◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙

During Negotiations

A few years ago a model of persuasion was offered that was called the Elaboration Likelihood Model. This model suggests that there are two routes to persuasion:

There are several ways that people try to build arguments to persuade others of the correctness of their position.

Much of the research dealing with persuasion comes from looking at speechmaking studies in the fields of psychology, communication, political science, and law. Such research suggests the following:

The "Reformed Sinner" Approach

One approach is the "reformed sinner" approach. Here, you explain how you once thought differently, but then you "saw the light" and discovered that a different approach was best and you'd like to explain your preferred approach.

The "Problem-Solution" Approach

Another approach is to present a problem. This might be in the form of a rhetorical question, such as, "How can our firm remain competitive, given the growth of foreign competition?" Next, analyze various the advantages and disadvantages of various options, and then explain why your preferred approach is best.

A variation on this is the "Feel-Felt-Found" Tactic. Here, if the other side offers an unacceptable proposal, you are to say something like this, "I can see why you feel that way. Sometimes, I have felt that way myself. However, I have found that the approach you are describing will only solve part of the problem; I have found another approach to be better. May I explain?

Drawing Conclusions

Sometimes it is good to show people your logic as you analyze a problem, taking them step by step to your preferred proposal. Some people then advocate "drawing conclusions" for the listener(s) – offering a specific recommendation. Others say, "No, don't insult their intelligence -- let them draw their own conclusions." Which is better in bargaining situations?

Generally, it is better to draw conclusions for the audience -- negotiations suffer from enough ambiguity as it is. People tend to interpret ambiguous information in a way that favors their biases and preferences rather than accurately. Therefore, if you wish to communicate that you prefer, say, "option X on issue 1" then you should state that. Research in a variety of contexts supports the conclusion that it is better to draw conclusions for the audience (Hovland & Mandell, 1952 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; Lindner & Worchel, 1970, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) than to simply hope that they "get it."

Review Question:
	The union wanted overtime awarded strictly based on plant-wide seniority. The management negotiator responded that many years ago he had been in a labor union. He personally had once worked as a union steward for another company and had been on a bargaining committee that took that same approach to seniority. He said, "we got it in the contract and we all soon regretted it. Neither workers nor management were satisfied with it. So we reopened the contract and allowed the company to switch to departmental seniority and everyone was much happier." The management negotiator's approach BEST illustrates:
		not drawing conclusions
		the "reformed sinner" approach
		the "problem-solution" approach
		the "John Henry" effects

  ◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙