Article Summary of "Challenging the Assumptions of Traditional Approaches
to Negotiation" by Linda L. Putnam
Citation:
"Challenging the Assumptions of Traditional Approaches to Negotiation," Linda L. Putnam, Negotiation Journal, 10:4 (October 1994), pp. 337-345.
This Article Summary written by: Conflict Research Consortium Staff
Putnam questions three basic assumptions of negotiation theory.
She argues that current models ignore critical aspects of conflict management.
Since any theory necessarily highlight some elements at the expense of
others, our understanding of negotiation could be improved by developing
a variety of alternative theories.
One common assumption is that negotiation is a tool, an instrument,
used to achieve some substantive end. Negotiation features and processes
are described and evaluated in terms of their connection to some desired
outcome, and outcomes are though of as distinct from processes. This
assumption emphasizes substantive issues (interests and outcomes) and obscures
relationship or identity issues. Relationships, for example, may
be redescribed in instrumental terms. Rather than view negotiation as a
kind of relationship, relationships are seen as elements in the negotiation
process that can either facilitate or hinder outcomes. When negotiation
s thought of as a problem-solving tool, relationships may be redescribed
in terms of problems and outcomes. A bad relationship is seen as
a problem, an improved relationship as the desired outcome.
An alternative to the instrumental view is the transformative view;
negotiation is the process of producing fundamental change in a dispute.
The change may be in the way the parties understand themselves, their conflict,
their relationship, or their situation. Change can occur at the level
of issues, actors, rules, structure or context. A transformative
approach to negotiation emphasizes the role deliberative processes as processes
of learning and understanding. Researchers working outside of the
area of negotiation theory argue that the transformative approach addresses
one of the main objectives of conflicts generally, and that many intractable
conflicts can only be resolved by transformative processes. Putnam
also notes that a transformative approach, "treats instrumental ends and
bargaining outcomes as part of the totality of negotiation rather than
as the ultimate aim of the process."(p. 341)
Another common assumption is that individuals are the driving force
in negotiations. Models emphasize individual agency, autonomy, and
self-interest. They focus on how individuals make strategic choices,
handle relationships, manage face, and wield power. Even concern
for others is explained as a matter of enlightened self-interest.
"Individual agency is a value that is esteemed in Western culture.
It stems from a belief that society is made of distinct and radically separate
human beings who act independently and are accountable for their own choices."(p.
341)
There are a growing number of alternatives to this model. Other
approaches focus on relations between people and groups as the driving
force in negotiation. For example, rather than being something an
individual makes, choices are seen as the joint product of human interaction.
Changing relationships is the primary objective of negotiation, and relationships
are seen as valuable in their own right. Relational models give a
much fuller account of negotiations in established relationships or friendships
than individualistic, self interest-based models can.
Finally, "traditional negotiation models have exalted rationality to
a privileged status."(p. 342) Rationality is individual calculation;
it is conceived of as strategic planning, objective assessment, and purposeful
action. Here again, rationality is presented as a tool for pursuing
one's previously given ends. The overemphasis on rationality obscures
the role of emotion. When they are considered, emotions are either
seen as being disruptive of reason (anger), or are treated as tactics for
reaching a settlement (positive feelings make the opponent more agreeable).
The dialogic view offers an alternative. It sees negotiation as
a process of building mutual understanding. Feelings are recognized
as important sources of knowledge. "Narrative tales told by a group
of exemplary mediators indicate that intuition and sensing are critical
components of negotiation, ones tied closely to feelings."(p. 344)
The dialogic view accommodates these varied modes of perception and learning.
As traditional negotiation theory becomes more fully developed, it is
important for "arm chair theorists" to question its basic assumptions,
to search for areas that traditional approaches omit or mis-describe, and
to speculate on new and provocative alternatives.
|
