澳洲留學(xué)生本科畢業(yè)dissertation之國(guó)際商務(wù)管理

Introduction
In the second half of the twentieth century , the rapid development of economy globalization and integration ,by promises of great benefits from free flow of people ,goods, services and capital, have mingled all countries and areas into one interdependent and interrelated body. Resolving political, especially economy disputes and conflicts by peaceful means based on equality and mutual benefit has prevailed in international affairs since countries started to view each other as partners and cooperators rather than adversaries and antagonists. Some scholars and social workers begin advocating a brand new idea, which win—win concept. Collaborative principled negotiation based on mutual success and convergence of interests is a typical example of this concept .Practices demonstrated its high effectiveness in dealing with disagreement and conflicts in international business negotiation ,therefore, it has become widely accepted.

1.  Overview of collaborative principled negotiation

Negotiation is regarded as an important and necessary social activity, especially in international business negotiation, a great impulse to social economic development in our modern life. In view of the abuse of traditional win---lose concept of business negotiation, we advocate a brand new method of collaborative principled negotiation, a win---win concept to improve the efficiency and fairness of business negotiation.
Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage and attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests.
Collaborative principled negotiation is also commonly known as Harvard principled negotiation, which is developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury in the book Getting to Yes published in 1981.The core and spirit of the method is to reach a solution beneficial to both parties by way of stressing interests and value not by way of bargaining. The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issue on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do .It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness. When the interests of the involved parties are contradictory, an objective criterion should be applied to.

1.      System of collaborative principled negotiation

1.1  Four fundamental principles

It is very important to view each other as cooperators rather than adversaries in international business negotiation. The process of negotiation is not simply considered as competing but mutual communicating and seeking for common development. Otherwise, they will attack and blame each other, protect and defend habitually each party’s utmost interests and make no concession, which would inevitably lead negotiation into impasse or failure. Instead, they should stand side by side to generate mutual gain and improve their relationship. The interest---based approach of collaborative principled negotiation advocates four fundamental principles of negotiation:
1) separate the people from the problem;
2) focus on interests not positions;
3) invent options for mutual gain;
4) insist on objective criteria.

Every negotiation has two basic components: people and problems. Separating the people from the problems means separating the relationship issues (e.g. perceptions, emotions, communication, reliability and so on ) from the substantive issues (e.g. terms, dates, figures and so on ) and dealing with each set of issues on its own merits, don’t make substantive concessions in the hope of improving relations.

Human beings are not computers. We are imperfectly skilled in communication, we perceive the actions and words of others differently and we are creatures of long memories and strong emotions. Emotions, personalities, feelings and so on become entangled in the substance of the problem. And so we will tend to take responses to the issues as personal attacks.

It’s generally understood that in negotiations problems will be discussed and resolved if talks are going on in a friendly and sincere atmosphere. Unfortunately more often than not high tension is build up due to negotiators’ prejudice against the other party’s intention. It is conceivable that negotiations would be directed to personal disputes and both sides say something hurting each other when such prejudice or misunderstanding exists. As a result negotiators’ personal feeling is mingled with interests and events to be discussed. For example, you may feel very uncomfortable when your counterpart appears arrogant and superior, so you probably throw out something to knock off his arrogance, which may further irritate him and make him take retaliation action. The focus of negotiation is shifted from interests and issues of both parties to personal dignity and self—respect, thus the attacks and quarrels end up with nothing. In other cases your counterpart may misunderstand your intention and openly show his emotion when you make comments on his opinion and events he has described.

People problems often mainly tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. Perceptions are important because they define the problem and solution. While there is an “objective reality”, the reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute, effective negotiation may be difficult to achieve. This is what we have been calling framing problems—the problems that people see or define a situation differently, depending on who they are and what their situations are. So it is crucial for both sides to understand the others’ viewpoints. There are seven basic ways for handling the problems of perception.

First, try to see the situation from your opponent’s perspective. The parties should try to put themselves in the shoes of the other to understand that part’s constraints of the situation. You don’t have to agree with their perceptions of the situation. But it is important to understand what they think and feel, and why they think and feel as they do.

Second, don’t deduce your opponent’s intentions from your own fears. It is common to assure that your opponent plans to do just what you fear they will do. This sort of suspicious attitude makes it difficult to accurately perceive your opponent’s real intentions; whatever they do you will assure the worst.

Third, avoid blaming your opponent for the problem. Blame, even if it is deserved, will only make your opponent defensive. Even worse, your opponent may attack you in response. Blame is generally counter--productive.
Fourth, discuss each other’s perceptions. Explicit discuss of each side’s perceptions will help both sides to better understand each other. And discuss will help each side to avoid projecting their fears onto one another. Also, such discussion may reveal shared perceptions. Acknowledging shared perceptions can strength the parties’ relationship, and facilitate productive negotiations.
 
Fifth, seek opportunities to act in consistently with your opponent’s misperceptions. That is, try to disappoint your opponent’s worst beliefs and expectations about you. Just as it is important for you to have an accurate perception of your opponent, it is also important for them to have an accurate perception of you. Disappointing your opponent’s negative or inaccurate beliefs will help you to change those beliefs.

Sixth, give your opponent a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the negotiation process. If your opponent doesn’t feel involved in the negotiation process, then they are unlikely to feel involved in its outcome. Conversely, if they feel that the process is in part their process, they are more likely to accept its conclusion. The more that the party is involved in the process; the more likely they are to be involved in and to support the outcome.
Seventh, make your proposals consistent with the principles and self—image of your opponent. Each side should try to make proposals that would be appealing to the other side. All the parties to a negotiation need to be able to reconcile the agreement with their principles and self—images. That is, they need to feel the final agreement doesn’t compromise their integrity. Proposals which are consistent with your opponent’s principles and which don’t undermine their self—images are more likely to be accepted.

Understanding the other side’s perceptions will improve communication and enable a party to re—frame its proposal in way that makes it easier for the other side to say “yes”.People problems also often involve difficult emotions—fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with. People often react with fear or anger when they feel that their interests are threatened. The first step in dealing with emotions is to acknowledge them, and try to understand their source. The parties must acknowledge the fact that certain emotions are present, even when they don’t see those feelings as reasonable. Dismissing another’s feeling as unreasonable is likely to provoke an even more intense emotional response. The parties must allow the other side to express their emotions. They must not react emotionally to emotional outbursts. Symbolic gestures such as apologies or an expression of sympathy can help to defuse strong emotions.

Communication is the third main source of people problems. Negotiators may not be speaking to each other, but may simply grandstand for their respective constituencies. The parties may not be listening to each other, but may instead be planning their own responses. Even when the parties are speaking to each other and are listening, misunderstandings may occur. To combat these problems, the parties should employ active listening. The listeners should give the speaker their full attention, occasionally summarizing the speaker’s points to confirm their understanding. It is important to remember that understanding the other’s case doesn’t mean agreeing with it. Speakers should direct their speech toward the other parties and keep focused on what they are trying to communicate. Each side should avoid blaming or attacking the other, and should speak about themselves. Generally the best way to deal with people problems is to prevent them from arising. People problems are less likely to come up if the parties have a good relationship, and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than adversaries.

On general, to separate people from problem, the crucial point is to understand the other party, control one’s own emotion and strengthen communication. We look for chances to correct our counterparts afterwards if their opinion is not right; we allow them to express their dissatisfaction if they feel upset and we find more chances to exchange our opinions if misunderstanding happens. By doing so we treat our counterpart as a cooperator sitting on the same boat sinking and floating together, and the course of negotiation as a process of achieving mutual success hand in hand.
 
 
 
1.1.1  Focusing on interests not positions

 Conflicts of interests bring people to negotiation table. Negotiation about interests means negotiating things that people really want and need, not what they say that they want or need, these are not the same. In negotiation, it is very often difficult to focus on interests since the interests of one party are frequently not clearly identified and expressed outwardly, and comparatively speaking positions are concrete and explicitly exposed to each other. One important task of negotiation is to overpass one’s position and to look for solutions satisfying both parties’ interests.

1.1.1.1  Cause of involving in positions

Positions may be thought of as one-- dimensional point in a space of infinite possible solution. Positions are symbolic representations of a participant’s underlying interests. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponent’s position for the purpose of having their interests realized or protecting their interests or gaining more interests.

1.1.1.2  Harm of haggling on positions

Defining a problem in terms of positions means that at least one party will “lose”. Positional bargaining, in which each side comes to the table with a list of demands and opens with their positions on an issue, is likely to be ineffective and costly. The parties then bargain from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining. It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend to neglect the parties’ interests. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the parties’ relationship. Its failure in the labor, management and diplomatic contexts are manifold. It often produces unyielding attitudes and endless haggling, which makes negotiation be a competitive of wills and will destroy the friendly atmosphere. Parties try their utmost to make their counterpart change position, only resulting in either one party make concession to reach a bad agreement or neither party compromise to end in negotiation. Negotiators considering problems on their own position and regardless of the other party’s reasonable interests, even act by threat and deception that would lead negotiation to a failure.

1.1.1.3  Emphasis on interests

Good agreements focus on the parties’ interests not their positions. Your position is something you have decided upon, your interests are what cause you to so decide. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons—their true interests and needs—are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive. When a problem is defined in terms of the parties’ underlying interests, it is often possible to find a solution that is satisfies both parties’ interests. In negotiation, there are always multiple, shared, compatible and conflicting interests. The first step is to identify the parties’ interests regarding the issue at hand. This can be done by asking why they hold the positions they do, and by considering why they hold some other possible position. Each party usually has a number of different interests underlying their positions. And interests may differ somewhat among the individual members of each side. However, all people will share certain basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well—being. Identifying shared and compatible interests as “common ground” or “points of agreement” is helpful in establishing a foundation for additional negotiation discussions. Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together. If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly. The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side’s interests. Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on t past events. If we have learned anything about the past, it is that “we can’t change it”. The past may help us to identify problems needing solution, but other than that, it doesn’t tend to yield the best solution for the future. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests, but remain open to different proposals and positions.

Focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle—invent options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over original positions that assure that for one side to win, the other side must lose. The prolonged dispute over the South China Sea among neighboring countries has been a disturbing factor for the instability in the region. Some countries have demanded sea territory and some other countries have declared actual controlling right over some islands. Facing the dispute, China, being the real owner of the sea area, reiterates China’s sovereignty over the territory, meanwhile exploring the real interests of neighboring countries’ demanding for the territory. It was found out that an important reason behind their claim is the rich fishing and mineral resources in the area. The Chinese government hence proposed in talks with relative countries that “put aside dispute, engage in joint exploration”. The proposal met with general acceptance and proved to be quite effective in lightening the tense atmosphere in the region. The instability would have been deteriorating if the disputing countries, particularly China, had hold on to their position and showed no flexibility in the issue.

Successful negotiations are the result of mutual giving and taking of interests rather than keeping firm on one’s own positions. The method of focusing on the common interests of negotiating parties works well because firstly, there is always more one way of fulfilling each other’s interests, and secondly, both sides can always find out certain common interests, otherwise they will not sit together discussing and talking.

1.1.2        Inventing options for mutual gain

 The first two principles look at the relation between people and problems, and interests and positions, which are conductive for negotiators to establish an objective view on those important factors in negotiations. The third principle of inventing options for mutual gain provides an approach to fulfillment of the two parties’ demands.
 Why are negotiators easily trapped by their own positions? The explanation is that many negotiations simply focus on a single event and the solution to the event is either win or lose, for example, price of a car, size of commission, or time limit of a loan. The distributive nature of interest gaining limits people’s scope of thinking and causes people to insist on their own stance. In such case, there is one way out, which is to jointly make the cake of interests as large as possible before cutting it apart so that both sides may get what they desire for. To this end, negotiators should be able to provide creative options and alternative to unaccepted solutions. There are in fact always alternative solutions to problems to be solved, which are, unfortunately, often not fully understood.

2.1.3.1 Obstacles for generating creative options

Generally speaking, there are three factors hindering people from seeking for alternative solutions:
One is the fixed distributive plan. Both sides perceive the size of the cake is fixed, thus your gain is my loss and my gain is your loss. The rigid distributive concept retards creative thinking and options and hence results in failure of negotiations.

The second is seeking for only one solution. Negotiators are inclined to rest on their laurels they have achieved and hope to arrive at the final solution without other nuisances. They are not aware of the fact that creative thinking and options are indispensable part of a successful negotiation.

The third is considering only one’s own options suiting one’s own needs. A successful negotiation is a process of giving and taking which means options provided should be a consolidated body of both sides’ interests. When keeping in mind not only one’s own party’s interests but also the other side’s interests, stimulated creativeness will bring about alternative options conductive to success of negotiations.

2.1.3.2 Elimination of above mentioned barriers

To overcome above--mentioned barriers and generate creative options, it is important to set aside the concept that one party’s gain is the other’s loss and encourage each other to help solve problems and not prematurely focus on an option before people are ready. Negotiators should separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. Multiple solution options must be developed prior to evaluation of those options. The parties should come together in an informal atmosphere and brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem. Will and creative proposals are encouraged. Brainstorming session can be made more creative and productive by encouraging the parties to shift between four types of thinking: stating the problem, analyzing thee problem, considering general approaches, and considering specific actions. Parties may suggest partial solutions to the problem, and creative thinking expands the range of possible options and promotes better solutions. Only after a variety of proposals have been made should the group turn to evaluating the ideas. Evaluation should start with the most promising proposals. The parties may also refine and improve proposals at this point. Participants can avoid falling into a win—lose mentality by focusing on shared interests. When the parties’ interests differ, they should seek options in which those differences can be made compatible or even complementary. The key to reconciling different interests is to look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa. Each side should try to make proposals that are appealing to the other side, and that the other side would find easy to agree to. To do this it is important to identify the decision makers and target proposals directly toward them. Proposals are easier to agree to when they seem legitimate or supported by precedent. Threats are usually less effective at motivating agreement than are beneficial offers

Options are provided and the next step is to determine and find out an option that will suit both sides best. Selecting an option requires a criterion to decide one option is better than the other or is the best among several options, and now it comes to the fourth principle—introducing an objective criterion.

The first three principles advocate the benefits of considering both parties’ interests and designing a distributive pattern that would satisfy both sides’ demands. However, conflicts and disputes of the parties over interests gaining will not disappear no matter how considerable the two sides try to be and how creative in providing options. When the parties’ interests are directly opposed, one side in a negotiation can prevail just by being stubborn. However, this tends to produce an arbitrary and unjust result. It is preferable to frame discussions around a fear standard that is independent of the parties’ positions or will. This can be an objective standard such as market value, average salary in the industry, precedent, expert opinion, custom or law. By using objective criteria as a guide, neither party has to give in to the other: rather, both parties can defer to a fair and independent solution.

 Once at an international Ocean Law Conference, India and US were arguing about whether ocean mineral exploring companies should pay a preliminary charge when exploring an area in the sea. India, representing developing countries, insisted on a sum of $6,000 down—payment while US opposed firmly the proposal. The two sides haggled over the issue and could not reach an agreement. Later a representative found out an economic model of ocean exploration by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which could calculate all payment proposals and their impacts on economic return of ocean exploration, and which was accepted as an objective criterion of economic analysis on ocean exploration by all sides. The model showed that India’s proposal of preliminary payment did have an impact on exploration, i.e. a company’s normal operation might be interrupted since the company had to pay the charge before making the profit. India thus agreed to reconsider its proposal. The model also told US that preliminary payment of a reasonable sum was possible economically and as a result US gave up its position.
 
One point is clear that different issues have different objective criteria. For example, criteria of price talking will include factors of cost, market situation, depreciation, price competition and other necessary factors. In other negotiations, experts’ opinions, international conventions and norms and legal documents will all serve as objective criteria.

In the Sino—US negotiation on China’s accession into WTO, the two parties disputed over China’s developing country status. US took the position that China should be treated as a developed country. To back US stance, American negotiators cited China’s growing exports and large foreign reserve holdings. They argued that in developing countries China’s sophisticated technology in launching and retrieving satellites had no parallel. One American negotiator even compared the situation in China with that in India and some African countries. He said when he opened the door of a family in a poorest area randomly chosen by the Chinese government and asked the people if they had their breakfast, he was told they did, and he went on asking if lunch and supper were guaranteed, the answer was yes. However he had a very different story in some African countries and even in some areas in India. People there had little food for breakfast, not mention lunch and supper. The two countries insisted on their own standards and it was hard to bridge the discrepancy. Here the focus is which criterion to apply to for resolving the dispute. In fact there is a ready criterion provided by the World Bank, which is measured by per capita GNP. According to the World Bank’s standard, countries whose per capita GNP below $785 (1996) are the poorest countries. China’s per capita GNP in 1997 was $750, which is among the poorest countries.

These cases demonstrates that criteria are used to make solution easily and acceptable because they are fair, effective and rational. There are three points will be considered when telling if a criterion is objective or not: 1) An objective criterion should be independent of wills of all parties and thus be free from sentimental influence of any one. 2) An objective criterion should be valid and realistic. 3) An objective criterion should be at least theoretically accepted by both sides, as in the case of MIT model

Negotiation doesn’t have to mean giving in or bowing to the will of another party by using objective criteria and standards. Insisting on the use of objective standards, precedents, law or principles is a means both to persuade the other side that an agreement is fair and to protect your side from being coerced. Standards of legitimacy also make it easier to explain an agreement to one’s constituents.

1.2  Characteristics of collaborative principled negotiation

Criterion is the measurement of solving all divergences. Objective criteria can greatly simplify the negotiation process and is a good way out when the participants can’t decide which option is just and reasonable. If union and management are struggling over a contract, they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objective criterion. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similar house or cars have sold for. This gives all sides more guidance as to what is “fair”, and makes it hard to oppose offers in this range. Abiding by criteria, negotiators analyze problems calmly and objectively, which is helpful to reach a wise and fair agreement and implement it effectively and actually. Criteria are independent of wills, therefore decrease the functions of individual opinions and embody negotiation fairness. 
 
2.3 A new framework of PIOC

Collaborative principled negotiation is not only to improve negotiators’ skills and aid them all winners, but also to provide a new mindset about negotiation that can create as large a set of positive outcomes for all parties involved. It offers a simple, memorable and effective negotiation framework by focusing on four fundamental components—problems, interests, options and criteria. Applied successfully, the PIOC framework can help to create breakthrough results in any negotiation situation by helping negotiation participants move away from clashing and toward collaboration.

4.5.1.1.1  Each point of PIOC relates directly to its adjacent points.

For instance, parties about to engage in a negotiation have specific needs of interests they want meet, and these may underlie the positions they come to the table demanding. The parties’ interests will help them generate possible solutions or options to resolving the dispute. The options can be further refined through the filter of neutral criteria, objective standards or benchmarks. While many experienced negotiators begin with interests when thinking through a negotiation process, PIOC’s four facets work in any order. For instance, a set of criteria can help spark ideas for options. Alternatively, a list of problems helps clarify its interests.

For negotiation success, you must first know what you want. Take an honest inventory of your underlying interests when you engage in any negotiation. Arguably, there are your subjective interests, tailor—made to your side given your situation, expectations and experiences. Likewise, each side must anticipate and analyze the other side’s potential interests in order to work out realistic options. Balanced against the interests are objective criteria with which one can evaluate the fairness of demands. Criteria are neutral precedents that both sides to a negotiation can use to develop and benchmark options. In negotiation, we want to see our objective needs met, to known that the agreement is fair, and to be able to explain to stakeholders the key factors upon which decisions were based. If interests and criteria help articulate what we desire, options are proposals for concrete ways of getting it. We sometimes refer to options that meet some or all of each party’s interests as the on—the—table solutions, that is those options we believe have some chance of meeting both parties’ interests. When both sides contribute to putting options on the table, this can lead to greater choice and creativity in coming to an agreement.

As you approach negotiation with this new mindset, keep the PIOC visually present. By doing so, you will avoid positional behaviors and clashes that don’t lead to creative solutions to problems. At the same time, you will have the compass you need translate your new collaborative mindset into actual improved negotiation results for all.

2.  Application of collaborative principled negotiation

To improve your negotiation skills, you must quickly access collaborative principled negotiation tenets and apply them appropriately to resolve real—world problems. You should deftly probe for interests and brainstorm for options without the positional habit of focusing on only one position and use criteria to understand and persuade rather than bully.  

3.1 Discovery of objective criteria    

Interests are the cores of business negotiation. When interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve their differences. Allowing such differences to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships, is inefficient, and is not likely to produce wise agreements. Decisions based on reasonable standards make it easier for the parties to agree and preserve their good relationship. The first step is to develop objective criteria. Usually there are a number of different criteria that could be used. The parties must agree which criterion is best for their situation. Criteria should be both legitimate and practical. Scientific findings, professional standards, or legal precedents are possible sources of objective criteria.

There are three points to keep in mind when using objective criteria. First each issue should be approached as a shared search for objective criteria. Ask for the reasoning behind the other party’s suggestions. Using the other parties’ reasoning to support your own position can be a powerful way to negotiate. Second, each party must keep an open mind. They must be reasonable, and be willing to reconsider their positions when there is reason to. Third, while they should be reasonable, negotiators must never give in to pressure, threats, or bribes. When the other party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, the first party may shift discussion from a search for substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.

3.2Approved fair procedural standard

One way to test for objectivity is to ask if both sides would agree to be bound by those standards. Rather than agreeing in substantive criteria, the parties may create a fair procedure for resolving their dispute. Procedural standard is that dividing a piece of cake by having one party cut it and the other chooses their piece. Other standards which may be called fair can be “doing it in turns”, “drawing lots”, and “looking for an arbitrator”.

MIT model has solved the problem of earlier stage’s charge but new problem how to divide the exploring area emerges. After considerable discussion, it is agreed that half of the area is admitted to private sectors and the rest is to the exploring group of the UN. It is well known that private sectors in rich countries have an edge of technology and capital to choose area while most countries worry they will get the worse part. Therefore, the negotiation goes into impasse, at this moment, some delegates suggest handling it by a fair procedure that the private sectors divide the area by having the exploring group of the UN choose its piece first. Thus the knotty problem is solved smoothly and both parties gain their own benefit.

Procedure reflects equality and accordance because there is no compulsory means to stipulate the role of dividing or choosing you will play, you can choose your role out of your will. But it must be remembered that once you choose one role and the other is left to the other side. A fair procedural standard is a good supplementation of criteria. 

3.3 Four tips

“What do you do when people won’t play along?” “What about situations where there is no possible win—win outcome?” “What happens when people respond with unfair tricks?” Here presents five steps to break through obstacles and obtain win—win agreements: 1) don’t react to provocations. Step away from the scene, calm down, and carefully plan your response. Do not respond automatically, because most automatic responses are negative and further escalate the situation. 2) Step around obstacles, don’t walk right into them. Use active listening to defuse negative feelings, and use I-messages to express your feelings. Agree whenever you can, but stand up for your principles as well. 3) Ask people “Why?” “Why not?” or “How is that fair?” to try to move them away from positional bargaining toward principled negotiation. 4) Make it easy for the opponent to agree by making the offer as attractive as possible. 5) Make it hard for them to walk away by proving that the negotiated agreement is better than their alternatives. Bring them to their senses, not their knees. Principled negotiation is about understanding and reaching out to the players and building durable bridges based on mutual interests. It focus is on the creative ways and business acumen to enlarge the pie and secure lasting value that is superior to what can be gained by compromise, mediation, arbitration, courts, coercion and other means of dispute resolution. 

When applying collaborative principled negotiation, we should pay close attention to four tips: 1) Once we think the option is helpful to fulfill the negotiation goal, be confident and persistent, and persuade the opponent patiently by explaining the truth and facts. 2) If both parties take exception to the decided criterion, it is necessary to have a complete negotiation on the criterion, never take coercive measures. 3) If we hold firmly to our option, while the opponent has full reasons to veto it, which will inevitably lead to an impasse. Negotiation will be ended if neither party makes effectual concession. Therefore, successful negotiators usually offer an objective criterion flexibly and tentatively and negotiate it with each other rather than offer it on their own arrogantly. A just criterion doesn’t mean to object the other side’s justified standard since every person’s opinion differs. The interested parties should handle problems like judges and make active listening to others even your opinion is inclined to your stance. Faced with disagreement, you’d better invite a third party to give suggestions. 4) You should introduce a criterion exploratoryly and mildly instead of doing it strongly and toughly, otherwise, the other side will response by retaliation. Reversely, if your opponent puts pressure on you, social relationships, threats, bribery for example. The pressure of “carrying torches and weapons” (do evil openly) is easily to be resisted, while the “sugarcoated bullet” will surely overwhelm some negotiators. On such occasions, you should withstand pressure, present facts and reason things out to bring negotiation to satisfaction.

1.  Advantages of collaborative principled negotiation

Collaborative principled negotiation has proved to be a successful negotiation method which is prior to previous negotiation methods and different from traditional negotiation guidelines and strategies. It truly implements the negotiation philosophy of “both parties are winners”. It meets both parties’ demands, improves the efficiency of negotiation and promotes cooperation by satisfying negotiators’ sustentative interests and maintaining their relationships. It’s more easily to reach the expected goal in the process of negotiation if the counterparts also use this method. Even though one party adopts this method, the result is prior to that of adopting traditional win—lose method by both parties. Thus the principled negotiation method should be the principal method for international business negotiation and its advantages mainly contain as following:
 
1.1  Agreements on the basis of fair merit

The fair merit is the objective fair standard accepted voluntarily by both parties. The ultimate solution is determined by the fair merit rather than through a haggling process. Faced with divergences and conflicts, uncompromising negotiators try their utmost to win the battle of wills by insisting on their positions and soft negotiators do their best to reach an agreement by making concessions, while collaborative principled negotiation fulfills mutual satisfaction by introducing a criterion and a fair procedural standard.

Two children were squabbling over some apple pie, each insisted that he should have the larger slice, neither would agree to an even split. So somebody suggested that one boy cut the pie any way he liked and the other boy could choose the piece first. This sounded fair to both of them and they accepted, each felt that he had got the square deal. The example illustrates the fair merit plays an important role in reaching an agreement.

1.2  Viewing opponent as problem solver

People come together in order to solver problems. Neither do they view opponents as friends to make concessions blindly, nor as adversaries to defeat them. Both parties negotiate on the basis of equity and lay a good foundation for concluding a best agreement.

The relationship between the labor and the investor of the comparative developed capitalist countries in the world during the 1970s and 1980s was completely opposite. Each viewed the counterparts as adversaries. The increase of the salary and improvement of the farewell of the workers mean the decrease of the benefit of the enterprise. So the labor union tried to find the fault of the administrators to protect the benefit of the workers. The struggling between the two lasted long time and resulted bad outcomes for both of them. But nowadays they change the traditional conception and regard each other as problem solvers and communicate well with each other to seek for common promotion. The strike is less and the working condition of the workers is greatly improved, so is the administration system.     

4.3 Mutual trust and respect

Collaborative principled negotiation pays emphasis on sincere cooperation, no posturing, so it has a high efficiency. At the same time, it is fair and satisfactory to participants who don’t feel deceived. Trust is the most important in today’s global business activities. It’s the basic principle for the business circle. If the businessman doubts each other, there will be no business concluded. Trust maintains the business going on smoothly in nowadays’ multi—national business and makes the world benefit a lot. Respect is the traditional virtue and ethical standard. We often hear that “If you want to be respected, you must respect others first.” Respect is mutual and necessary. It’s a good tie to maintain good relationship between people in any circumstance. The two elements are dispensable in international business negotiation to accelerate the agreements to be reached wisely and efficiently.

4.4 Separating people from problems

Negotiation deals with problems not people who are only the carriers of problems. Principled negotiation suggests don’t get emotions intertwined with the substantive issues. It is soft on people and hard on problems to guarantee negotiators’ substantive interests and maintain their good relationships. We should handle personal attacks properly to pave a good way for business negotiation.

The buyer purchased a machine and the machine broke down several times in operating, the seller repaired it but it still in bad condition. Then the buyer may blame the seller “you sold us faint equipment with bad technology data” or “ you sold us the dated equipment and offered us bad maintenance service, we insisted returning the machine or compensating us.” Obviously, these words indicated blaming the seller; the seller would be angry and wouldn’t accept it. The buyer should say “the machine we have purchased from you has broken down and couldn’t be operated normally, shall we return the machine or change the main parts or take other complement measures?”. This indicated no blaming and made the seller upset and more easily to take responsibility for the deal

4.5  Inventing options for mutual gain

The key to success lies in discovering the juncture which serves both parties. Thus, both parties try their best to brainstorm for possible options to mutual interests. And seek a final solution accepted by both parties.A significant point that Collaborative Principled Negotiation differs from the traditional win—lose model is that both parties won’t only seek means to fulfill one’s own interests but also hope the interests of the other party may be realized more or less.Negotiations guided by such method are to be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and sincere cooperation and will be concluded with mutually accepted agreement to the satisfaction of both parties. The negotiation between Egypt and Israel on Sinai Peninsula provides an excellent example contrasting the striking effects of win—lose and win—win Collaborative Principled Negotiation.

The Middle East War of 1967 ended with Israel’s occupation of 60,000 square kilometers of Sinai Peninsula. As the mediators between the two countries, US and some other countries had striven for11 years to help the two countries settle the dispute through negotiations. However all efforts failed since both sides adhered firmly to their own stance and showed no flexibility. For Egypt, the occupied Sinai was indispensable part of Egyptian territory. In view of the territorial integrity and national sovereignty, Egypt was entitled to recovering it without any conditions; for Israel, the occupation of Sinai was for the sake of Israel’s security since several military attacks against Israel were launched from the Peninsula. In 1978 the peaceful negotiation was reopened at the Camp David in US, which was conducted, this time, by a completely new guideline of win—win Collaborative Principled Negotiation . T he two parties were encouraged to reexamine their own interests as well as interests of their counterparts. It was found out that Egyptian’s primary interests lied in the recovery of its territory, not threatening Israel’s security whereas Israel didn’t mean to expand its territory but rather to ensure its safety. Based on this mutual understanding, an acceptable accord was reached: Israel returned the occupied territory to Egypt, who in turn designated much part of Sinai as Nonmilitary Zone. A dispute dragging for 11 years was resolved in a matter of 12 days.Collaborative principled negotiation avoids much inefficient argument and reduces the repetition of negotiation to make the agreement everlasting bounded.

5   Conclusion

In a word, collaborative principled negotiation is a negotiation method that is explicitly designed to produce outcomes efficiently and amicably and also one of the most powerful influences on the study and practice of negotiations within all situations and types. It provides us with a way to reach a wise agreement for tough negotiations because it takes into full consideration of both sides’ interests, which contribute greatly to the mutual understanding of negotiating parties, therefore, it can bring about positive results that both parties expect. It doesn’t rely on playing tricks or negotiators’ resourcefulness but on fairness, objectiveness and mutual understanding to reach a wise agreement. Collaborative principled negotiation significantly promotes communication between parties, strengthens and improves their relationship, in addition to producing wise agreements.