewpoints. Much of this was likely motivated by the peace imperative or concern as to whether or not persons with diverse backgrounds (to include gender, age, ethnicity, ideology, geography, religion, language, etc.) can coexist peacefully (Martin & Nakayama, 2008). Clearly, many scholars have been motivated with the hope that people might settle disputes peacefully (Paupp, 2014; Pruitt & Kim, 2004). This body of literature draws heavily upon communication, education, psychology, sociology, political science, management, and other disciplines to discover and create concepts, principles, and best practices that will lead to effective negotiation outcomes (e.g., see Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006 & 2015; Watkins, 2002; Kolb & Williams, 2003). Regardless of scholarly orientation, no one can contest the centrality of communication in local, national, and international negotiation arenas (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2013).

Key Terms in this Chapter

Social Dimension: Concern for the values, norms, rules, and roles; one of the greatest sources of influence on human behavior, emanating from the cultural dimension.

Contextual Subsystem: The input dynamic of the negotiation process that contains cultural, social, political/legal, technological, and economic/competitive dimensions.

Credibility: Perceptions of an individual’s trustworthiness and expertise; one’s level of believability during communication is influenced by the perceived level of their credibility.

Political/Legal Dimension: Concern for formal rules which govern organizational, governmental, national conduct; methods of creating rules/laws/policy and methods for rule enforcement; electoral or position appointment practices, executive or administrative influence, and adjudication processes.

Outcomes Subsystem: Concern for interaction between people and consequent effects or outcomes; three categories of outcomes are considered tangible, symbolic, and relational results.

Communication Subsystem: The throughput dynamic of the negotiation process that contains the negotiators and messages.

Leadership: Interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals ( Tannenbaum, Weschler, & Massarik, 1961 ).

Economic/Competitive Dimension: Concern for acquisition and management of financial resources; competitive aspects of this dimension consist of individuals, groups, organizations, nations, or entities who possess goals that may stimulate competition for resources, markets or alliances.

International Negotiation: A communication function of international relations that is used for the purpose of mutual adaptation in order to' accomplish specific goals.

Cultural Dimension: Concern for the behaviors and underlying values, motives, beliefs, knowledge, meanings, ethics, patterns of interaction, etc., that identify a specific “cultural” group and also differentiates it from other cultures.

Intercultural Communication: Communication (creation and consumption of messages) among individuals from different cultures who often possess differing social norms and rules, as well as different languages, experiences, and world views.

Technological Dimension: Concern for methods and tools used to accomplish tasks; for purposes of this chapter, this dimension emphasizes transportation and communication/information technologies.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset