Language of Negotiations (BPSYV1035E) - Home assignment

Spencer Shaw

Name of student :
CBS Number: S148479
Date of Submission: 13/06/2022
Although persuasion is widely seen as a skill that is only reserved for selling products and

closing deals, one would be surprised as to how frequently persuasion techniques are used in

our language on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, as Conger states, “effective persuasion becomes a

negotiating and learning process through which a persuader leads colleagues to a problem’s

shared solution” (Conger, 1998) — affirming that persuasion is hence an essential part of all

negotiations, involving extensive discovery, preparation, dialogue, and ultimately leading to a

positive outcome for both parties. Persuasion is commonly known to have four vital steps,

that if used effectively, can engender a practical negotiation. The first step would be to

establish credibility. In the workplace for example, credibility tends to be a result of one’s

professional expertise and their relationship with other colleagues, which means that someone

would have a better chance at persuading a business plan to their peers if they prove to have

solid knowledge of what they are talking about, as well as being a trustworthy source that

works in the best interest of others. The second step of the persuasion journey is to find a

frame for common ground, as in identifying common benefits; a parent can do this for

example, by convincing their child to do their chores and reward them afterwards with some

candy. In a professional space, finding a frame for common ground can only be achieved if

one has a strong understanding of their audience and is aware of the issues that matter to

them. Using personal stories and vivid language are also relevant in this step. The third pillar

to effective persuasion is to provide evidence — supplementing numerical data with relevant

storylines, metaphors and analogies can make positions come alive — a marketing manager

looking for investors in a new product, for example, could reference similar investments that

provided a generous profit as a means of persuasion. The fourth and final step to persuasion,

being to provide an emotional connection, is also very crucial. One must demonstrate their

emotional attachment to the position they are trying to persuade as a means of appearing

believable, as well as acknowledge the emotional state of their audience; the latter which can
be achieved through strong, forceful points. All in all, persuasion can be a force of good in a

business environment, as it can bring people together, engender change, push new ideas

forward and eventually lead to a constructive solution. But for this to occur, one must

understand that persuasion requires research, practise, and commitment.

Bearing in mind that persuasion in the negotiation process does truly involve a lot of

convincing, it is necessary to consider just how ethical such negotiations can be. Although

Plato argues that persuasion can be unethical, in the sense that it will only add to the reserve

of misleading tactics of dishonourable individuals, Aristotle, his student, claims that more is

to be gained by teaching people persuasive techniques, since it can encourage individuals to

be aware of when others are attempting to coerce them and how to resist such malevolence

(Robinson, 1995). In other words, this means that we cannot stop instructing how to

persuasively negotiate because some people will use it in devious ways. As a result, when

does one draw the line at ethical negotiation? The answer could be a result of the context

(Friedman & Shapiro, 1995). Seemingly unethical methods of negotiation, such as

misrepresenting information or bluffing, are sometimes deemed acceptable when mutual gain

is not the goal and can be justified when there is an emergency and a power imbalance of

some sort. In the context of negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages for example,

terrorists are highly likely to engage in questionable behaviour because of the power and

opportunity they possess by holding said hostages against their will. Indeed, ethics

significantly impacts the negotiation process, merely because deception is very common —

many would argue that in order to release those hostages, deception is necessary when

serving the greater good as it could potentially save their lives. Professional labour

negotiators, for example, expect deception whilst negotiation, considering that opponents are

likely to withhold information and attempt to build up false perceptions surrounding their

limitations and consideration. A decent way to overcome this is to hold one-to-one

private setting rather than across a negotiating table. In the long run however, the use of

unethical tactics whilst negotiating, such as aggerating demands, pretending not to be in a

hurry, hiding one’s bottom line, although they may be deemed tolerable in such contexts,

undermines positive relationships with colleagues and can lead to resentment, simply because

a skilful negotiator will know that most people are intelligent enough to realize when they are

being manipulated. As Aristotle states, the most effective way to respond is to “take the next

best course” (Rapp, 2022), which would mean to be aware of the errors into which we are

liable whilst negotiating, and then to drag ourselves into the opposite direction. Indeed, when

negotiators have uncertainty and lack information, they are more likely to engage in

deceptive discussions — but this flaw lies hand in hand with the importance of persuasion

and can hence negatively impact negotiation — as people will refuse to trust, respect, and

acknowledge a peer that is clearly misleading them.

When speaking of ethics in negotiations, one must also consider how ethics may play a

totally different role when it comes to intercultural business relations, mainly because cultural

studies are frequently based on monocultural and monolinguistic methodologies, thereby

limiting the validity of the findings (Stewart & Bennett, 1991). As a matter of fact, cross-

cultural negotiations are very relevant in today’s world and heavily impact negotiation

exchanges —Japanese businesses for example, seek to know how Danish businesses operate

and how communication patterns differ from their own in order to understand what they need

to do to launch successfully in Denmark (Clausen, 2007). Cross-cultural negotiations are

important because all cultures look at themselves through their self-reference criteria: in the

United States for example, individualism, directness, and achievement orientation are seen as

positive values; but in Asian cultures however, there is heavy emphasis on the group,

indirectness and reciprocity when communicating, and thus negotiating (Lowe, 2001).
Indeed, effective intercultural negotiation requires active negotiation on both sides. Clausen

(2007) references a “negotiated culture”, an ideal negotiations outcome in which two cultures

come together, neither dominates, gradually leading to the emergence of a new culture as a

result of the negotiation. Bearing in mind that most cultures are different, it is helpful to

categorize them based on their ways of interacting. Degrees of affectivity in different regions

are opposite: in the United States for example, individuals exhibit emotion to newcomers,

whereas in Scandinavian countries, people tend to keep to themselves and find no need in

being effusive with relative strangers (Trompenaars, 2012). There is actually nothing “good”

or “bad” about these differences, nonetheless it is very important to acknowledge them whilst

negotiating. If an American marketing manager wished to look for Swedish investors for

example, they would need to understand that in such a neutrally cultural society, cool and

self-possessed conduct is admired, rather than being animated and overly enthusiastic, values

that are more appreciated in the United States. Undeniably, said Swedish investors would be

more focused on the object being negotiated by said American marketing manager, rather

than the person they are communicating with. It is therefore also needed to differentiate

cultures based on how the people view themselves and apply this to negotiation. Universalist

countries, such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, are

regions in which people regard themselves as individuals; opposed to particularist regions,

such as Indonesia, China, and South Korea, in which people regard themselves as part of a

group. Therefore, if a business from a particularist nation wished to launch in a universalist

society, they would need to withdraw their no-nonsense, “get down to business” rhetoric

whilst negotiating, instead opting for a more personal, emotional outlook on communication

that involves getting to know the person who which they would be negotiating with. It is also

important to remember the impact of non-verbal communication. Research indicates that 75%

of communication is made through body language, with elements such as eye contact, as well
as respecting boundaries and keeping space being essential whilst communicating. (Stouffer

& Toby, 1951). The importance of recognising difference also applies the other way round:

let’s assume a United Kingdom-based firm wished to appeal to an Asian market. Whilst

negotiating, this British organization would need to focus more on rules and regulations,

rather than seeking a relationship with its Asian counterparts, as in such regions, a deal is a

deal and nothing else really matters.

Although everyone simply wants to make the best deal possible, it is important to remember

that many will not hesitate to mislead the other party in order to obtain a better deal; this

tactic is often used when people know for certain that they will never see the party ever again.

In the long run however, when one wishes to build a long-term relationship with a business

partner for example, honesty and ethical behaviour is vital. An individual that marks their

words and builds a respectable reputation has a far better chance of maintaining beneficial

business relations with their opponents. With that in mind, it is safe to say that the more

trustworthy, truthful, and well-informed a person is, the higher are their chances at effectively

persuading another party to abide with their negotiation. Again, this rule also applies when

negotiating abroad, as cross-cultural communication differs according to each culture’s

respective ways of handling discussion, as well as how people in such societies perceive

themselves. All in all, the more respectable a person is of their other party’s best interest, the

more effective a negotiation may be — especially when a compromise is reached that is

beneficial to both.
References:

1. Conger, J. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review

2. Robinson, C. (1995). Effective Negotiating. Kogan Page Ltd. London.

3. Friedman, R., Shapiro, D. (1995). Deception and mutual gains bargaining: are they
mutually exclusive?. Negotiation Journal, Volume 11, pages 243–253

4. Rapp, C. (2022), "Aristotle’s Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

5. Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural

6. Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate communication challenges: A “negotiated” cul- ture

7. Lowe, S. (2001). In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. International
Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1, 313–332. doi:10.1177/147059580113004

8. Trompenaars, F (2012). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in

9. Stouffer, S., & Toby, J. (1951). Role Conflict and Personality. American Journal of
Sociology. LUI-5. Pages 395-406.