Trust and Relationship Building 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 reviews the topic of trust and relationship development in negotiations to show how one can approach the problem of trust and relationship building while working to negotiate an outcome that satisfies all parties.

What Is Trust?

Trust is a concept that carries 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 — that is, whether the negotiator is trusting of others or demonstrates 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 — whether one is motivated to show trust in the other party or is skeptical of that 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 and orientations — but in the end it is ultimately a barometer of the extent to which a 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 the process itself.

Trust can be achieved through the demonstration of transparency and through commitment to the negotiation process. Defining one's objectives and what one is willing to do to reach a solution is part of that commitment.

Building Relationships Through Trust

Trust is an essential element in the building of relationships. Negotiation is a process, and if one or more parties engage in opportunism without respect for the needs of others or for transparency in the process, relationship building suffers (Shell, 1991). Relationship building must be thought of in terms that go beyond the negotiation table. As Shell (1991) points out, the expectations that one party holds of another will determine the extent to which the other party acts accordingly. If one party fails to live up to those expectations, it can have a detrimental effect on the relationship going forward and can impact future negotiations. One side may develop a bad reputation and be viewed 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. 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" (Shell, 1991, 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 temptation may erode whatever goodwill has been established between parties and undermine the possibility of future negotiations.

A recent example from the trade dispute between China and the United States serves as a case in point. President Trump was frequently seen as a negotiator who sought to keep the other party interested in coming to the table while simultaneously signaling that China would face consequences if no deal was reached. While some may view this style as similar to the carrot-and-stick method, others argue that it works against the basic principles of trust-building and relationship cultivation. As soon as an adverse situation arose — such as the spread of COVID-19 — and blame was publicly assigned by the US to China, feelings were hurt and China became inclined to abandon whatever promises had been made during trade negotiations. The temptation to back out proved too strong, and the negotiated settlement was abandoned at the first sign of unreasonableness. This episode reveals a fundamental lack of trust, respect, and relationship.

Were there a stronger relationship between the two sides — comparable, for instance, to the relationship between Russia and China — such a falling out would be far less likely. The US president would not adopt such a hostile public tone with China, and China would be more reluctant to abandon agreed-upon deals at the slightest provocation. But the relationship has remained poor. Neither side has made a sustained effort to demonstrate trustworthiness, and no genuine foundation of trust has been established between the two.

For a negotiation to succeed, a high degree of trust must be established before the process can take firm root. As Butler (1999) shows, information sharing is but one part of trust building: 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 equally necessary for trust to fully develop.

Conclusion

Negotiation is a process that requires trust and relationship building in order to be successful. When one or more parties fail to demonstrate trust or fail to focus on relationship building, they undermine their own potential for a successful outcome. Trust is a concept that refers to commitment, transparency, good faith, and a genuine willingness to 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 negotiating partner. One will not be viewed as a reliable partner for developing a working relationship that can endure into the future. A relationship that does not extend beyond the negotiation table is one that will not support follow-through. Unless one is willing to commit to a long-term relationship-building process, one's approach to negotiation will remain fundamentally limited.

References

Butler, J. K., Jr. (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. Vanderbilt Law Review, 44, 221.