Page 282 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Notes As an Objective

Of course, trust-building per se can be an objective of negotiation. This may stem from the
intrinsic value of trust in human relationships. Thompson suggests that a “win-win” negotiated
outcome allows negotiators to maximize whatever utilities they care about, and trust can
legitimately be one of them. Trust also enables parties to develop and preserve their
relationship. For example, a primary goal of the 1985 Geneva summit between Reagan of US and
Gorbachev of the Soviet Union was to cultivate certain mutual trust amidst the Cold War climate
of suspicion and hostility.
As a Strategy

Trust can also serve as strategic means to ends other than relationship-building. Trust can offer
“integrative potential” and ”expand the pie” in negotiation, i.e. enable parties to work
collaboratively for joint benefits. In a commercial partnership founded upon trust, parties are
more likely to share information, abstain from taking competitive advantage, and engage in
longer-run exchange of favors. To take a counter example from the world stage, negotiation
between Israel and Hamas in Palestine suffers repeated setbacks partly because of
longstanding mutual distrust. The creation or rehabilitation of trust can be difficult,
especially against a history of deep-seated mistrust, and substantive conciliatory measures may
be required. For example, in 1963 US President Kennedy announced that he was stopping
atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons, and this turned out to be a step on the road to détente.
Just as the use of power tactics is not necessarily harmful, trust-based strategies are not universally
befitting. By committing to a trust-based relationship, the right to seek competitive
advantage may be lost even when the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, as one is likely to act in
favor of a trusted counterpart, one’s interests could be jeopardized if trust turns out to be misplaced.
Furthermore, “once we decide that someone is trustworthy, other qualities about that person
are conceived as consistent with this favourable impression.” This means humans are prone to
the so-called “halo effect,” which occurs when “one positive characteristic of a person dominates
the way that person is viewed by others.” The advantages and limitations of trust-based strategies
will be further illustrated in the examples below. They will show that the concept of trust
intertwines at some point with that of power: a person often holds power vis-à-vis those who
places trust in him/her.

Types of Trust: examples

Identification-based trust is grounded in empathy with another person’s desires and intentions
and leads one to “take on the other’s value because of the emotional connection between them.” It
often exists among friends. Fostering understanding and friendly ties may therefore be a step to
engender identification-based trust. For example, Reagan and Gorbachev developed a cooperative
relationship in the late 1980s partly because they had repeated face-to-face talks over the
years. Reagan also sought to cultivate a non-hostile atmosphere in these talks by appealing to
common interests, actively diffusing tensions and using his sense of humor. Because friendship
and liking tend to generate trust and assent – sometimes in a subconscious fashion – Cialdini
observes that salespersons often be friend their customers before promoting their products. Trusting
someone in certain situations may thus come with risks of manipulation or exploitation.

Deterrence-based trust, on the other hand, is “based on consistency of behavior, meaning that
people will follow through on what they promise they are going to do.” Such behavioral
consistency is “sustained by threats or promises of consequences that will result if consistency
and promises are not maintained.” Such a definition of “trust” sounds somewhat paradoxical;

276 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY