Editing Negotiation (section)

== Strategies ==
There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation.

One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: ''process'', ''behavior,'' and ''substance''. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them, and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and – more helpfully – interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last1=Duening |first1=Thomas N. |title=Technology Entrepreneurship |last2=Hisrich |first2=Robert D. |last3=Lechter |first3=Michael A. |publisher=Academic Press |year=2010 |isbn=9780123745026 |edition=1st |chapter=Negotiating Fundamentals}}</ref>

Another view of negotiation comprises four elements: ''strategy'', ''process'', ''tools'', and ''tactics''. The Strategy comprises top-level goals. Which typically include the relationship and the outcome. Processes and tools include the steps to follow and roles to take in preparing for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this ''persuasion and influence'', asserting that these have become integral to modern-day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.<ref name=":3" />

Strategic approaches to concession-making include consideration of the optimum time to make a concession, making concessions in installments, not all at once, and ensuring that the opponent is aware that a concession has been made, rather than a re-expression of a position already outlined, and aware of the cost incurred in making the concession, especially where the other party is generally less aware of the nature of the business or the product being negotiated.<ref>Malhotra, D., [https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5235.html Four Strategies for Making Concessions], Harvard Business School, ''Working Knowledge'', published 6 March 2006, accesses 2 June 2021</ref>

=== Stages in the negotiation process ===
Negotiators do not need to sacrifice effective negotiation in favor of a positive relationship between parties. Rather than conceding, each side can appreciate that the other has emotions and motivations of their own and use this to their advantage in discussing the issue. Understanding perspectives can help move parties toward a more integrative solution. Fisher ''et al.'' illustrate a few techniques that effectively improve perspective-taking in the book ''[[Getting to Yes]]'', and through the following, negotiators can separate people from the problem itself:

* '''Put yourself in their shoes''' – People tend to search for information that confirms their own beliefs and often ignore information that contradicts prior beliefs. To negotiate effectively, it is important to empathize with the other party's point of view. One should be open to other views and attempt to approach an issue from the perspective of the other.
* '''Discuss each other's perceptions''' – A more direct approach to understanding the other party is to explicitly discuss each other's perceptions. Each individual should openly and honestly share their perceptions without assigning blame or judgment to the other.
* '''Find opportunities to act inconsistently with their views''' – The other party may have prior perceptions and expectations about the other side. The other side can act in a way that directly contradicts those preconceptions, effectively conveying that the party is interested in an integrative negotiation.
* '''Face-saving''' – This approach justifies a stance based on one's previously expressed principles and values in a negotiation. This approach to an issue is less arbitrary, and thus, it is more understandable from the opposing party's perspective.<ref name=":1">Fisher, Roger, Ury, William, & Patton, Bruce (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin: New York. Chapter 2</ref>

Additionally, negotiators can use specific communication techniques to build stronger relationships and develop more meaningful negotiation solutions.

* '''Active listening''' – Listening is more than just hearing what the other side says. [[Active listening]] involves paying close attention to what is being said verbally and nonverbally. It involves periodically seeking further clarification from the person. By asking the person exactly what they mean, they may realize the negotiator takes them seriously and is not simply walking through a routine. The Australian Mosaic Project Services business commends "proactive" rather than just "active" listening, in which more emphasis is placed on the asking of questions as well as listening actively to the answers given.<ref>Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd., [https://web.archive.org/web/20120318101334/http://mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1032_Win-Win_Negotiating.pdf Win-Win Negotiations], archived 18 March 2012, accessed 12 January 2024</ref>
* '''Speak for a purpose''' – Too much information can be as harmful as too little. Before discussing an important point, determine exactly what to communicate to the other party. Determine the exact purpose that this shared information will serve.<ref name=":1" />

=== Employing an advocate ===
A skilled negotiator may serve as an advocate for one party to the negotiation. The advocate attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process, the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator can obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations.

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis to a straightforward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions, to more deceptive approaches such as [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry picking]]. Intimidation and [[salami tactics]] may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Negotiation |url=https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BUS209-5.2-Negotiation.pdf |access-date=10 April 2022 |website=Saylor Academy}}</ref>

Another negotiation tactic is the bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy is when one negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while soliciting concessions and agreement from the opponent.<ref name="Churchman 1993">Churchman, David. 1993. ''Negotiation Tactics''. Maryland: University Press of America. p. 13.</ref>

=== BATNA ===
The best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or [[BATNA]], is the most advantageous alternative course of action a negotiator can take should the current negotiation end without reaching an agreement. The quality of a BATNA has the potential to improve a party's negotiation outcome. Understanding one's BATNA can empower an individual and allow him or her to set higher goals when moving forward.<ref>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5) (2002), pp. 1131–1140</ref> Alternatives need to be actual and actionable to be of value.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-13 |title=best alternative to a negotiated agreement |url=https://www.pon.harvard.edu/tag/best-alternative-to-a-negotiated-agreement/ |access-date=2024-08-16 |website=PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School |language=en-US}}</ref> Negotiators may also consider the other party's BATNA and how it compares to what they are offering during the negotiation.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lewicki |first1=Roy J. |title=Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases |last2=Barry |first2=Bruce |last3=Saunders |first3=David M. |publisher=[[McGraw Hill Education]] |year=2014 |isbn=9780077862428 |edition=7th |pages=467}}</ref>

=== Conflict styles ===
Kenneth W. Thomas identified five styles or responses to negotiation.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update  |date=2006-11-21 |doi=10.1002/job.4030130307 |volume=13 |issue=3  |journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior |pages=265–274|last1=Thomas  |first1=Kenneth W  |hdl = 10945/40295|s2cid=145635552 |url=https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/10945/40295/6/thomas_conflict_1992.pdf}}</ref><ref>Shell, R. G. (2006). ''Bargaining for advantage''. New York: Penguin Books.</ref> These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Marks | first1=M | last2=Harold | first2=C | date=2011 | title= Who Asks and Who Receives in Salary Negotiation |journal= Journal of Organizational Behavior| volume=32 | issue=3 |pages = 371–394 | doi=10.1002/job.671}}</ref> The dual-concern model of [[conflict resolution]] is a perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two themes or dimensions:<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Sorenson | first1=R | last2=Morse | first2=E | last3=Savage | first3=G | date=1999 |  title=The Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model | journal=The International Journal of Conflict Management| volume=10 | pages=25–44 | doi=10.1108/eb022817 }}</ref>

# A concern for self (i.e., [[assertiveness]]), and
# A concern for others (i.e., [[empathy]]).

Based on this model, individuals balance their concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others. The following five styles can be used based on individuals' preferences, depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals. These styles can change over time, and individuals can have strong dispositions toward numerous styles.

{{glossary}}
{{term|1=Accommodating}}
{{defn|1=Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal relationships.
         Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties.
         They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship. Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict. People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others. Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others. In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time—they withdraw all complaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance.}}
{{term|1=Avoiding}}
{{defn|1=Individuals who do not like to negotiate and do not do it unless warranted.
         When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic. Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to simmer without doing anything to minimize them. Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Sometimes they simply agree to disagree (a modus vivendi).}}
{{term|1=[[Collaboration|Collaborating]]}}
{{defn|1=Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways.
         Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties.
         Collaborating is an active, pro-social, and pro-self approach to conflict resolution.It is a cooperative approach. Collaborating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides.Here,goals are important, but so is maintaining positive relationships.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/strategies-for-conflict-resolution-in-the-workplace | title=5 Strategies for Conflict Resolution in the Workplace | date=7 September 2023 }}</ref> This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem solving, or a win-win orientation entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent's outcomes as well as their own<ref>{{Cite book|title=Group dynamics|last=Forsyth|first=David|publisher=Wadsworth Pub Co.|year=2009|pages=379–409}}</ref>}}
{{term|1=[[Competition|Competing]]}}
{{defn|1=Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something.
         Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic.
         Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships. Competing is an active, pro-self means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one's view. Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win-lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, or contending) can take many forms, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one's solution on the other party.}}
{{term|1=Compromising}}
{{defn|1=Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation.
         Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.}}
{{glossary end}}

=== Types of negotiators ===
Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project. These types of negotiators are soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers.

; Soft: These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining. The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement. They do not separate the people from the problem but are soft on both. They avoid contests of wills and insist on the agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions.
; Hard: These people use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it". They make threats, are distrustful of others, insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they search for one single answer and insist you agree with it. They do not separate the people from the problem (as with soft bargainers), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.
; Principled: Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions and do so by sidestepping commitment to specific positions. They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards independent of personal will. They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure. These criteria may be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, and tradition.

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore several tactics to reach the best solution for their problems, but this is often not the case (as when you may be dealing with an individual using soft or hard-bargaining tactics) (Forsyth, 2010).

=== {{vanchor|Tactics|Negotiation tactics}} ===
Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process. More often than not they are subtle, difficult to identify, and used for multiple purposes. Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus is on taking as much value off the table as possible.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley and Sons, LTD., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=232}}</ref> Many negotiation tactics exist. Below are a few commonly used tactics.
* '''[[Auction]]:''' The bidding process is designed to create competition.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=240}}</ref> When multiple parties want the same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out on something, they want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, but they also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up the price.
*'''[[Brinksmanship|Brinkmanship]]:''' One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point where the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. Successful brinkmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goldman|first=Alvin|title=Settling For More: Mastering Negotiating Strategies and Techniques|year=1991|publisher=The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.|location=Washington, D.C.|isbn=978-0-87179-651-6|page=[https://archive.org/details/settlingformorem0000gold/page/83 83]|url=https://archive.org/details/settlingformorem0000gold/page/83}}</ref>
*'''Bogey:''' Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance is very important.<ref name="Essentials82">{{cite book|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|title=Essentials of Negotiation|year=2001|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|location=New York|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|page=82 |author2=D. M. Saunders |author3=J. W. Minton}}</ref> Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance.
*'''Calling a higher authority:''' To mitigate too far-reaching concessions, deescalate, or overcome [[negotiation deadlock|a deadlock situation]], one party makes the further negotiation process dependent on the decision of a decision maker, not present at the negotiation table.<ref>''Jung/Krebs'', p. 73.</ref>
*'''[[Chicken game|Chicken]]:''' Negotiators propose extreme measures often in the form of bluffs to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
*'''Concession:''' One party offers up something with hope reaching or coming closer to an agreement.<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_13 | doi=10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_13 | chapter=Towards a Quantitative Concession-Based Classification Method of Negotiation Strategies | title=Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice | series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science | date=2011 | last1=Baarslag | first1=Tim | last2=Hindriks | first2=Koen | last3=Jonker | first3=Catholijn | volume=7047 | pages=143–158 | isbn=978-3-642-25043-9 }}</ref> 
*'''Defense in Depth:''' Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=246}}</ref> In other words, each time the offer goes to a decision-maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to close the deal.
*'''[[Time limit|Deadlines]]:''' Give the other party a deadline, forcing them to make a decision. This method uses time to apply pressure on the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial.
*'''Flinch:''' Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common examples of flinching are gasping for air or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously.<ref>{{cite web|last=Coburn|first=Calum|title=Neutralising Manipulative Negotiation Tactics|url=http://www.calumcoburn.co.uk/articles/negotiation-tactics/|publisher=Negotiation Training Solutions|access-date=1 October 2012}}</ref> The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=245}}</ref> Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked".
*'''Good Guy/Bad Guy:''' Within the tactic of good guy/bad guy (synonyms are good cop/bad cop or black hat/white hat) oftentimes positive and unpleasant tasks are divided between two negotiators on the same negotiation side or unpleasant tasks or decisions are allocated to a (real or fictitious) outsider. The good guy supports the conclusion of the contract and emphasizes positive aspects of the negotiation (mutual interests). The bad guy criticizes negative aspects (opposing interests). The division of the two roles allows for more consistent behavior and credibility of the individual negotiators. As the good guy promotes the contract, he/she can build trust with the other side.<ref>''Jung/Krebs'', p. 102.</ref>
*'''Holding out for concession:''' Negotiators can choose avoiding giving concessions and hold out in the hope that the other side will concede before they do. This tough bargaining position can maximize the negotiators [[ex-post]] (actual) outcome.<ref name="Langlois">{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620600837866 | doi=10.1080/03050620600837866 | title=Holding Out for Concession: The Quest for Gain in the Negotiation of International Agreements | date=2006 | last1=Langlois | first1=Jean-Pierre P. | last2=Langlois | first2=Catherine C. | journal=International Interactions | volume=32 | issue=3 | pages=261–293 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>
*'''[[Low-ball|Highball/Low-ball]]''' or '''Ambit claim:''' Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that is not achievable. The theory is that the extreme offer makes the other party reevaluate their opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement).<ref name="Essentials81">{{cite book|title=Essentials of Negotiation|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|author2=D.M. Saunders|author3=J.W. Minton|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|year=2001|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|location=New York|page=81}}</ref> Another advantage is that the party giving the extreme demand appears more flexible when they make concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.
*'''The Nibble:''' Also known under the salami tactic or quivering quill, nibbling is the demand for proportionally small concessions that have not been discussed previously just before closing the deal.<ref name="Essentials82" /> This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing".
*'''Snow Job:''' Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that they have difficulty determining what information is important, and what is a diversion.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|title=Essentials of Negotiation|year=2001|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|location=New York|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|page=86 |author2=D. M. Saunders |author3=J. W. Minton}}</ref> Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert.
*'''Mirroring:''' When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more positive. To create trust and rapport, a negotiator may mimic or mirror the opponent's behavior and repeat what they say. Mirroring refers to a person repeating the core content of what another person just said, or repeating a certain expression. It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation and acknowledges the other party's point or statement.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Vecchi | first1 = G. M. | last2 = Van Hasselt | first2 = V. B. | last3 = Romano | first3 = S. J. | year = 2005 | title = Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution | journal = Aggression and Violent Behavior | volume = 10 | issue = 5| pages = 533–551 | doi=10.1016/j.avb.2004.10.001}}</ref> Mirroring can help create trust and establish a relationship.
*'''Anchoring:''' Anchoring is the process of establishing a reference point first to guide the other person closer to your suggested price. It is often presented at the beginning of a negotiation to influence the rest of the negotiation. As an example, say you want to sell a car for 50,000 dollars. Now a customer walks in saying they want to buy a car. You say that you can sell the car for 65,000 dollars. Their counteroffer would probably be 50,000–55,000 dollars. This also works and vice versa for buying something. The idea here is that we are narrowing the other parties' expectations down or up.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-12-20|title=What is Anchoring in Negotiation?|url=https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what-is-anchoring-in-negotiation/|access-date=2022-01-24|website=PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School|language=en-US}}</ref> To counter-anchoring, you should point out the fact that they are anchoring and say that they need to drive it down to an acceptable price.

=== Nonverbal communication ===
{{Main|Nonverbal communication}}

Communication is a key element of negotiation. Effective negotiation requires that participants effectively convey and interpret information. Participants in a negotiation communicate information not only verbally but non-verbally through body language and gestures. By understanding how nonverbal communication works, a negotiator is better equipped to interpret the information other participants are leaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hui|first=Zhou|author2=Tingqin Zhang|title=Body Language in Business Negotiation|journal=International Journal of Business and Management|volume=3|issue=2}}</ref>

==== Examples ====
=====Non-verbal "anchoring"=====

In a negotiation, a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing a position first. By [[anchoring]] one's position, one establishes the position from which the negotiation proceeds. Similarly, one can "anchor" and gain an advantage with nonverbal (body language) cues.

* [[Personal space]]: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power. Negotiators can negate this strategic advantage by positioning allies in the room to surround that individual.
* [[First impression (psychology)|First impression]]: Begin the negotiation with positive gestures and enthusiasm. Look the person in the eye with sincerity. If you cannot maintain eye contact, the other person might think you are hiding something or that you are insincere. Give a solid handshake.<ref>{{cite book |last=Human |first=Hanz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zEIqDwAAQBAJ |title=Body Language Magic |publisher=[[Lulu.com]] |year=2017 |isbn=9781387060191}}</ref>{{page needed|date=November 2016}}

=====Reading non-verbal communication=====

Being able to read the non-verbal communication of another person can significantly aid in the communication process. By being aware of inconsistencies between a person's verbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them, negotiators can come to better resolutions. Examples of incongruity in body language include:
* [[Nervous Laugh]]: A laugh not matching the situation. This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort. When this happens, it may be good to probe with questions to discover the person's true feelings.
* Positive words but negative [[body language]]: If someone asks their negotiation partner if they are annoyed and the person pounds their fist and responds sharply, "what makes you think anything is bothering me?"<ref>{{cite book |last=Donaldson |first=Michael C. |title=Negotiating For Dummies |date=2011-04-18 |publisher=Wiley Publishing, Inc. |isbn=978-1-118-06808-3 |location=Indianapolis, Indiana |pages=125}}</ref>
* Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/her hands in this position reveals frustration even when he/she is smiling. This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negative attitude.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pease |first=Barbara and Alan |url=https://archive.org/details/definitivebookof00barb |title=The Definitive Book of Body Language |publisher=Bantam Dell |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-553-80472-0 |location=New York |pages=131}}</ref>
* If possible, it may be helpful for negotiation partners to spend time together in a comfortable setting outside of the negotiation room. Knowing how each partner non-verbally communicates outside of the negotiation setting helps negotiation partners sense the incongruity between verbal and non-verbal communication.

=====Conveying receptivity=====

The way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other may influence how receptive each is to the other person's message and ideas.
* Face and eyes: Receptive negotiators smile, and make plenty of eye contact. This conveys the idea that there is more interest in the person than in what is being said. On the other hand, non-receptive negotiators make little to no eye contact. Their eyes may be squinted, jaw muscles clenched and head turned slightly away from the speaker
* Arms and hands: To show receptivity, negotiators should spread their arms and open a hands-on table or relax on their lap. Negotiators show poor receptivity when their hands are clenched, crossed, positioned in front of their mouth, or rubbing the back of their neck.
* Legs and Feet: Receptive negotiators sit with legs together or one leg slightly in front of the other. When standing, they distribute weight evenly and place their hands on their hips with their body tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators stand with their legs crossed, pointing away from the speaker.
* Torso: Receptive negotiators sit on the edge of their chairs, unbuttoning their suit coats with their bodies tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators may lean back in their chairs and keep their suit coats buttoned.

Receptive negotiators tend to appear relaxed with their hands open and palms visibly displayed.<ref>{{cite book|last=Donaldson|first=Michael C.|title=Negotiating for dummies|year=1996|publisher=Hungry Minds|location=New York|isbn=978-1-56884-867-9|author2=Donaldson, Mimi|url=https://archive.org/details/negotiatingfordu00dona}}</ref>{{page needed|date=November 2016}}

=== Barriers ===
* Die-hard bargainers
* Lack of trust
* Informational vacuums and negotiator's dilemma
* Structural impediments
* Spoilers
* Cultural and gender differences
* Communication problems
* The power of dialogue<ref>{{cite book |first=Richard | last=Luecke |series=Harvard Business Essentials |publisher=Harvard Business School Press |title=Negotiation |location=Boston |isbn=9781591391111|year=2003 }}</ref>{{page needed|date=November 2016}}