SECTION A
Answer to The Question a
Distributive Bargaining Strategies
Wise negotiators understand the importance of collaborating and competing at the negotiating
table. They explore for strategies to enhance the value pie for all parties, frequently by finding
and trading off discrepancies across concerns. They also use distributive bargaining methods
to try to get as much of the greater pie as possible.
What are the different types of distributive negotiating strategies? The process of dividing up
the resource or array of resources that the parties have identified is referred to as distributive
bargaining. In many cases, this entails arguing over concerns like pricing. Integrative
bargaining, on the other hand, entails collaboration or integration across different concerns in
order to generate new sources of value.
Many people believe that combative negotiation methods, such as making aggressive demands,
threats, or bluffs, are required for distributive bargaining. The most efficient distributive
bargaining methods, on the other hand, do not necessitate sacrificing your integrity or resorting
to dirty tricks. Rather, they demand you to set aside a significant amount of time prior to your
discussion to conduct thorough preparation.
Multiple issues are available for negotiation in integrative negotiation. Negotiators have the
ability to negotiate tradeoffs across issues and produce value whenever many concerns are
involved, such as salary, benefits, and start date in the case of a job negotiation. What appears
to be a distributive negotiation is frequently an integrative negotiation, as you may have
additional topics to discuss.
How to implement
1. Focus on the Other Party’s BATNA and Reservation Value. In addition to determining
your own BATNA and reservation value, it is also important to try to estimate the other
party’s BATNA and reservation point. When you do so, you can estimate the zone of
possible agreement, or ZOPA—the range of deals that both parties would accept. For
example, if you’re willing to spend up to $3,000 on the seller’s used car and believe the
seller might be willing to part with it for $2,500, the ZOPA ranges from $2,500 to $3,000.
Negotiators who focus on the other party’s BATNA tend to aim higher and capture more
value, according to Malhotra and Bazerman.
2. Avoid Making Unilateral Concessions. Once each party has made an initial offer, avoid
the trap of making another concession before your counterpart has reciprocated with one of
her own. If the other party won’t match your concession, it may be time for you to bow out
of the negotiation and exercise your BATNA.
3. Be Comfortable with Silence. Negotiators often are inclined to make undue concessions or
retract their offer when their counterpart seems to be taking too long to respond. But keep in
mind that your partner’s silence may be strategic, designed to make you uncomfortable and
cave in. When you speak when it’s their turn to do so, “you will be paying by the word,”
caution the authors of Negotiation Genius.
4. Label Your Concessions. As human beings, we have an innate tendency to reciprocate the
gifts and concessions we receive from others. Due to this powerful norm of reciprocity, we
tend to make a concession of our own when offered one by a counterpart in a distributive
negotiation. At the same time, to escape such feelings of obligation, negotiators can be
motivated to undervalue or overlook one another’s concessions, write Malhotra and
Bazerman. For this reason, it is important in distributive bargaining to draw attention to your
concessions by labeling them. That is, clarify how costly the concession will be to you and
make it clear that you’re reluctant to give this value away.
5. Make Contingent Concessions. To further reduce the ambiguity of your concessions, you
might explicitly tie your concessions to specific actions by the other party, suggest Malhotra
and Bazerman. Make it clear that you will only make your concession if the other party
meets your expectations. Here’s an example: “I’m willing to pay more if you can promise
me early delivery.” Contingent concessions can not only secure commitments from your
counterpart but also broaden the number of issues up for discussion, perhaps transforming
a distributive negotiation into an integrative one—creating value in the process.
Integrative Bargaining Strategies
With integrative negotiation, creativity can lead to value-creation for both parties. But coming
up with innovative ideas in the middle of the collaborative process can be difficult, so how
does the skillful negotiator change her mindset to become more creative? How can you uncover
additional value, make useful trades, and put together a package that exceeds your party’s
expectations?
To begin, contemplate the other side’s BATNA and interests as thoroughly as you do your
own. After all, you may not be able to propose a package that he’ll accept if you haven’t thought
about his outside options, needs, and wants.
By preparing to propose multiple packages at the same time, you can avoid having an early
feeler misconstrued as a final offer. All this preparation makes it more likely that the parties
will find items of differing value that can be traded to create value.
Integrative negotiation techniques
There are several integrative negotiation techniques used regularly. Here are a few examples:
Bridge solutions
Bridge solutions are where both parties create new ideas to agree on instead of the original ones
they presented. This process works by both sides listing their needs and wants and then
everyone thinking of different ideas that meet the requirements of each side, which can make
both parties feel like they’re working together to come up with a mutual solution.
Consider this example: The marketing department and the information technology department
are discussing what information they want to present about their company at a conference.
Marketing wants to talk about all the recent accomplishments they achieved, while information
technology wants to talk about their progress. However, there is limited time for their allocated
slot, so they can only discuss a few points.
They write all the talking points for each department and decide they will combine them. The
presentation will consist of a campaign the marketing department promoted that showed how
successful information technology was at fixing a few issues at the company.
Logrolling
Logrolling is an integrative negotiation tactic where parties alternate who gets the more
favorable result when there are multiple issues in a conflict. The group may decide that the first
party will get their preferred result for the first issue, the other party gets their preferred result
for the second issue and continue this way until all issues have a resolution.
For example, several employees are discussing their concerns with their employer about four
different issues including break policies, leaving to go to lunch, calling in sick and working
from home. They alternate who gets the preferred solution as a way of compromising. This
means the employer will stick to their policy of only allowing 15-minute breaks, but the
employees can leave work to go to lunch for up to 45 minutes. They continue to alternate
preferred resolutions until they discuss all issues.
Equal compromising
Equal compromising is where both parties give up the same amount and fairly compromise to
reach a solution. Each party’s needs are taken into consideration for the agreement.
In this example, a furniture vendor says the lowest price they will offer a company for five
chairs is $3,000, but the customer says the highest they will pay is $2,800. The client convinces
the vendor to lower the price to $2,900, and both parties compromise by giving up their original
price to make a deal.
Answer to The Question b
7 Key Factors in Achieving Successful Integrative Negotiation
1. Common Objective or Goal
It is important for individuals to focus on the commonalities within a group to achieve
successful integrative outcome. Parties have to believe that collaborative efforts will be
beneficial to all of them. Therefore, it is important for them to establish common, shared or
joint goals among them.

Common goal A goal that is being shared equally among one another. One that would
not be accomplished without each other’s collaboration.

Shared goal A goal that both parties hopes to achieve but are beneficial to each other
in a different way.

Joint goal A goal that comprises of a collective effort to combine differing individual
goals together.
2. Faith in One’s Problem-Solving Ability
Parties must have a collaborative attitude when working together. The absence of such
mentality will result in a lower devotion to collaborative relationship
3. A Belief in the Validity of One’s Own Position and the Other’s Perspectives
Parties should respect and accepts the view, interest and desires of other parties and incorporate
them into the negotiation problem instead of challenging their viewpoint. Hence, search for
mutually beneficial alternatives that lead to satisfying negotiation outcomes.
4 Motivation and Commitment to Work Together
Parties must be highly motivated to collaborate rather than to compete They should be
committed to achieve a mutually beneficial objective or goal One should present interpersonal
style that are more:

Friendly than Competitive

Flexible(but firm) than Obstinate (but yielding)

Accepting and Trusting than Defensive and Evasive
Parties should state their needs clearly, be willing to focus on the similarities and accepts
differences among each other Be comfortable with inconsistencies and uncertainties
5. Trust
Parties must be able to elicit a certain level of trust towards the other party, vice versa.
The eliciting of trust will facilitate the sharing of information and greater accuracy in
communicating individuals’ needs, wants, positions and desires in the given situation.
6. Clear and Accurate Communication
Parties must be willing to share relevant information and state what they want clearly to prevent
any misunderstanding as a result of generalities or vagueness Parties must be willing to speak
up and clarify any ambiguities Parties must make sure that the messages that were
communicated through numerous communication channels are consistent. Parties should
always give everyone a chance to speak, no one should dominate the negotiation process
7. An understanding of the Dynamics of Integrative Negotiation
To achieve a successful outcome in Integrative Negotiation, one should truly understand the
dynamics, key elements, structure and principles that make up integrative negotiation. It is only
through thorough understanding and training that one will be able to successfully pursue the
process.
Integrative Negotiating Techniques to Closing the Deal
When a delay exists between the contract signing and closing deals, consider integrative
negotiation techniques as another bargaining chip in your talks.
Conditions to closing such as financing and a suitable inspection are common in a residential
real estate sale. During a downturn in the housing market buyers should be more aggressive in
extracting favorable conditions to closing such as insisting on waiting for the successful sale
of one’s current house.
The seller in an unfavorable marketplace should be willing to absorb such risk, particularly if
the buyer’s current house is easier to sell than the seller’s.
In mergers and acquisitions, conditions to closing often reflect parties’ relative bargaining
power.
One ubiquitous condition that targets board spin mergers and acquisitions deals typically insist
upon to fulfill their fiduciary duties to shareholders is that the deal can be nullified if a higher
bidder for the target appears between the signing and the closing.
Buyers understand that this is one of the integrative negotiation techniques that is nonnegotiable, but they try to limit their risk by insisting on a “no shop” clause which prevents the
target board from actively soliciting higher value bidders.
However in today’s dealmaking environments where massive pools of private equity money
chase too few targets a new term has appeared: the “go shop” clause. Naturally, targets desire
such clauses which allow them to seek out higher bidders as they add flexibility and heighten
the odds of a better deal.
A high level of concern for both sides achieving their own objectives propels a collaborative,
problem-solving approach. Negotiators frequently fail at integrative negotiation because they
fail to perceive the integrative potential of the negotiation. Successful integrative negotiation
requires several processes. First, negotiators must create a free flow of information and an open
exchange of ideas. Second, the parties must understand each other's true needs and objectives.
Third, they must focus on their similarities, emphasizing the things they have in common rather
than their differences. Finally, they must engage in a search for solutions that meet the goals
of both sides. This is a very different set of processes from those in distributive bargaining. The
four key steps in the integrative negotiation process are identifying and defining the problem,
identifying interests and needs, generating alternative solutions, and evaluating and selecting
alternatives. For each step, techniques and tactics make the process successful. Various factors
facilitate successful integrative negotiation. First, the process will be greatly facilitated by some
form of common goal or objective. The goal may be one that the parties both want to achieve,
one they want to share, or one they could not possibly attain unless they worked together.
Second, they must have faith in their problem-solving ability. Third, the parties must be willing
to believe that the other’s needs are valid. Fourth, they must share a motivation and
commitment to work together to make their relationship a productive one. Fifth, they must also
be able to trust each other and to work hard to establish and maintain that trust. Sixth, there
must be clear and accurate communication about what each one wants and an effort to
understand the
Answer to The Question c
Many barriers can impede an adequate conversation. The negotiation includes at least two
participants. The sender is the person who shares the message with a receiver. Thus, there are
obstacles in communication concerning the sender. The sender formulates the statements taking into
account his or her knowledge, feelings, or experience. Nevertheless, the sender’s understanding of
the message may not coincide with receiver’s apprehension. Then, the negotiator chooses the
medium of communication. It can be a call, an electronic letter, or a face-to-face contact. The
selected method can hinder or improve the transmission of the information. For instance, shy people
feel at ease while communicating via the Internet as far as they have the opportunity to think over
all answers and react passably. Virtual methods of communication give them more chances to
express themselves and prove their rightness.
Some barriers pertain to the receiver. A successful negotiator knows that too much information
deters the comprehension. Thus, a sender should be able to choose and alter the particular message
for the receiver to acquire it with maximum efficiency. One more impediment concerns the
emotional and psychological stage of the decoder. The feeling of strong emotions may prevent an
effective obtaining. For example, a woman who has just quarreled with a husband may face
problems with an adequate obtaining and memorizing of the information. Environmental barriers
include noise and other factors. Bad Internet connection, poor acoustics, or even the usage of
specified vocabulary (as slang) belong to this group (Demarr & De Janasz, 2011).
Some researchers prefer other variants of the classification of barriers. For instance, Lunenburg
(2010) divides all barriers into four groups. The obstacles to communication include encoding and
decoding of the message, the selected method, and feedback. Physical barriers comprise the second
group, which stands for various problems with equipment and environmental noise. Semantic
barriers concern differences in words’ meaning and the usage of the specifically colored lexicon.
The last group contains psychological barriers such as emotional state, culture, traditions, sympathy,
or personal experience.
Inexperienced negotiators underestimate the role of listening in the communication process. A good
listener has an ability to sense (to hear the words and notice nonverbal signals), to process and
evaluate (to comprehend and memorize information), and to respond (to send signals showing the
attention). One should differentiate between hearing and listening. The first presupposes
unintentional perception of the information while the latter deals with deliberate and attentive
comprehension. According to Demarr and De Janasz (2011), there are three types of listening. The
passive type of listening occurs when the receiver just hears and does not think over the message.
When the listener wants to learn something new, the attentive listening will appear. Active listening
is the most demanding type. It contains the readiness to interpret, evaluate, and give feedback to the
message. Active listening is typical for negotiations where individuals try to prove the rightness of
their thoughts and achieve a mutual agreement.
One should have advanced listening skills to become a respectable negotiator. There are several
helpful hints that can assist. First, a good listener concentrates on the message and stop doing any
other things. Then, he or she will ask questions if a confusion occurs. A listener employs all senses
to evaluate the message and is aware of the nonverbal signs. One should not interrupt and draw a
hasty conclusion. A significant point concerns the ability to recognize the speaker’s emotions and
be sympathetic. Butterfield (2012) introduces the idea that a listener should be an unbiased and
broad-minded person who respects the opinions of others.
The nonverbal communication is an essential part of the excellent negotiations. Scientists have
proved the fact that people receive less than 10% of information by listening only to the words.
Speakers and listeners subconsciously analyze the body language and pitch of the voice to create a
full picture of the message. An intentional paying attention to these details gives one a substantial
preference in negotiations. Demarr and De Janasz (2011) provide various examples of nonverbal
messages and their interpretations. For example, an eye rolling is a typical signal for the
disagreement. One should not employ it in negotiations as far as it symbolizes the lack of respect
and professionalism.
The posture is one more nonverbal sign. Crossing of the arms over the chest usually means
disapproval. However, there are signs with controversial meanings. For instance, the gesture for OK
has not only the meaning of support or that everything is alright. In France, people use the OK
gesture to decline a proposal. A negotiator should always remember that nonverbal signals might
have many meanings. If one notices a contradiction between words and behavior and is not sure
about it, it is better to clarify everything rather than make a wrong judgment.
Gamble and Gamble (2014) define particular groups of nonverbal communication and describe their
functions. The first type is paralinguistics. It studies the patterns of the intonation. Kinesics deals
with body language (postures, expressions of the face, and gestures). Haptics investigate the role of
touching. Proxemics examines the way distance influence the communication process. Chronemics
analyzes the timing one uses while making a speech or during the negotiations. It is also important
to know the functions of nonverbal cues. The first one is contradicting or a double message.
It concerns the situation when the words of the speaker do not refer to his or her nonverbal
expressions. Imagine a man with a red face with anger, but who screams that he is fine. The next
function deals with the magnifying of the message. For example, the intentional change of the tone
of the voice can emphasize the most important parts of the information. The same is when one says
menace and simultaneously makes threats with a fist. The nonverbal cues can control the
conversation. Thus, the employment of nods, smiles, and other signs of approval shows the speaker
that he or she should proceed in the same manner. The next function is reinforcement. Imagine a
woman who is looking for a number in a mobile phone and is saying, “I am going to tell him all the
truth right now”. Thus, the holding of the phone strengthens her intention to call.
The last function refers to the replacement of words. Though it is not advisable to conduct it in
negotiations, one should know it. Sometimes people use gestures instead of words. The rolling of
eyes without saying a word often means disagreement or disapproval and the shrug of shoulders has
the meaning of uncertainty. Studying the body language can be a time-consuming task, but it is
worth the time spent.
Virtual negotiations are becoming more and more popular in modern society. Most people have
access to the Internet that is a great privilege. Virtual negotiations have both advantages and
disadvantages. The communication via virtual channels is not expensive, and that is the primary
benefit. It is especially useful for companies who have employees throughout the world. The virtual
communication can provoke a hostile performance among participants due to the possible
anonymity. However, it is not typical for virtual teams. It is of great significance to establish trustful
relations between negotiators, but it is not always possible to achieve because of the Internetmediated communication.
Even more, it is easier to hide a particular information via Internet. According Demarr and De Janasz
(2011), negotiators should conducts at least one meeting via video conference to accomplish a
collaboration and confidence. One more advantage of virtual negotiation is the ability to search for
necessary information and avoid uncomfortable silence. Nonverbal signs become impossible to
recognize as well. It is important to remember that a receiver of the message is a human. One should
behave and write accordingly. There are several rules that assist in managing of successful virtual
negotiations. It is advisable to have at least one real life contact to establish a feeling of trust.
Negotiators should choose the medium for communication depending on their goals. One should
express thoughts and ideas without leaving some information unclear. It is important to control one’s
behavior and do not let impolite treatment happen. Communication is an essential part of all human
activities. Communication in negotiation requires understanding the way information transmits. A
successful negotiator knows the nature of the communication process, all possible barriers as well
as the importance of active listening, nonverbal cues, and the observance of ethical rules in virtual
negotiations.
SECTION B
Answer to The Question Q1 a
There are five steps a leader should take to repair the relationship:
Acknowledge that trust has been broken. As we’ve learned from the success of the twelve-step
recovery process, acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step to healing. Don’t use
the “ostrich” technique of burying your head in the sand and hoping the situation will resolve
itself because it won’t. The longer you wait to address the situation, the more people will
perceive your weakness as wickedness.
Admit your role in causing the breach of trust. For some leaders this may be a challenging
step. It’s one thing to acknowledge that there is a problem, it’s a whole other thing to admit
you caused it. Our ego and false pride are usually what prevent us from admitting our mistakes.
Muster up the courage, humble yourself, and own up to your actions. This will pay huge
dividends down the road as you work to rebuild trust.
Apologize for what happened. A sincere apology involves admitting your mistake, accepting
responsibility, asking for forgiveness, and taking steps to make amends to the offended party.
Explaining the reasons why something happened is fine, but don’t make excuses by trying to
shift the blame to something or someone other than yourself.
Assess where the breakdown in trust happened using the TrustWorks! ABCD Trust Model. Did
you erode trust by not being Able, Believable, Connected, or Dependable? People form
perceptions of our trustworthiness when we use, or don’t use, behaviors that align with these
four elements of trust. Knowing the specific element of trust you violated will help you take
specific actions to fix the problem.
Amend the situation by taking corrective action to repair any damage that has been done, and
create an action plan for how you’ll improve in the future. Your attempts at rebuilding trust
will be stalled unless you take this critical step to demonstrate noticeable changes in behavior.
You can’t control the outcome of this process and there is no guarantee that following these
steps will restore trust in the relationship. However, the important thing is that you have made
the effort to improve yourself as a leader. You’ll be able to lay your head on the pillow at night
with a clear conscience that you’ve done everything under your power to cultivate the soil for
trust to once again grow and flourish.
Within the context of a negotiation, there are multiple ways in which trust can be repaired
Verbal Accounts and Apologies (Words) Lewicki and Brinsfield (2017) note that a variety of
verbal statements, or accounts, have been examined to determine their relative effectiveness in
trust repair following a trust breach (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper & Dirks, 2007; Brinsfield, 2013).
Verbal accounts can take various forms, such as an excuse, explanation, apology or even a
denial: all are variations of a verbal statement designed to acknowledge that the violation
occurred and explain how it occurred. In an apology – one subset form of an account - the
apologizer may add information to the verbal account by taking some responsibility for the
violation, and also include ‘emotional content’ to the message in the form of explaining the
intent behind the violation, offering an expression of regret and sometimes making a promise
of change in the future (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017). In general, an apology is a more complete
form of an account, and apologies have been examined in a number of studies across several
scientific domains. Over the past two decades, multiple studies have shown that in repairing
broken trust, apologies were more effective a) compared to no apology after a violation, b)
when the apologizer was sincere and took personal responsibility for the violation, c) when the
apology was delivered soon after the violation, and d) when the parties already had a strong,
established relationship with each other (Tomlinson, Dineen & Lewicki, 2004). Moreover, the
effectiveness of apologies is also tied to the linguisticstructure of the apology (e.g. Lewicki,
Polin, & Lount, 2016) and to the perceived intent of the violator committing the offense (Weber
& Carter, 1997). 9 Thus, verbal statements providing accounts, explanations and apologies can
be effective in repairing broken trust. Accordingly, in general silence or reticence is argued to
be suboptimal, risky in practice, and should be avoided whenever possible (Ferrin, Kim,
Cooper & Dirks, 2007). However, Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks (2004) documented an
instance where denial may actually be more effective than an apology: when responding to an
integrity-based violation.
Compensation and Reparations (Deeds) In contrast to the above, others have argued that
apologies are merely ‘cheap talk”, and that the only way trust can effectively be repaired is
through some form of compensation or reparations to restore the tangible damage created by
the violation (Farrell & Rabin, 1996). There are several ways that this compensation may be
effective. First, it could be specifically directed at repaying the ‘costs’ incurred by the victim.
Alternatively, the compensation might be more symbolic. For example, the violator could bring
the victim a gift whose economic value does not match the loss but does signal that the violator
is willing to commit to something more meaningful than words. Given this, some research has
examined the intent of the compensation, and the role that it plays in trust repair. For example,
Dirks et al., (2011) demonstrated that penance can repair trust, but only to the extent the
receiver perceives repentance in the violator. Another line of research has been provided by
Desmet and his colleagues. In one study, these authors showed that larger amounts of reparative
compensation were more effective, but only to an extent; slight overcompensation of the
inflicted harm was more effective than exact or partial compensation for the harm, but not if
the violator was perceived to be purposeful and intentional in committing the violation
(Desmet, De Cremer & van Dijk, 2011). In a separate study, when reparations were provided
voluntarily by the transgressor, victims perceived more repentance than when they 10 were
‘mandated’ (Desmet, De Cremer & van Dijk 2010).
Answer to The Question Q1 b
There has been somewhat more research on negotiation in communal-sharing relationships
and compared to those in other kinds of negotiations researchers have found that parties who
are in a communal-sharing relationship:

Are more cooperative and empathetic.

Perform better on both decision-making and performance-coordination tasks.

Focus their attention on the other party’s outcomes as well as their own.

Are more likely to share information with the other and less likely to use coercive
tactics.

May be more likely to use compromise or problem solving as strategies for resolving
conflicts.
The nature of the negotiators' interaction and the relationship that ensues has a major impact
on the negotiation process. For example, Research indicates that communal-sharing
relationships lead to greater empathy and cooperation in negotiations; better performance in
decision-making and performance-coordination tasks; increased attention to the other party's
outcomes; reluctance to use coercive tactics; likelihood to share information; and greater
likelihood of compromise and problem-solving approaches to negotiations.
Negotiation is often not a way to discuss an issue but a way to learn more about the other party
and increase interdependence.
In some negotiations, relationship preservation is the negotiation goal, and the parties may
make concessions on substantive issues to preserve or enhance the relationship.
Negotiating within relationships may never end. Parties may defer negotiations over tough
issues in order to start on the right foot. Issues on which parties truly disagree may never go
away. Attempting to anticipate the future and negotiate everything up front is often impossible.
Answer to The Question Q2 a
It establishes the issues to be discussed
ii. Depending on how the issues are worded, it can also define how each issue is positioned and
framed
iii. It can define the order in which issues are discussed
iv. It can be used to introduce process issues, as well as substantive issues, simply by including
them
v. It can assign time limits to various items, thereby indicating the importance of the different
issues
our questions turned towards finding explanations and a deeper understanding: “Why didn’t
the ‘uncertainty’ decision aid yield more benefits than the other?” “Why didn’t either decision
aid yield a clearer balance of benefits?” “How well does the framework imposed by most
mathematical decision approaches fit with product designers’ actual approaches to decision
making in the workplace?” and “How can we make tools that better support product designers’
actual needs in the workplace?” These questions form a future research agenda for development
of human-centered decision aids to meet the workplace needs of designers working in any
complex and uncertain domain. We feel that the results of such a research agenda will apply to
electro-mechanical product design and, more generally, to any type of complex design task.
Agenda is a negotiations process can be a helpful aid in decision making. This is because it
creastes the issues required that require dessioon from parties involved. Father, it may also
define how each isuues is structured and addressed by the individual. the order of discussion is
also defined.lastly an agenda can be used to introduced not only substantive issues but also
process issue. Moreover, agendas help to keep discussion time specific hence it can help In
prioritizing different issues
Decision aids are evidenced-based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical
options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and
improve patient engagement.3 Decision aids have been used for SDM outside of the ED setting
for more than a decade.3 The first randomized clinical trial conducted in the ED, however, was
conducted relatively recently.4 In a study comparing use of a decision aid to usual care
demonstrated that SDM for patients with low-risk chest pain led to greater patient knowledge
and satisfaction, fewer admissions for cardiac stress testing, and no difference in the rate of
adverse cardiac events.4,5 Further studies investigating the development and testing of decision
aids to facilitate SDM in the ED for the management of pediatric and adult blunt head trauma
as well as low-risk chest pain are ongoing.4,6–8 Further research is needed to identify which
clinical situations are best suited for SDM and what methods are best regarding the SDM
process, as well as to develop and test SDM interventions in the ED.
The objective of our task force was to develop a prioritized research agenda outlining important
study questions to guide future investigations pertaining to the development and testing of
SDM interventions in the ED.
Answer to The Question Q2 b
Challenges Encountered during Multi-Party Negotiations.
Differences in Objectives, Goals and Interests
Every party has its unique objectives and goals, that it wishes to accomplish through the
negotiation. It’s quite obvious that every party will try to guide the negotiation using various
approaches towards fulfilling its individual interests. As a result the negotiation gets stretched
and it fails to reach an acceptable resolution. Each party tries to maneuver the negotiation into
a different direction so as to satiate its individual objectives and goals.
Different Schedules and Timelines
It’s very unlikely that all the parties in a multiparty negotiation will have the same schedule
and timeline. Accordingly, those with longer timelines may show reluctance in expediting the
negotiation process while those with shorter timelines will be eager to get over with the
negotiation at the earliest possible opportunity.
Off-track and Chaotic Discussions
With too many parties participating in the negotiations it’s quite likely that the discussion
meetings may go off-track and chaotic, unless regulated properly.
A No-Agreement Situation
With too many stakeholders, it’s common to reach a no agreement scenario during the
negotiation.
Answer to The Question Q2 c
During Multi-Party Negotiations, There Are Several Obstacles
Even when only two parties are participating in a negotiation, there are a plethora of issues to
consider. As and when a new party enters the negotiation, these dimensions exponentially
increase. Negotiations involving multiple parties are more difficult to handle than those
involving two parties.
Here's a rundown of some of the issues that arise when more than two parties are involved in a
negotiation.
Differences in Objectives, Goals and Interests
Every party has its unique objectives and goals, that it wishes to accomplish through the
negotiation. It’s quite obvious that every party will try to guide the negotiation using various
approaches towards fulfilling its individual interests. As a result the negotiation gets stretched
and it fails to reach an acceptable resolution. Each party tries to maneuver the negotiation into
a different direction so as to satiate its individual objectives and goals. To sort this out, all
participating teams must analyze the goals and objectives of each party and should try to find
common grounds on which they can be clubbed together. This will make the list of goals
considerable shorter, while still ensuring that every party’s goals gets a fair amount of
importance during the negotiation.
Different Schedules and Timelines
It’s very unlikely that all the parties in a multiparty negotiation will have the same schedule
and timeline. Accordingly, those with longer timelines may show reluctance in expediting the
negotiation process while those with shorter timelines will be eager to get
over with the negotiation at the earliest possible opportunity. To avoid this, a proper negotiation
schedule should be set up with a clearly established final due date, during the very first meeting
itself. Further, every party must be sent reminders before each successive negotiation meeting.
Off-track and Chaotic Discussions
With too many parties participating in the negotiations it’s quite likely that the discussion
meetings may go off-track and chaotic, unless regulated properly. For this, a facilitator should
be appointed beforehand, who will guide and mediate the entire negotiation process. It’s best
to go in for a third party negotiator, who has no vested interest in any of the parties or in the
resource being negotiated.
A No-Agreement Situation
With too many stakeholders, it’s common to reach a no agreement scenario during the
negotiation. The negotiating parties must lay down how this type of a no-agreement situation
will be handled. One way to handle this situation is to have the facilitator act as the ultimate
decision maker in case of non-agreement, or alternatively elaborate decision making techniques
like Delphi method or multi-party voting may be used to arrive at a final decision.
These are some of the major hurdles encountered during multiparty negotiations, but with the
remedial measures that we’ve mentioned here it shouldn’t be a problem to manage these
challenges.