List as many situations as you can think of that involve negotiation possibilities:

• Situations when you could have negotiated, but did not.
• Situations when you did not negotiate well.
• Situations when you were overpowered and could not negotiate at all.
• Situations when you used power as “power over” rather than taking time to negotiate.
• Situations you are involved in that might benefit from negotiating.

Wallace, a U.S. citizen, was new to Kathmandu. He had been told by his friend Liz to “be a hard bargainer” when in this culture, where sellers thrive on negotiation. His first day on the streets, many vendors approached him and Liz as they strolled about. One young man, in particular, would not go away. He was selling “good, high-quality statues” for, as he said, a “rock price” (rock-bottom price). When the statue vendor first approached, Wallace stopped and looked intently at the statue. The vendor then stayed close to him for almost an hour, with Wallace saying, “I don’t want to buy,” but knowing that his looking at the statue made this protest sound rather hollow.

The vendor started at 500 rupees (about $10). After the first hour, Wallace gave in and started bargaining. His final offer was 300 rupees, which the vendor would not accept. Wallace and Liz left and returned to the market square some six hours later. The vendor spied them and started tagging along. Wallace bargained for a few minutes, then said, “OK, I now will give you only 250 rupees for the statue.” The vendor, after giving a speech about his family starving, and wringing his hands in agony, completed the sale and handed over the statue. Just as Wallace was beginning to feel smug about his fine bargaining ability, the vendor turned to Liz and said, “I’ll sell you one for 175 rupees.”

Watch a televised or live exchange, debate, or argument. You might watch an interview with at least two people and an interviewer. What kinds of argumentation can you identify? Does the conflict seem to be fairly argued? Assess the power among the participants. Is anyone using manipulative or dominance power? Now take what you saw one step farther. Imagine these participants are actually sitting down to negotiate one of the problems they argued about. What might they do to set up an equal negotiating situation? If a moderator were to take part, what could he or she do to help?

Caitlin, an entry-level employee who had just received her BA, worked for a veterans’ program. The program was underfunded, with many demands being placed on the staff members. The program director of the family services division asked Caitlin to design and teach a family communication program to families with preschool children. Caitlin felt unprepared, pushed too far and too fast, and unsupported for this high-visibility program (it would be filmed and put on public-access TV). Although Caitlin was newly hired, she had been given a lot of responsibility and did have legitimate power in the organization. She also wanted to work for the organization so didn’t want to resign under the pressure of three times too much work. Two possible scenarios follow:

Competitive Mode

Boss: Caitlin, you’ve got to do this program, and it has got to be good. Our grant funding for next year depends on delivering this service, which we said we’d provide.
Caitlin: I’d need a master’s degree, at least, to be able to design and teach this course. I can’t do it and keep track of the after-school program, too. I have too little secretarial support and too many projects that are needing my attention right now. I’m so stressed out I don’t know whether I can keep on.
Boss: I hired you to run this entire program. If you didn’t think you could do it, you shouldn’t have applied. Drop something less important and do this.

Collaborative Mode

Boss: Caitlin, I really need to get this program on family communication done. Our grant funding for next year depends on delivering this service, which we said we’d provide. Could you take it on?
Caitlin: I don’t see how. I have to keep track of the after-school program, and there are a lot of other things that are half-done, too. And I’m stressed out and have almost no secretarial support. Besides, I don’t have the training to put this course together. I’d need a master’s degree, at least.
Boss: What if I get you some staff help from social work? There’s a graduate student over there who said he’d like to do an internship with us. Maybe he could do the program development with you.
Caitlin: That sounds great, but I still need some secretarial help. Could you loan my program someone from your office?
Boss: I can’t do that permanently, but you can bring work over and I’ll delegate it.
Caitlin: OK. I’ll see what I can do. (She continues planning with the boss.)

In small groups of four or five people, take the following “position” statements and brainstorm possible interests that might underlie them. You should have a minimum of five possible interests for each position, all different from one another.

“I have to take 19 credits next term.”
“I want $250 for those skis.”
“You have to do the dishes every other night.”
“I want the kids to take my name, not their biological father’s.”
“Quit throwing your clothes on the floor of our apartment.”
“Pick me up at 8:00 sharp on Mondays to go to school.”
“You have to type the first draft of our project.”

A group of summer home owners in the high mountains of Colorado faces an ongoing problem with their water well, which keeps testing as polluted, thus making it necessary for the residents to boil or buy their water. Recently some of the elected officials of the volunteer board authorized a road to be built so heavy equipment could reach the wellhead and the well could be dug out and rebuilt. The road was built through wetlands, which raised some federal legal problems, and through a pristine meadow cherished by some of the residents as a quiet, beautiful spot at the end of the property. The road goes through commonly owned property, skirting the edge of privately owned lots. Three factions have formed, and full-scale conflict has erupted, with letters, private conversations, procedural challenges, content arguments, relationship destruction, and face-saving struggles going on at a high level of intensity. Thirty-five or so families are involved. It is a long-standing group of friends and acquaintances who have considerable monetary and emotional investment in the property and dramatically different ecological, political, financial, and community values.

1. The “water first” group: This group consists primarily of engineers, scientists, builders, and practical people who are sick and tired of dealing with a half-solution to the water problem year after year. They want to get a new well, install purification systems if they are needed, and assess the membership for what is required. They rely on scientific studies of the water quality as a database. In their view, the road was simply a means to an important end. They are convinced that their mandate was clear: to provide potable water for the group. They can’t understand the outrage of the second group. Many of this group have volunteered countless hours through the years for the practical maintenance of the roads, water system, fences, and governing system. This group is concerned with content goals and face saving. They argue that the content goals are the most important and that they did what they had to do (face saving).
2. The “road has to go” group: This group consists of a few older home owners and their adult children. The view of this group is that environmental concerns are primary. They will not tolerate compromise about the sensitive wetlands along the stream and feel outraged at the destruction of the most beautiful area of common property. They think the board acted without proper authorization by the membership and feel strongly that not only should the road never have been built but that it must be taken out and the area reclaimed. They prefer any solution, including boiling water for drinking, to the degradation of the environment. Many of this group will be second-generation home owners when they inherit the property from their parents. However, these group members have no vote in the association, since only property owners can vote. This group as a whole is concerned about appropriate process and has strongly held content goals.
3. The “we simply have to live with it” group: This group sees itself as the middle group between two extremes. Many of these people feel disappointed or angry about the gravel road and the fact that the water problem still is not solved. They want to support the elected board but don’t like all the conflict and alienation in what used to be a very close and friendly group, which had potlucks, birthday celebrations, and outings together. Now that the road is in, they think it should be accepted and used to solve the water problem. This group is concerned with relationships and face saving for the board. They keep their private opinions, whatever they might be, to themselves. They look to the future.

Now that you have read “The Rainbow Development Water Problem,” answer these questions:

• Specify (1) competitive, (2) collaborative, and (3) transformative approaches to defining this problem.
• How can concerns be addressed, relationships be enhanced, and solutions be found?
• What communicative moves from each of the three groups would enhance rather than destroy the ongoing relationships?
• If you were a negotiator for one of the groups, how might you approach the problem?