Negotiation definition 

Works addressing the issue of negotiation are very diverse in terms of scholarly sources, typical of their various disciplines and areas of academic interest. In other words, these works are amorphous.

Most publications are prescriptive; they have very little or even no descriptive value[1]. The authors of these texts attempt to answer the question of how one should negotiate. Analyzing the different approaches and directions of these studies, it is possible to point out many features common to all of them.

Definition of negotiation

Specialist literature offers many definitions of negotiation. Those mentioned here are the most well-known and popular and have had a significant impact on scholarly research in the field under discussion.

Robert Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Paton – authors of a book entitled Getting to Yes and founders of an important model of negotiation – define this term in the following way: “Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others. It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (xvii).

Negotiations are defined in a similar way by Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders, and Bruce Barry, who state: “Negotiation is a process by which we attempt to influence others to help us achieve our needs while at the same time taking their needs into account” (v). In an earlier edition of the same book, Lewicki and Joseph Litterer defined negotiation as:

negotiation is the process of getting two people from the point where they have a problem or a conflict to the point where they have a solution or an agreement.  Negotiation is a process of offer and counteroffer, of concession and compromise through which the parties reach a point that both understand is the best (for them) that can be achieved. While this process is the heart of negotiation, it cannot be understood and cannot be successfully carried out without a knowledge of how these other factors affect the process.[2]

According to Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, the authors of foundational works in the field under discussion, negotiations are “the deliberate interaction of two or more complex social units that are attempting to define or redefine the terms of their interdependence” (3).

A similar definition was put forward by Alan Fowler, author of Negotiation Skills and Strategies, who posits that negotiation is “a process of interaction by which two or more parties who consider that they need to be jointly involved in any outcome but who initially have different objectives seek, by the use of argument and persuasion, to resolve their differences to achieve a mutually acceptable solution” (3).

Yet another definition was coined by Dean Pruitt and Peter Carnevale. As they put it, negotiation is “a discussion between two or more parties with the apparent aim of resolving divergences of interest and thus escaping social conflict. The parties (also called ‘disputants’) may be individuals, groups, organizations, or political units such as nations. Divergence of interest means that the parties have incompatible preferences among a set of available options”[3]. According to William Zartman, negotiation is “the process by which conflicting positions are combined to form a common decision” (5). Furthermore:

[A] theory of negotiation is essential for understanding topics as diverse as marital decision making, industrial relations, inter-office coordination, corporate mergers, intra-group decision making, and international relations. The arenas just named differ, to some extent, with respect to the way negotiation works. But, in our view, there are more similarities than differences among them, making it possible to develop a general theory of negotiation.[4]

It is crucial to realize that practically everyone negotiates daily. “Negotiation is not a process reserved only for the skilled diplomat, top salesperson, or ardent advocate for organized labor; it is something that everyone does, almost daily. Although the stakes are usually not as dramatic as peace accords or large corporate mergers, everyone negotiates . . negotiates”[5]. Negotiations are present in so many areas of our lives that being familiar with their basic mechanisms is essential for everyone who works with other people. It is also important to point out that the above-mentioned definitions are very general and expansive, thanks to which many situations may be considered negotiations. These definitions are similar and have several common elements[6].

Negotiation is a social institution

According to the paradigm, negotiation is seen as a social institution that plays a crucial role in conflict situations and situations of mutual interdependence. The code of conduct in negotiation is defined by the parties themselves, except for situations of mediation and arbitration, or, in other words, the socially acceptable intervention of a third party[7]. Negotiation is considered a process that consists of certain phases or elements.

The process is influenced by three basic variables: the goals of the parties, their mutual relations, and the values they cherish. Each party tries to realize its interests as fully as possible and to influence the other party so that it will agree to the proposed conditions to reach an agreement. At the same time, the parties may but do not have to, develop a solution that will be beneficial to everyone by formulating and solving problems[8].

To recapitulate the above-mentioned definitions, negotiation can be described as the interaction between two or more parties to transition from a conflict situation to a situation of mutual agreement.

Some of the characteristic features of any negotiation are:

1. A situation that involves at least two parties—institutions, groups, or persons (cf. de Mesquita). It is, of course, possible to negotiate with oneself, but real negotiation is a process that takes place between different parties, within a group, or between groups.

2. There must be a conflict of interests between the parties – in other words, they must be pursuing incompatible goals. The goal that one party wishes to achieve does not correspond with the other party’s goals. The parties must then look for a solution to this situation. “We are less interested in why a particular objective is chosen by a company than in the fact that it conflicts with an objective of a union”[9].

However, the emergence of a conflict and the incompatibility of objectives is not enough to begin negotiations; the parties must also be interdependent. It is useful to perceive this situation in terms of the lack of possibility to achieve one’s aims without collaboration or without the other party remaining neutral. The author of canonical publications in the field of negotiation, Fred Ikle, describes this interdependence as a common interest: “Two elements must normally be present for negotiation to take place: there must be both common interests and issues of conflict. Without common interests, there is nothing to negotiate for; without conflict, there is nothing to negotiate about” (2).

3. The parties negotiate because they think they can influence the other party, and thus achieve benefits that will be greater than those gained by accepting the offer of the other party. Negotiation is a conscious and voluntary process. People are rarely forced to negotiate.

4. Instead of coming into an open conflict or breaking contact, the parties prefer to search for a consensus, at least for a short time. Negotiations begin in situations in which there are no rules or procedures for solving conflicts, or when the parties prefer to seek a solution outside a given system.

5. At the start of negotiations, the parties agree to compromise. They expect that the other party will change its initial stance, requests, and demands. The parties may at first defend their positions, but usually, they gradually develop common solutions. Still, creative negotiations do not have to be based on compromise. The parties may come up with a solution that will enable all of the partners to achieve their goals. This is closely connected with the issue of synergy, which will be discussed further in this chapter.

 6. Negotiations concern concrete problems (prices or shipments), as well as the management of abstract issues. Abstract issues are understood as important psychological incentives which have an impact on the parties involved in the process of negotiation. They also include fundamental beliefs and values. These factors have a substantial influence on the process and results of negotiations.

For this article, negotiation is defined as a dynamic, complex, multistage process of communication in which interdependent parties exchange a series of messages to achieve an agreement on so-far incompatible needs and resolve their conflict (fig. 11).

Negotiations are successful if the parties reach a consensus that is durable and completely or partly satisfying for both parties[10]. Relationships based on trust and a reduced level of uncertainty lead to long-lasting engagement, thanks to the fact that the parties experience greater satisfaction[11]. Furthermore, having in mind the rapid pace of change in the surrounding world, it is hard to predict the issues or problems that could emerge at further stages of negotiations, or even after their completion. This means that practically every agreement is always, in a sense, incomplete[12].

Grant T. Savage, John David Blair, and Ritch L. Sorenson claim that such unquantifiable elements as general satisfaction, the status of the relationship, or the degree of engagement are as important as signing a contract and reaching an agreement on contentious issues. It is also crucial to note that if negotiations have successfully been completed before, in the next negotiations the parties will display a considerable amount of trust towards one another, and this is known as unconditional trust[13].

In reality, people use very different negotiating strategies. Styles of negotiation cover a whole spectrum of behaviors, ranging from a desire to collaborate to fierce competition. Drew Martin et al. argues that a transparent strategy of negotiation is the most important factor in determining the improvement of business relations.

Every negotiator and every manager has certain features that impact how they approach a negotiation. Some negotiators adopt an aggressive stance, hoping that the other party will make all the required concessions, while others avoid confrontation, hoping for a friendly interaction.

What is more, “culture is always relevant. If we define culture broadly, that is, including many types and levels of difference, all conflicts are in the end intercultural. This comprehensive definition has the benefit of admitting culture as an element of every conflict analysis, even at the cost of an over-emphasis on cultural factors.”[14]

The works of Max Bazerman and Margaret Neale on the use of heuristic models in negotiation heralded a new epoch in this field of studies. The earlier research on negotiation, carried out by, among others, Dean Pruitt and Peter Carnevale, and Morton Deutsch, focused on mutual bargaining – on the study of actions and counteractions, aspirations and goals, and to some extent, expectations. The birth of the cognitive negotiation theory was made possible thanks to three advancements in social sciences.

First of all, in their 1982 empirical research, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, together with Paul Slovic, proposed a novel perspective in behavioral studies: behavioral decision theory. Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross also carried out empirical research, and their book Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment[15] contributed to the legitimization of behavioral decision theory as a research area in its own right.

Secondly, the social cognitive theory in psychology encouraged scholars to focus on the mental imperfections of social actors. Finally, Howard Raiffa put forward a conceptual framework for the process of negotiation: an asymmetrical prescriptive/descriptive approach. In Raiffa’s view, a negotiator should not only understand his or her role and obligations (the rational perspective) but also his or her behavioral tendencies (the behavioral perspective).

Most publications on negotiation define economic success as necessary for the success of negotiations, while the process of negotiation is a conversation about common expectations. It is a process of reaching a consensus and constantly redefining the aim of the negotiation. Achieving a consensus, as a key process in social transactions, covers not only defining acceptable conditions of agreement but also developing a common understanding of the situation.  

Negotiation is a communication exchange in which participants “define or redefine the terms of their interdependence”[16]. It is one of the most common forms of social interaction, which has its roots not only in the formal sphere but also in various informal contexts, such as relationships with friends or the process of making decisions together with other family members[17].

Although negotiations are crucial for those who are part of a network of diverse relationships, research has shown that the agreements reached through negotiation are usually far from optimal[18]. They indicate that the cognitive frameworks that are used by negotiators and that have a particularly harmful effect on the quality of economic decisions include: perceiving negotiation as a war or a zero-sum game[19], taking an inflexible stance[20], or assuming that a task-oriented approach and a focus on interpersonal relations are mutually exclusive[21].

One of the main issues addressed by psychologists dealing with negotiation is the analysis of the negotiator’s actions in the context of the above-mentioned cognitive frameworks—in other words, the strategic use of information to define and articulate the given problem or situation[22]. Even though negotiation is a dynamic process of mutual persuasion, most of the existing publications, with a few exceptions[23], have been written from a static perspective. In the majority of studies, negotiators are categorized, for instance, as having either “prosocial” or “self” motivation[24], or as acting within either the relational or task-oriented frameworks[25].

Such approaches, of course, help build some knowledge. However, the solutions they propose suggest to negotiators that they are facing static processes that are largely predetermined. Furthermore, relatively few studies have examined the possibility of a conflict between two different cognitive frameworks when used by different parties. This leaves many questions unanswered about the consequences of such a disparity and the impact of the change in the cognitive framework on the results of the negotiation. The process of negotiation and its results oscillate around a shift toward a common perspective. It is not so much about what the parties are entitled to as, above all, about the very nature of negotiation.

The basic model of negotiation is a psychological representation of a situation that facilitates predicting, analyzing, and explaining. Such a model creates in our mind an image of the elements that contribute to the given situation and their mutual relations. Representing how people perceive their closest environment and thus bringing out certain concepts (Rouse and Morris), the models of negotiation explain our cognitive processes related to our understanding of reality, how we translate reality into its internal representations, and how we use these representations to solve problems[26]. These models are useful tools because they help people understand a given situation, react to it, and predict its future changes (Johnson-Laird, Holyoak, and Gentner).

Unlock Your Negotiation Potential with Michal Chmielecki Negotiation Consulting

At Michal Chmielecki, we are industry leaders in negotiation consulting, empowering companies to optimize their negotiation outcomes and achieve measurable success. With years of experience across diverse sectors, we understand the intricacies and challenges companies face in securing valuable deals.

Negotiation literature and bibliography

[1] Chmielecki M., Zarządzanie negocjacjami w organizacji–wymiar międzykulturowy, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej we Wrocławiu”, No. 30, 2012, pp. 33-45.

 [2] Lewicki R.J., Litterer J.A., Negotiation, Homewood III, Irwin 1985, pp. 43-44.

[3] Pruitt D.G., Carnevale P.J., Negotiation in social conflict, Open University Press, 1993.

[4] Pruitt D.G., Carnevale P.J., Negotiation in Social Conflict, Open University Press, 1993.

[5] Lewicki R.J., Saunders D.M., Barry B., Negotiations: Readings, Exercises, and Cases, McGraw-Hill Education, New York 2015.

[6] Chmielecki M., Zarzdzanie negocjacjami w organizacji-wymiar midzykulturowy, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wyszej Szkoy Bankowej we Wrocawiu,”, No. 30, 2012, pp. 33–45.

[7] Chmielecki M., Komunikacja midzykulturowa w procesie zarzdzania negocjacjami, rozprawa doktorska, Spoeczna Wysza Szkoa Przedsibiorczoci i Zarzdzania, ód 2010.

[8] Rzdca R., Negocjacje w interesach, PWE, Warszawa, 2003, pp. 8–9.

[9] Walton R.E., McKersie R.B., A Behavioural Theory of Labour Negotiations, McGraw Hill, New York, 1993, pp. 18–19.

[10] Sebenius J.K., Raiffa H., Analytic Themes of the U.S. Program on the Processes of International Negotiation, [In] Processes of International Negotiation, edited by Frances Mautner-Markhof, Westview Press, Boulder 1989, pp. 293–303.

[11] Anderson J.C., Narus J.A., A Model of the Distributor’s Perspective of Distributor-Manufacturer Working Relationships, „Journal of Marketing”, 48.4, 1984, pp. 62–74; Morosini P., Managing Cultural Differences, Effective Strategy, and Execution across Cultures in Global Corporate Alliances, Pergamon, Oxford 1998; Saorn-Iborra M.C., Choices in Joint Ventures and Acquisition Negotiation Behavior, "Management Research", No. 2.3, 2004, pp. 219–34.

[12] Cf. Menguzzato M., Renau J.J., Estrategias de empresa y teora de los costes de transacción, Información Comercial Espaola, 746, 1995, pp. 7–24; Urban S., Negotiating International Joint Ventures, „International Business Negotiations”, (Ed.) Pervez N., Ghauri, and Jean-Claude Usunier, Pergamon, Amsterdam 1996, pp. 231–51.

[13] Cf. Jones G.R., George J.M., The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork, Strategic Management Journal”, No. 23.3, 1998, pp. 531–546,

[14] Chmielecki M., Conceptual negotiation metaphors across cultures: research findings from Poland, China, The United States, and Great Britain, “Journal of Intercultural Management”, No. 5.3, 2013, p. 105.

[15] Nisbett R., Ross L., Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcoming of Social Judgment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1980.

[16] Walton R.E., McKersie R.B., A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw-Hill, New York 1993.

[17] Pruitt D.G., Carnevale P.J., Negotiation in social conflict, Open University Press, 1993.

[18] Raiffa H., The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard UP, Cambridge, 1982; Bazerman M.H. et al., Negotiation, „Annual Review of Psychology”, No. 51.1, 2000, pp. 279–314.

[19] Bottom W.P., Studt A., Framing Effects and the Distributive Aspect of Integrative Bargaining, „Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes”, No. 56.3, 1993, pp. 459-474.

[20] Thompson L., Hastie R., Social Perception in Negotiation, „Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes”, No. 47.1, 1990, pp. 98-123.

[21] Pinkley R.L., Impact of Knowledge Regarding Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiations: Whose Knowledge Counts?, „Journal of Applied Psychology”, No. 80.3, 1995, pp. 403-17.

[22] Pinkley R.L., Impact of Knowledge Regarding Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiations: Whose Knowledge Counts?, „Journal of Applied Psychology”, No. 80.3, 1995, pp. 403-17; Lewicki R.J., Saunders D.M., Barry B., Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases, McGraw-Hill, New York 2009.

[23] E.g. McGinn K.L., KerosA.T., Improvisation and the Logic of Exchange in Socially Embedded Transactions, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 47, 2002, pp. 442-473.

[24] de Dreu C.K.W. et al., Motivated Information Processing, Strategic Choice, and the Quality of Negotiated Agreement, „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, No. 90.6, 2006, pp. 927-43.

[25] Pinkley R.L., Impact of Knowledge Regarding Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiations: Whose Knowledge Counts?, „Journal of Applied Psychology”, No. 80.3, 1995, pp. 403-17.

[26] Park Ok-Choon, Gittleman S.S., Dynamic Characteristics of Mental Models and Dynamic Visual Displays, „Instructional Science”, No. 23.5, 1995, p. 303.