Trust and Relationships in Negotiation

Trust and Relationships in Negotiation
Introduction
Successful negotiations rely heavily upon the ability of those involved to develop trust and build solid relationships. If parties to a negotiation cannot trust one another and do not develop the kind of relationships required, it is highly unlikely that they will arrive at the kind of satisfactory, win-win outcome that all sides desire. But how does one define trust? What steps can be taken to best support a working relationship? How can one tell if one is moving towards a successful negotiation or working against one’s own best interests? This paper will review the topic of trust and relationship development in negotiations to show how one can approach the problem of trust and relationship building while working on negotiating an outcome that satisfies all parties.
What is Trust?
Trust is a concept that has different meanings depending on how one thinks of its application in negotiation. For instance, Ross and LaCroix (1996) show that trust can refer to a personality trait that a negotiator might have—i.e., is the negotiator trusting of other others or does he demonstrate a lack of willingness to trust those on the other side? Trust can also refer to a spirit of cooperation or to one’s motivational orientation—i.e., whether one is motivated to show trust in the other party or whether one is skeptical of the party’s words and deeds. Additionally, trust can be seen as a pattern of predictable behavior or as an orientation towards problem-solving (Ross & LaCroix, 1996). If one’s actions and words are consistent and one is focused on overcoming obstacles and working towards a solution, one will be seen as more worthy of trust than a negotiator who remains aloof and inconsistent throughout the process. Thus, trust can represent a wide gamut of attitudes, orientations and orientations—but in the end it is ultimately a barometer of the extent to which the party to the negotiation is working in good faith towards a positive outcome for all. As Ross and LaCroix (1996) note, trust is about loyalty to one’s constituents, partners in negotiation, and process.
Trust can be achieved through the demonstration of transparency and through the commitment of oneself to the process of negotiation. Defining one’s objectives and what one is willing to do to come to a solution is part of that process.
Building Relationships through Trust
Trust is an essential element in the building of relationships. A negotiation is a process, and if one or more parties are engaged in a kind of opportunism without respect to the needs of others or to transparency in the process (Shell, 1991). Relationship building has to be thought of in terms that go beyond the negotiation table. For example, as Shell (1991) points out, the expectations that one party to a negotiation may have of another will determine the extent to which the other party will act. If one party fails to live up to those expectations, it can have a detrimental effect on the relationship between the two parties going forward and can impact future negotiations. One side may develop a bad reputation and be viewed by others as a bad faith negotiator. If one party does not uphold its end of a bargain, the relationship between parties can sour. Unfortunately, this happens all too often in negotiations and parties that do not follow through on promises are at fault. It is all too common, for example, that “having received its benefit from the bargain, the party who is to perform last may be tempted to renege on its obligations” (p. 221). Avoiding that temptation is part of being a respectable and respectful negotiator. It is part of what it means to be trustworthy and to engage in relationship building. Those who succumb to that vile temptation may frustrate whatever good will has been established between parties and undermine the potentiality of future negotiations.
A recent example of the negotiation in the trade war between China and the US can serve as a case in point. President Trump in the US is frequently seen as a negotiator who tries to keep the other party interested in coming to the table, but at the same time he wants to make it clear that if a deal is not worked out China will regret it. While some may see this style of negotiating as similar to the carrot-stick method, others can argue that it goes against the basic doctrine of trust-building and relationship-cultivation. As soon as an adverse situation arises—like the spread of COVID 19—and blame is laid by the US on China, feelings are hurt and China is inclined to abandon whatever promises it had made the US during trade negotiations. The temptation to back out is too strong and the negotiated settlement is dumped at the first sign of unreasonableness. This reveals a lack of trust, respect and relationship.
Were there a better relationship between the two sides the way there is between Russia and China, it would be unlikely for such a falling out to occur. The US President would not take such a hostile tone with China—at least not in public—and China would be more reticent to abandon any agreed upon deals at the slightest provocation. But the relationship is poor. Neither side has shown any effort in demonstrating trustworthiness. There has been no establishing of trust between the two.
For a negotiation to succeed, there must be a high degree of trust established before the negotiation can be said to grow roots in good soil. As Butler (1999) shows, information sharing is but one part of the trust building process: transparency helps foster trust on all sides, but follow-through, demonstrations of cultural awareness, signs of respect and appreciation, and evidence of a plan for a win-win scenario are other factors that must be in place in order for trust to full bloom.
Turning a Soured Relationship into a Positive Relationship
One frequent challenge among negotiators is that they are usually not starting with a blank slate. In most negotiations there is context, and those negotiating already are likely to have a relationship, good or bad (Lewicki & Stevenson, 1997). The past and the future are going to weigh heavily on that context and if two parties have had an antagonistic relationship in the past, they can overcome their past issues by projecting a future fostered in respect, understanding and mutual beneficence. If that projection is tinged with aggression and negative rhetoric, it is less likely that two sides will be able to overcome their past issues, resolve differences and build a positive relationship for the future.
The key to reversing a soured relationship is to establish the fact that the two parties are mutually dependent upon one another and that it is not in either one’s best interest to continue with a negative relationship (Olekalns & Smith, 2009). This has happened numerous times in the past. For instance, in the lead-up to WW2, Soviet Russia and the US were able to work together and form a relationship against the Axis Powers, in spite of their differences. That relationship soured after the war, as suspicion of one another’s motives began to dictate the terms of settlement that each side sought to pursue. However, after decades of querulous posturing, the two countries were able to begin rebuilding their relationship by working on the idea of mutual dependency. For example, it was not in anyone’s best interests to continue to stockpile nuclear missiles with which one side or the other could destroy the world. It was better if both sides signed a treaty curtailing the development of such stockpiles of weapons.
Approaching negotiation from the standpoint of having a relationship of mutual dependence is a good way to right old wrongs. When one side of a negotiation attempts to act in a self-serving manner, it undermines the trust that should be built between the two sides. Self-serving actions do not go unobserved, and in the post-war era there was a great deal of self-serving going on. As Olekalns and Smith (2009) ask, “What determines whether individuals reciprocate the offer of valued resources and choose to make a fair trade rather than to exploit the other party?” (p. 347). The answer to that question is that trustworthiness, emotion and power all play a part.
Every side in a negotiation is going to have leverage—that is why the party is there at the table. If there is nothing to leverage there is no reason or need for a negotiation because the party will not have any terms to stand upon. Power is an inherent part of the process. Relationships are built upon the idea that power is understood and respected and that it will not be used in an irrational or negative way.
However, if one side is out to deceive another side, the process is crippled and will never get off the runway. The context of the situation will serve as a factor in how the process unfolds, but if emotion enters into the negotiation and acts as a negative catalyst, the negotiation can fall apart.
Information will help to keep a spirit of transparency, but more is required. Negotiators have to show that they are not going to destroy the other side or attempt to destroy the other side if they do not get their way. That is indicative of a side that is attempting to use force and threats to achieve a one-sided victory. Negotiations are about compromise—not threats. Successful negotiators seek to build long-term relationships through understanding and the implementation of mutually beneficent aims. The more agreeable a plan is to both sides, the more likely it is to be implemented. The nature of the relationship between China and Russia is one such example of how mutual dependence can be a positive factor in relationship building.
To turn a sour relationship into a positive relationship, therefore, it is important to identify how the sides are mutually dependent and use that source of information as the starting point for a new relationship. However, it is but a foundation and the bricks and mortar that will go into building up the walls and roof of that relationship will consist of trust and the follow-through that goes into showing one side or the other that the negotiated deal will be upheld.
Conclusion
Negotiation is a process that requires trust and relationship building in order to be successful. When one side or more fails to demonstrate trust or fails to focus on relationship-building, it undermines its own potential to have a successful negotiation. Trust is a concept that refers to commitment, transparency, good faith, and a willingness to sincerely negotiate a compromise. If one’s orientation is not focused on arriving at a win-win outcome, one will not be seen as trustworthy. If one is not seen as trustworthy, one will not be seen as a good partner in negotiation. One will not be seen as a good partner for developing a working relationship that can last into the future. A relationship that does not extend beyond the negotiation table is not one that will support follow-through. Unless one is willing to commit to a long-term relationship building process, one’s negotiation approach will be limited.
References
Butler Jr, J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 217-238.
Lewicki, R. J., & Stevenson, M. A. (1997). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions and a research agenda. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 16(1/3), 99-132.
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2009). Mutually dependent: Power, trust, affect and the use of deception in negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 347-365.
Ross, W., & LaCroix, J. (1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management. 7(4), 314–360.
Shell, G. R. (1991). Opportunism and trust in the negotiation of commercial contracts:Toward a new cause of action. Vand. L. Rev., 44, 221.