Chiến lược lịch sự áp dụng trong đàm phán lương của nữ người Việt Nam và nữ các nước nói tiếng Anh trong môi trường làm việc đa văn hóa tại Việt Nam = politeness strategies employed in salary negotiation by vietnamese and anglophone females in multi - cul

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



ĐOÀN THỊ THU HẰNG




POLITENESS STRATEGIES EMPLOYED IN SALARY
NEGOTIATION BY VIETNAMESE AND ANGLOPHONE
FEMALES IN MULTI-CULTURAL WORKPLACE IN
VIETNAM

(Chiến lược lịch sự áp dụng trong đàm phán lương của nữ
người Việt Nam và nữ các nước nói tiếng Anh trong môi
trường làm việc đa văn hóa tại Việt Nam)




M.A Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15




HANOI - 2009





VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



ĐOÀN THỊ THU HẰNG




POLITENESS STRATEGIES EMPLOYED IN SALARY
NEGOTIATION BY VIETNAMESE AND ANGLOPHONE
FEMALES IN MULTI-CULTURAL WORKPLACE IN
VIETNAM

(Chiến lược lịch sự áp dụng trong đàm phán lương của nữ

người Việt Nam và nữ các nước nói tiếng Anh trong môi
trường làm việc đa văn hóa tại Việt Nam)


M.A Thesis




Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Văn Thị Thanh Bình, M.A





HANOI - 2009


108
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ……………………………………………………………………………………….i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………………………………… ii
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………… vi
LIST OF DIAGRAMS/CHARTS …………………………………………………………………… vii
PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Rationale of the study 1
1.2. Significance of the study 2
1.3. Scope and scale of the study 2
1.4. Objectives of the study 2
1.5. Methodology of the study 3
1.6. Organization of the study 4
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1.1. Introduction of speech acts: definition & classification 5
2.1.1.1. Definition of speech acts 5
2.1.1.2. Classification of speech acts 5
2.1.1.3. Classification of illocutionary acts 7
2.1.2. Speech acts in salary negotiation 11
2.1.2.1. General concepts of negotiation 11
2.1.2.1.1. Definition of negotiation 11
2.1.2.1.2. Approaches of negotiation 13
2.1.2.1.2. 1. Positional Bargaining 13
2.1.2.1.2. 2. Interest-Based Bargaining 15
2.1.2.2. Salary negotiation and speech acts in salary negotiation 18
2.1.2.2.1. After receiving a new job offer 18
2.1.2.2.2. Annual salary review 18
2.1.2.2.3. Salary rise proposed by the Employer 19
2.1.2.2.4. Salary rise requested by the Employee 19
2.1.3.1. The concept of face 21
2.1.3.2. Definition of politeness 21
2.1.3.3. Social factors and politeness 22
2.1.3.4. Major pragmatics principles 24
2.1.3.4.1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle 24
2.1.3.4.2. Lakoff’s Conversational – Maxim Approach 25

109
2.1.3.4.3. Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP) 26
2.1.3.4.4. Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness 27
2.1.3.5. Politeness strategies 29
2.1.3.5.1. Bald on record strategy 29
2.1.3.5.2. Positive politeness strategy 29
2.1.3.5.3. Negative politeness strategy 32
2.1.3.5.4. Off-record strategy 35
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 39
2.2.1. Overview of the research methods 39
2.2.2. Design of the study 40
2.2.2.1. Selection of informants 40
2.2.2.2. Data collection instrument 42
2.2.2.3. Data collection and processing procedure 45
CHAPTER 3: DATA PRESENTATION AND DICUSSION 47
2.3.1. The types of salary negotiation experienced by the informants 47
2.3.2. The respondents’ personal information 48
2.3.3. Respondents’ habit and opinion on salary negotiation 55
2.3.4. Most recent salary negotiation experience 61
2.3.5. Politeness strategies employed in respondents’ salary negotiation experience 65
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91
3.1. Major findings and conclusions 91
3.2. Recommendations 97
3.3. Limitations of the research and suggestions for further studies 102
REFERENCES 104
ANNEXES …………………………………………………………………………………………… I
Bank form of questionnaire


v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SHORT FORM
FULL WORD
CP
Co-operative principle
D
Distance
DCTs
Discourse completion tasks
FTAs
Face threatening acts
H
Hearer
MCQs
Multiple choice questions
NGOs
Non-governmental/non profitable organizations
P
Power
PP:
Politeness principle
Projects
Foreign aided Projects
PSs
Politeness strategies
R
Rank of imposition
S
Speaker
Sit

Situation
SN
Salary negotiation
Str
Strategy


vi
LIST OF TABLES
No.
Table Name
Page
Table 1
Speech acts classification proposed by Yule, G. (1996)
7
Table 2
Positive politeness strategies – names & examples
29
Table 3
Negative politeness strategies – names & examples
33
Table 4
Off-record/indirect strategies – names & examples
36
Table 5
Summary of politeness strategies in respondents’ answers to the question:
What is your expected salary?
69
Table 6
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers when X-4

is offered for the first time
71
Table 7
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to the
employers’ insistence on X-4 for the second time
73
Table 8
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to the
employer’s proposal for X-2 as the highest level he/she can offer
75
Table 9
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposal for salary
rise in annual personal talk
78
Table
10
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to
employers’ refusals for salary rise in annual talk
79
Table
11
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposals for
salary rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)
82
Table
12
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to
employers’ refusals for salary rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)
83
Table

13
Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposal for salary
rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)
86
Table
14
Politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to employer's refusal
for salary rise (not annual talk, more responsibilities)
87
Table
15
Grand summary of politeness strategies used in all asked salary
negotiation situations
88

vii
LIST OF CHARTS/DIAGRAMS
No.
Chart/Diagram Name
Page
Diagram 1
Pragmatics rules suggested by Lakoff R.
25
Diagram 2
Diagram of five strategies proposed by Brown & Levinson
28
Chart 1
Types of salary negotiation experienced by respondents
47
Chart 2

Age range of respondents
48
Chart 3
Anglophone respondents’ nationalities
49
Chart 4
Respondents’ positions/job tittles
50
Chart 5
English levels of Vietnamese respondents
51
Chart 6
Number of respondents’ working years
52
Chart 7
Number of jobs changed by respondents
53
Chart 8
Number of promotions attained by respondents
53
Chart 9
Respondents’ satisfaction of their current salaries
54
Chart 10
Pro-activeness in approaching employers (Sit. 1.2.1 in
questionnaire)
57
Chart 11
Pro-activeness in approaching employers (Sit. 1.2.2 in
questionnaire)

57
Chart 12
Preparation before salary negotiation
59
Chart 13
Items/Issues to be determined before negotiation
60
Chart 14
Requirement of employers’ decision in written form
61
Chart 15
Respondents’ relationship with their employers
62
Chart 16
After salary negotiation, is the relationship with the employer
affected?
63
Chart 17
Factors affecting salary negotiation
64
vii
Chart 18
Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power over the
employer upon job offer
66
Chart 19
Politeness strategies in respondents’ answers to the question:
What is your expected salary?
68
Chart 20

Respondents’ answers when X-4 is offered for the first time
70
Chart 21
Respondents’ answers to the employers’ insistence on X-4 for
the second time
72
Chart 22
Respondents’ answers to the employer’s proposal for X-2 as the
highest level he/she can offer
74
Chart 23
Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power over the
employer in annual personal talk
76
Chart 24
Respondents’ proposal for salary rise in annual personal talk
77
Chart 25
Respondents’ answers to employers’ refusals for salary rise in
annual talk
78
Chart 26
Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power in SN (not annual
talk, same responsibilities)
80
Chart 27
Respondents’ proposals for salary rise (not annual talk, same
responsibilities)
81
Chart 28

Respondents’ answers to employers’ refusals for salary rise (not
annual talk, same responsibilities)
82
Chart 29
Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power in SN (not annual
talk, more responsibilities)
84
Chart 30
Respondents’ proposal for salary rise (not annual talk, more
responsibilities)
85
Chart 31
Respondents’ answers to employer's refusal for salary rise (not
annual talk, more responsibilities)
86


1
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale of the study
In the past years, women‟s integration into the workplace has without doubt become wider and
deeper in all aspects of the working life with the most easily recognized phenomenon of
women performing tasks which are far beyond the limit of simple or assisting jobs. Instead,
more and more opportunities are offered to involve women in taking over jobs which require
more professional, analytical and even managerial skills – those who used to be considered
suitable and manageable by men only (Rizzo, A.M. & Mendez, C., 1990). The question of
how women handle problems arising in their workplace, much to the author of this paper‟s
investigation, has not received a good deal of academic attention and studies. Yet, there have
been few researchers are attracted to this area of research in response to the fact that
"skepticism surrounding women's ability to adopt managerial roles and responsibilities has

prevailed since the advent of women within the corporate hierarchy" (Portello & Long, 1994).
These researchers want to explore and explode the traditional view, long an impediment to
women's progress through the managerial ranks, that women are not "as good as men" at
negotiating. Other theorists, taking to heart either traditional cultural stereotypes or the
theories of cultural feminists, have sought to explore whether women really do speak in "a
different voice" than men when negotiating (Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993).
Deriving from the initial interest in the topic of females‟ participation in the workplace, after a
period of time searching for necessary documents from different sources such as books,
articles, magazines, previously implemented studies in the University Library and on the
Internet, the author of this paper (here-and-after referred as “the researcher”) has realized that:
Negotiation in the workplace is the common topic which has been discussed in general
terms by a numbers of scholars and researchers; nevertheless, salary negotiation (SN) has not
yet been of popular research topic and received only basic academic concern. Especially, the
roles and abilities of women in handling workplace negotiation have not yet been studied in
great focus.

2
Even in the documents or works that deal with SN issues, the link between the
achievement of SN results and the employment of related strategies such as negotiation
strategies, persuasion strategies, politeness strategies (PSs), etc. has not been clearly defined.
The researcher, besides having a special personal interest in the topic of the relationship
between PSs and SN, is currently working in a multi-cultural workplace where most of the
colleagues are females of both Vietnamese and Anglo-saxon nationalities. Additionally,
thanks to the so called “network” relationship in the current workplace, the researcher believes
to be able to get contacts with a necessary number of Vietnamese and Anglophone females in
the sector. These factors, added with the fact that previous studies launched at the university
have not dealt with the topic, have created an urge for the researcher to initiate the M.A thesis
namely: “Politeness strategies employed in salary negotiation by Vietnamese and Anglophone
females in multi-cultural workplace in Vietnam”.
1.2. Significance of the study

The study would hopefully be of practical use for not only females working in multi-cultural
workplace but also for working people in general. Moreover, the research would optimistically
become a good reference source for those who are particularly concerned about the utilization
of PSs in workplace and SN. If implemented successfully, this study would open up a fairly
new research topic which has rarely been done at the University before. The research would
also be a great contribution to other studies related to communication and negotiation skills.
1.3. Scope and scale of the study
As the research title suggests, this study focuses on the employment of PSs in SN by
Vietnamese and Anglophone females in multi-cultural workplace. Moreover, due to the
factual working conditions of the researcher, the study will be implemented with the
participation of females who are working in multi-cultural environment in Hanoi Capital,
Vietnam. Multi-cultural workplace is limited to NGOs & foreign aided projects in which
regular contacts between people of different nationalities are commonly found.
1.4. Objectives of the study

3
The research is launched in order to investigate the utilization of PSs in typical situations of
SN by Vietnamese and Anglophone females in their multi-cultural workplace in Vietnam.
Specifically, the study aims at finding answers to the research questions:
1. What are Vietnamese and Anglophone females‟ general understanding and common habits
in SN?
2. What are the PSs employed by Vietnamese and Anglophone females in SN in Vietnam
multi-cultural workplace?
3. Are there any differences in the choice of PSs in SN between Vietnamese and Anglophone
females? If yes, what may be the core reasons and implications?
4. What are the recommendations for both Vietnamese and Anglophone females to better
attain their expectations in SN?
To address those questions above, the following hypotheses are made before the study is
conducted:
- Vietnamese females may not have sound understanding and greatly appropriate habits in

SN. Anglophone females, thanks to the experience of working overseas, may be better
equipped with such concerns; however, certain limits can still be found and suggestions made
for a better change.
- Due to the difference in cultures, mainly between oriental and European cultures,
Vietnamese and Anglophone females, despite working in the same environment and
possessing certain characteristics in similarity, will tend to employ different kinds of PSs
(Vietnamese may tend to use more positive and indirect strategies whereas Anglophone will
turn more to negative strategies). Therefore, they will achieve different outcomes after SN
partly because of the difference mentioned above and added by other related factors.
The research will be conducted in seek of the answers to the above-mentioned factors and to
prove the hypotheses developed in advance.
1.5. Methods of the study

4
The study is conducted with the combination mainly of deductive and inductive methods. The
deductive method involves beginning with a general concept or given rule and moving on to a
more specific conclusion; whereas inductive method is a process of using observations to
develop general principles about a specific subject. In this study, a theoretical background
concerning the research issue is developed based on the review of related literature, and the
inductive method is utilized to prove the hypotheses made before the research. Importantly,
embedded in the study is the utilization of quantitative & qualitative methods with
questionnaire as the primary research tool added with and explained by notes taken during
discussions with informants. Additionally, personal observations and consultation from
experienced people working in the research field will make considerable contribution to the
analysis and discussion of the survey results.
1.6. Organization of the study
Following the standard format, the study is divided into three main parts namely Part 1 -
Introduction, Part 2 - Development and Part 3 - Conclusions and Recommendations. Part 1
provides general and primary information such as the rationale, significance, scope and scale,
objectives and methodology of the research. Part 2 consists of three Chapters which are:

Literature Review, Methodology, Data Presentation and Discussion. The first Chapter reviews
the related literature, specifically the overview of speech acts theories including necessary
details of PSs and the overview of negotiation in the workplace with focus on SN. The
viewpoints and ideas of the scholars added with the findings of previous related studies are
also embedded in this Chapter. Chapter 2 introduces the research overall methodology, major
approaches applied, data collection instruments utilized and procedures taken. The
presentation and discussion of data collected can be found in Chapter 3 of this part. Part 3
embraces the research major findings, conclusions, recommendations of the research and
suggestions for further studies. References and annexes that include the blank form of
questionnaire and other related documents are put in the last pages of the paper.

5
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1. Introduction of speech acts: definition & classification
2.1.1.1. Definition of speech acts
The philosopher J.L. Austin (1911-1960) who first introduced and used the term “speech acts”
claims that many utterances (things people say) are equivalent to actions. When someone says:
“I name this ship Titanic” or “I now pronounce you husband and wife”, those utterance creates
a new social or psychological reality. Those utterances not only contain grammatical and
lexical factors but also perform actions, i.e. in saying something, the speaker does something
(Austin, 1962). The actions performed via utterances for the purpose of communicating are
called speech acts. Since its creation by J.L. Austin, the concept of speech acts has become
central in the studies of a number of philosophers and linguists namely Grice (1957, 1975),
Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979), Levinson, Brown and Jule (1983), Mey (1993),
Thomas (1995), etc.
According to Verschueren (1977), speech acts are used in everyday life in the form of
thanking, congratulating, concluding, ordering, requesting, promising, threatening, etc. In
daily conversations, sentences are used rather independently from their lexical and
grammatical meanings. For instance, on meeting friends Vietnamese people may ask “How

are you?” which may be interpreted as a greeting rather than a serious question about health.
Richards (1985) also emphasizes:
“Speech acts are acts in nature, not sentences. There is no one utterance – one function
limitation. A single utterance can have more than one function. For example, the
utterance “I‟m thirsty” can be used to perform the acts of statement and request.”
2.1.1.2. Classification of speech acts
According to Austin, on any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance
consists of three related acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. These
three acts are ultimately related because in a meaningful utterance, “Speaker (S) says

6
something to Hearer (H); in saying something to H, S does something; and by doing
something, S affects H.” (Harnish, R.M., 2001). Specifically, the three types of acts are
defined as follows:
- Locutionary acts are simply the speech acts that have taken place. They are the
physical acts of producing well-formed and meaningful utterances.
- Illocutionary act are the real actions which are performed by the utterance, where
saying equals doing, as in betting, plighting one's troth, welcoming and warning. In other
words, an illocutionary act refers to the force/intention of the Speaker/Writer behind the
words. An illocutionary act is the making of a statement, promise, threat, etc. in uttering a
sentence by virtue of the conventional force associated with it. People utter to make statement,
offer, complaint or for other communicative purposes, which is called illocutionary force.
- Perlocutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener, who accepts the bet
or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned. That is the bringing about of the effects on the
audience by means of uttering the sentence. It also includes the change to state of mind,
knowledge or attitude of the Hearer/Reader.
For instance, when making a meaningful utterance “It is so cold in this room” (locutionary
act), we might intend to make a complaint or a request (illocutionary act) which may get H(s)
to close the window or increase the temperature in the room (perlocutionary act).
However, one problem triggers from the fact that one locution may embrace different

illocutionary forces in different contexts. For example, one locutionary act through the
utterance “Don‟t you know that this is a non-smoking department?” may represent different
illocutionary forces such as:
- A real question: S just wants to question whether or not H notices the fact that they are
in a non-smoking department;
- A complaint: S is annoyed because H is smoking in a place where smoking is not
allowed;
- A request: S wants H to stop smoking in that department.

7
Undoubtedly, context proves its crucial role in interpreting such utterances.
2.1.1.3. Classification of illocutionary acts
According to Yule, G. (1996), among the three types of speech acts, the most discussed one is
illocutionary force. He emphasizes that “indeed, the term speech act is generally interpreted
quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance”. Yule offers a table of
speech acts classification:
Speech act type
Direction of fit
S=Speaker; X=Situation
Declarations
Words change the world
S causes X
Representatives
Make words fit the world
S believes X
Expressives
Make words fit the world
S feels X
Directives
Make the world fit words

S wants X
Commissives
Make the world fit words
S intends X
Table 1: Speech acts classification proposed by Yule, G. (1996)
Searle, J.R. (1990) somehow shares his views in the above classification by Yule and he also
adds the concept of illocutionary point which refers to the point of purpose of illocution.
Searle identifies five illocutionary points which are representatives, directives, commissives,
expressives and declarations. Details are as follows:
- Representatives (assertives): S asserts a proposition to be true, using such verbs as: affirm,
believe, conclude, deny, report, etc. Simply speaking, representatives are the kinds of speech
acts that tell people how and what things are. Eg.: I believe that he will accept our pay rise
request.
- Directives: S tries to make H do something, with such words as: ask, beg, challenge,
command, dare, invite, insist, request. Eg.: Could you please turn down the volume a little bit?

8
- Commissives: S commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course of action, with verbs such
as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow, undertake, warrant. Eg.: I promise you a 10% rise
in your salary at the beginning of next year if you implement the three modules of Middle
Management Course in Kontum well enough.
- Expressives: S expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs, using such verbs as:
apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, detest, regret, thank, welcome. Eg.: Much as I
wish to increase your salary as an encouragement, I regret to tell you that our budget line for
your position does not allow any rise.
- Declarations: S alters the external status or condition of an object or situation, solely by
making the utterance: I now pronounce you man and wife, I sentence you to be hanged by the
neck until you be dead, I name this ship Titanic, etc.
Besides this classification which divides speech acts into five types as mentioned above, Yule
claims that speech acts can be distinguished into direct and indirect ones by combining three

structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and three general communicative
functions (statement, question, command/request). According to him,
- In direct speech acts, S says what he/she means and there exists a direct relationship
between a structure and function. Eg. “Please increase the temperature in this room a little
bit.”
- In indirect speech acts, there is an indirect relationship between a structure and function.
Here S means more than he/she says, which means S performs one illocutionary act implicitly
by the way of performing another illocutionary act explicitly. For instance, instead of
requesting “Please increase the temperature in this room a little bit” (direct speech act), one
could ask “Do you think it is so cold in this room?” (indirect speech act).
In terms of classification, it is worth mentioning Performatives - the speech acts of a special
kind where the utterance of the right words by the right person in the right situation effectively
to accomplish a certain social act. In some cases, the speech must be accompanied by a
ceremonial or ritual action. Whether S in fact has the social or legal (or other kind of) standing

9
to accomplish the act depends on some things beyond the mere speaking of the words. These
are felicity conditions, which we can also explain by the “hereby” test, Eg.: “I hereby sentence
you to three months' probation.”
One simple but crude way to decide whether a speech act is of such a kind that we can aptly
call it a performative is to insert the word “hereby” between subject and verb. If the resulting
utterance makes sense, then the speech act is probably a performative. It is crude, because it
implies at least one felicity condition - whatever it is to which “hereby” refers. In the above
example, “hereby” may refer to the speaker's situation - in sitting as chairman of the bench of
magistrates.
These are conditions necessary to the success of a speech act. They take their name from a
Latin root - “felix” or “happy”. They are conditions needed for success or achievement of a
performative. Only certain people are qualified to declare war, baptize people or sentence
convicted felons. In some cases, the speaker must be sincere (as in apologizing or vowing).
And external circumstances must be suitable: “Can you give me a lift?” requires that H has a

motor vehicle, is able to drive it somewhere and that S has a reason for the request. It may be
that the utterance is meant as a joke or sarcasm, in which case a different interpretation is in
order. Loosely speaking, felicity conditions are of three kinds: preparatory conditions,
conditions for execution and sincerity conditions.
- Preparatory conditions include the status or authority of S to perform the speech act,
the situation of other parties and so on.
- Conditions for execution can assume an exaggerated importance. We are so used to a
ritual or ceremonial action accompanying the speech act that we believe the act is invalidated,
if the action is lacking
- Sincerity conditions: at a simple level these show that S must really intend what he or
she says. In the case of apologizing or promising, it may be impossible for others to know how
sincere S is. Moreover sincerity, as a genuine intention (now) is no assurance that the
apologetic attitude will last, or that the promise will be kept. There are some speech acts - such
as plighting one's troth or taking an oath - where this sincerity is determined by the presence of

10
witnesses. The one making the promise will not be able later to argue that he or she didn't
really mean it.
Summary: So far, the definition and several ways in classifying speech acts proposed by
different authors/linguists have been reviewed. The next part will deal with details of
negotiation – a process of discussion which involves different parties who, during that process,
perform numerous types of speech acts in achieving their pre-determined goals.

11
2.1.2. Speech acts in salary negotiation
2.1.2.1. General concepts of negotiation
2.1.2.1.1. Definition of negotiation
In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying
to work out a solution to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at
a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international/diplomatic level. Negotiations

typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on
his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them. The parties acknowledge that
there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence
to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them.
They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact (Lax
. D. & Sebenius, J., 2006).
According to Firth, A. (1995), when parties negotiate, they usually expect give and take.
While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do
not want or need exactly the same thing. This interdependence can be either win-lose or win-
win in nature, and the type of negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly. The
disputants will either attempt to force the other side to comply with their demands, to modify
the opposing position and move toward compromise, or to invent a solution that meets the
objectives of all sides. The nature of their interdependence will have a major impact on the
nature of their relationship, the way negotiations are conducted, and the outcomes of these
negotiations.
As viewed by Lax, D. & Sebenius, J. (2006), mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the
changes that occur during a negotiation. Both parties know that they can influence the other's
outcomes and that the other side can influence theirs. The effective negotiator attempts to
understand how people will adjust and readjust their positions during negotiations, based on
what the other party does and is expected to do. The parties have to exchange information and
make an effort to influence each other. As negotiations evolve, each side proposes changes to
the other party's position and makes changes to its own. This process of give-and-take and

12
making concessions is necessary if a settlement is to be reached. If one party makes several
proposals that are rejected, and the other party makes no alternate proposal, the first party may
break off negotiations. Parties typically will not want to concede too much if they do not sense
that those with whom they are negotiating are willing to compromise.
Moore, C.W. (1996) asserts that negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old
relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none

existed before. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Those who work in
negotiation professionally are called negotiators. Professional negotiators are often
specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage
negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers.
In his study section about negotiation, Moore, C.W. mentions that for negotiations to result in
positive benefits for all sides, the negotiators must define what the problem(s) is/are and what
each party wants. In defining the goals of negotiation, according to him, it is important to
distinguish between issues, positions, interests and settlement options.
• An issue is a matter or question parties disagree about. Issues can usually be stated as
problems. For example, "How can benefit sharings be fairly divided between related
stakeholders in community forests harvesting in Tul village?" Issues may be substantive
(related to money, time or compensation), procedural (concerning the way a dispute is
handled), or psychological (related to the effect of a proposed action).
• Positions are statements by a party about how an issue can or should be handled or
resolved; or a proposal for a particular solution. A disputant selects a position because it
satisfies a particular interest or meets a set of needs.
• Interests are specific needs, conditions or gains that a party must have met in an
agreement for it to be considered satisfactory. Interests may refer to content, to specific
procedural considerations or to psychological needs.
• Settlement Options are possible solutions which address one or more party's interests.
The presence of options implies that there is more than one way to satisfy interests.

13
It can also be said that negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and
substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the
parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which
all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the
communication between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the
parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the
options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.

2.1.2.1.2. Approaches of negotiation
The negotiator will need to select a general negotiation approach. There are many techniques,
but the two most common approaches to negotiation are Positional Bargaining and Interest-
based Bargaining. The classification and specific details of both approaches are mainly
introduced by Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B. (1991) in the book “Getting to yes: Negotiating
agreement without giving in”:
2.1.2.1.2. 1. Positional Bargaining
Positional Bargaining is a negotiation strategy in which a series of positions, alternative
solutions that meet particular interests or needs, are selected by a negotiator, ordered
sequentially according to preferred outcomes and presented to another party in an effort to
reach agreement. The first or opening position represents that maximum gain hoped for or
expected in the negotiations. Each subsequent position demands less of an opponent and
results in fewer benefits for the person advocating it. Agreement is reached when the
negotiators' positions converge and they reach an acceptable settlement range.
People are said to use Positional Bargaining when: The resource being negotiated is limited
(time, money, psychological benefits, etc.); A party wants to maximize his/her share in a fixed
sum pay off; The interests of the parties are not interdependent, are contradictory or are
mutually exclusive; Current or future relationships have a lower priority than immediate
substantive gains. What follows is the main step of Positional Bargaining:

14
1. Set your target point solution that would meet all your interests and result in complete
success for you
2. Make target point into opening position
3. Set your bottom line or resistance point - the solution that is the least you are willing to
accept and still reach agreement
4. Consider possible targets and bottom lines of other negotiators
5. Consider a range of positions between your target point and bottom line which are:
- Opening position
- Secondary position

- Subsequent position
- Fallback position (yellow light that indicates you are close to bottom line)
- Bottom line
6. Decide if any of your positions meets the interests or needs of the other negotiators
7. Decide when you will move from one position to another
8. Order the issues to be negotiated into a logical and beneficial sequence
9. Open with an easy issue
10. Open with a position close to your target point
11. Allow other side to explain their opening position
12. If appropriate, move to other positions that offer other negotiator(s) more benefits
13. Look for a settlement or bargaining range spectrum of possible settlement alternatives
any one of which is preferable to impasse or no settlement
14. Compromise on benefits and losses where appropriate
15. Look for how positions can be modified to meet all negotiators' interests

15
16. Formalize agreements in writing
2.1.2.1.2. 2. Interest-Based Bargaining
Interest-based bargaining involves parties in a collaborative effort to jointly meet each other's
needs and satisfy mutual interests. Rather than moving from positions to counter positions to a
compromise settlement, negotiators pursuing an interest-based bargaining approach attempt to
identify their interests or needs and those of other parties prior to developing specific
solutions. Interests are needs that a negotiator wants satisfied or met. There are three types of
interests: - Substantive interests content needs (money, time, goods or resources, etc.); -
Procedural interests needs for specific types of behavior or the "way that something is done.";
- Relationship or psychological interests needs that refer to how one feels, how one is treated
or conditions for ongoing relationship. After the interests are identified, the negotiators jointly
search for a variety of settlement options that might satisfy all interests, rather than argue for
any single position. The parties select a solution from these jointly generated options. This
approach to negotiation is frequently called integrated bargaining because of its emphasis on

cooperation, meeting mutual needs, and the efforts by the parties to expand the bargaining
options so that a wiser decision, with more benefits to all, can be achieved. People often use
Interest-Based Bargaining when: The interests of the negotiators are interdependent.; It is not
clear whether the issue being negotiated is fixed-sum; Future relationships are a high priority;
When negotiators want to establish cooperative problem-solving rather than competitive
procedures to resolve their differences; Negotiators want to tailor a solution to specific needs
or interests; A compromise of principles is unacceptable. Following is the generalized
procedure for Interest-Based Bargaining:
1. Clearly identify the substantive, procedural and relationship interest/needs that you expect
to be satisfied as a result of negotiations
2. Speculate on the substantive, procedural and relationship interests that might be important
to the other negotiators

16
3. Begin negotiations by educating each other about your respective interests, make sure all
interests are understood
4. Frame the problem in a way that it is solvable by a win/win solution
5. Identify general criteria that must be present in an acceptable settlement.
6. Generate multiple options for settlement; make sure that more than two options are on the
table at any given time.
7. Utilize integrative option generating techniques
8. Separate the option generation process from the evaluation process
9. Work towards agreement: -Start with a problem solving rather than competitive approach;
Provide benefits above and beyond the call of duty; Listen and convey to other negotiators that
they have been heard and understood; Listen and restate content to demonstrate understanding;
Listen and restate feelings to demonstrate acceptance (not necessarily agreement) and
understanding of intensity
10. Identify areas of agreement, restate them, and write them down.
Nowadays, an Integrated Approach is often mentioned as the combination of the benefits of
the two approaches mentioned above and at the same time minimization of the costs caused by

them. Naturally, all negotiations involve some Positional Bargaining and some Interest-based
Bargaining, but each session may be characterized by a predominance of one approach or the
other. Negotiators who take a Positional Bargaining approach will generally use Interest-based
Bargaining only during the final stages of negotiations. When Interest-based Bargaining is
used throughout negotiations it often produces wiser decisions in a shorter amount of time
with less incidence of adversarial behavior.
Negotiation theorists make several overlapping distinctions about approaches to negotiation.
Besides the distinction proposed above, Morton Deutsch (2006) also makes the distinction
between Competitive and Cooperative Approaches. According to Deutsch, the most important
factors that determine whether an individual will approach a conflict cooperatively or
competitively are the nature of the dispute and the goals each side seeks to achieve. Often the

17
two sides' goals are linked together, or interdependent. The parties' interaction will be shaped
by whether this interdependence is positive or negative. According to Deutsch:
- Goals with positive interdependence are tied together in such a way that the chance of one
side attaining its goal is increased by the other side' attaining its goal. Positively
interdependent goals normally result in Cooperative Approaches to negotiation, because any
participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain
their goals."
- On the other hand, negative interdependence means the chance of one side attaining its goal
is decreased by the others‟ success. Negatively interdependent goals force competitive
situations, because the only way for one side to achieve its goals and "win" is for the other side
to "lose."
Although Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) argue that almost any dispute can be resolved with
Interest-based Bargaining (i.e., a Cooperative Approach), other theorists believe the two
approaches should be used together. Lax and Sebenius (2006), for instance, argue that
negotiations typically involve "creating" and "claiming" value. First, the negotiators work
cooperatively to create value (that is, "enlarge the pie,") but then they must use competitive
processes to claim value (that is, "divide up the pie").

However, a tension exists between creating and claiming value. This is because the
competitive strategies used to claim value tend to undermine cooperation, while a Cooperative
Approach makes one vulnerable to competitive bargaining tactics. The tension that exists
between cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as "The Negotiator's Dilemma”:
- If both sides cooperate, they will both have good outcomes.
- If one cooperates and the other competes, the cooperator will get a terrible outcome and the
competitor will get a great outcome.
- If both compete, they will both have mediocre outcomes.
- In the face of uncertainty about what strategy the other side will adopt, each side's best
choice is to compete.