Turning "intellectual opposition" to cooperation in negotiations

R.M. Boylan BSc. M.A.

Intellectual Opposition & Constructive Controversy in Negotiations

"Difference of opionion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth."

Thomas Jefferson

1743-1826, American Founding Father of United States, 3rd President of U.S.

Thomas Jefferson, Statesman for the United States had a deep belief in the value and productiveness of constructive controversy and intellectual opposition. (Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Tjosvold, D. 2000 p. 65). This might explain how him and other iconic leaders created the success that the U.S. currently enjoys.

It is important to note that Thomas Jefferson was viewed as quite evolved in the research by Maslow and which I did on the minds of iconic leaders. When dealing with a style of leadership that is more authoritarian, remember, intellectual opposition may not be welcomed. In such a circumstance, resist challenging them; "intellectual opposition" may be viewed as "insolence". Authoritarians may view such interventions with haste and may punish subjects with covert or overt forms of retaliation. Choose your battles wisely as they say.

Upholding "intellectual opposition" regarding a stance can significantly hinder productivity during a negotiation. It's always more prudent to understand the interests and objections beforehand rather than entering unprepared. (Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T. (2002). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory & Practice. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco).

Intellectual Opposition and Ego Attachment to Beliefs

Intellectual opposition in negotiations often stem from a strong attachment to one’s beliefs, which can be influenced by ego. This attachment can manifest as a refusal to consider alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue, ultimately hindering the negotiation process.

Understanding Ego Attachment

Ego attachment refers to the emotional investment individuals have in their beliefs, ideas, and positions. According to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2012), people often develop a sense of identity around their beliefs, making it challenging to separate personal identity from the ideas being discussed. This can lead to a defensive posture in negotiations, where parties prioritize winning the argument over finding common ground.

Barriers to Effective Negotiations

1. Inflexibility: When parties are overly attached to their beliefs, they may become inflexible, resisting compromise or alternative solutions. Fisher and Ury (1981) emphasize that successful negotiations require a willingness to explore options and adjust positions based on new information.

2. Emotional Responses: Ego attachment can trigger emotional responses, such as anger or frustration, which can cloud judgment and lead to escalated conflict (Thompson, 2009). This emotional intensity can derail constructive dialogue and create an adversarial atmosphere.

3. Reduced Collaborative Spirit: Intellectual opposition fosters a competitive mindset rather than a collaborative one. As noted by Lewicki et al. (2015), negotiations thrive on cooperation and mutual respect; when parties are entrenched in their beliefs, the potential for collaboration diminishes.

Letting Go for Progress

For negotiations to progress towards mutual gains and achieving goals, one party must be willing to let go of their ego attachment and intellectual opposition. This act of letting go is crucial for several reasons:

1. Opening Channels for Communication: When one party relinquishes their rigid stance, it encourages the other party to do the same. This creates a more open environment for dialogue and exploration of solutions that satisfy both parties' interests (Ury, 1991).

2. Fostering Trust: Demonstrating a willingness to compromise can build trust between negotiating parties. Trust is essential for successful negotiations, as it lays the groundwork for future collaboration (Kahneman, 2011).

3. Facilitating Creative Solutions: Letting go of entrenched positions allows for the exploration of creative solutions that may not have been considered previously. As noted by Raiffa (1982), effective negotiators often find innovative ways to meet the interests of both parties when they are not bound by rigid beliefs.

Referent Power as a Tool in Negotiations

Referent power comes from an individual's capacity to draw others in and foster loyalty through personal traits and relationships. When negotiating with an opponent who displays bullying, deceitful, authoritarian, manipulative, or violent tendencies, referent power can be strategically used to establish a more favorable environment for discussion.

Strategies to Utilize Referent Power

• Building Rapport: Establishing a personal connection can help to humanize the negotiation process. This may involve finding common ground or shared interests that can serve as a basis for dialogue.

  
  

• Demonstrating Empathy: Acknowledging the adversary's feelings or grievances can defuse hostility. By showing understanding, you may be able to soften their approach and open pathways for negotiation.

  
  

• Modeling Desired Behavior: Displaying calmness and respect can influence the adversary's behavior. If they see you handling the situation with composure, they may mirror that behavior.

  
  

• Confronting the elephant in the room diplomatically. This approach should be used with extreme caution when dealing with a "Dark Triad" character. They may view honesty as an attack and launch a surprise attack unconsciously.

  
  

• Engaging Individuals with Dark Triad Traits

  
  

  Dealing with individuals characterized by hostility, competitiveness, aggression, Machiavellianism, narcissism, or psychopathy presents unique challenges. However, there are strategies that can inspire cooperation rather than conflict:

  
  

  • Appealing to Self-Interest: Highlighting how cooperation can benefit them can be effective. This might involve framing the negotiation in terms of their goals and how partnership can lead to mutual gain.

    
    

  • Creating a Sense of Importance: Individuals with narcissistic traits may respond positively to flattery or recognition of their status. Positioning them as key players or in charge in the negotiation can engage their ego and foster collaboration.

    
    

  • Establishing Boundaries: It is crucial to set clear limits on unacceptable behavior. This not only protects your interests but also establishes a framework for respectful negotiation. This may be tricky with someone who needs to dominate and inflict harm to feel powerful and in control.

    
    

In conclusion, intellectual opposition and ego attachment to beliefs can significantly hinder effective negotiations. For progress to occur, it is essential for at least one party to let go of their rigid stance, enabling a more collaborative approach that fosters mutual gains.

By prioritizing communication, trust, and creative problem-solving, parties can navigate their differences and work towards achieving their goals.

References

• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.

• Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books.

• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.

• Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.

• Thompson, L. (2009). Making the Best Deal: Negotiation Strategies for the Real World. Harvard Business Review Press.

• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. Bantam Books.

• Boylan, R.M. (2006-2009). Conflicts and considerations comparing Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs to Jane Loevinger's model of ego development for assessing the level of development of a leader. M.A. Leadership Studies.

• Blair, R. J. R. (2005). "Responding to the Emotions of Others: Dissociating Forms of Empathy through the Study of Antisocial Personality Disorder." Emotion, 5(1), 1-10.

• Raine, A. (2002). "Biosocial Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 1-10.

• Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

• French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

• Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283.

• Ury, W. (1993). Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

• "Dark Triad". Psychology Today United Kingdom. Retrieved July 6, 2022.  First published by Delroy, L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002

• Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T. (2002). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory & Practice. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.