We surveyed business people on how they attempted to secure trust in relationships. We asked 52 MBA students to “ imagine that you are involved in a negotiation situation where you need to get commitment (i.e.,follow-through) from one or more of the people involved. The nature of the negotiation does not involve ‘binding contracts’ How do you try to install a sense of commitment in the absence any binding contracts?” The responses varied dramatically.
Persuasion
Coercion
Nonverbal
Verbal
Behavior
Rewards
Commitments
Incentive alignment
BATNA
Written agreement
Mutual enemy
Escrow
Review of categories(left to right)
Persuasion and consciousness-raising(e.g., “ I would reinforce the idea that this is the beginning of the long-time, multiple-contact relationship, and that it is in my counterparty’s best interest to think about the repercussions of reneging on the future negotiation”)
Coercion and threat tactics(e.g., humiliation, punishment, etc.)
Nonverbal strategies(e.g., handshakes, establishing rapport, “…look people in the eye, have them look at you, and say to you that they will do what you want them to do…” , etc,)
Verbal agreements
Behavior modification (e.g., tit for tat; social modeling)
Rewards and benefits
Public commitments(e.g.,…by making the outcome public, the erring party would suffer public embarrassment and suffer loss of reputation…”)
Alignment of incentives
Collecting information about’s BATNA
Written (nonbinding) agreements
Creation of a mutual enemy
Creating escrow or collateral arrangements
Transform personal conflict into task conflict
Two basic types of conflict occur in relationships. Personal conflict, also known as emotional conflict, is rooted in anger, personality clashes, ego, and tension. Task conflict, also known as cognitive conflict, is largely depersonalized. It consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans and projects, independent of the identity of the people involved. Task conflict is often effective in stimulating the creative necessary for integrative agreement because it forces people to rethink problems and arrive at outcomes that everyone can accept. Personal conflict threatens relationships, whereas task conflicts enhances relationships, provided that people are comfortable with it.
Agree on a common goal or shaded vision
When negotiators share a vision of the best method for reaching a bargaining agreement, they are more likely to make less selfish offers and reach an agreements . The importance of a common goal was summed up in a quote by Steve jobs, who led three high-profile Valley companies Apple, NEXT, and Pixar:” It okay to spend a lot of time arguing about which route take to San Francisco when everyone wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets wasted in such arguments if one person wants to go to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to San Diego.
Shortly after Steve Jobs negotiated a multi-million dollar marketing distribution deal with Disney, he was quoted as saying Disney’s top brass, Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg, didn’t appreciate and “had no clue” about how far Pixar’s technology could take them. Jobs was convinced that Pixar’s technology would revolutionize the business model for animated films and with Disney’s investment, ensure Pixar’s future survival. Even though the two businesses came from two different backgrounds, Jobs found a common bound between the companies: making a great movie. “One way to drive fear out of a relationship is to realize that your partner’s values the same as yours, that what your care about s exactly what they care about. In my opinion, that drives fear out and makes for a great partnership.
Capitalize on network connections
Negotiations who do not know each other may attempt to build a more trusting relationship by trying to find a common node in their social networks. However, getting people to talk to someone outside their social network is challenging. An investigating of a weekly business “mixer” revealed that people don’t mix as much as would be expects, given the purpose of the mixer. Affect-based trust is high among people who are embedded densely in their networks and among those who provided social support; cognition-based trust is higher in those with whom people engage in instrumental exchanges.
Find a shared problem or a shared enemy
It is remarkable how the presence of a common enemy can unite people and build trust. A shared was established during the Reagan-Gorbachev summit talks. One evening, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were drinking coffee after dinner on Lake Geneva. Secretary of State George P. Shultz turned to Georgi Kornienko, the Soviet first deputy foreign ministry, and accused him of trying to stall summit negotiations on bilateral issues. “You, Mr. Minister, are responsible for this,” Shultz declared. Then, turning to Gorbachev, the secretary of state added forcefully, “This man is not doing what you want him to da. He is not getting done what you what to done.” Reagan took advantage of the situation to create a common bond and looked at Gorbachev: “To hell with what they’re doing. You and I will say, “ We will work together make it come to about.’” Reagan and Gorbachev then shook hands. The moment marked a critical turning point in the summit talk.
Focus on the future
If negotiation can forgot the past and focus on their future, they can go a long way toward building trust. When negotiators expect to have future interaction with the counterparty, they have lower aspirations, expect negotiation to be friendlier, are more satisfied, and predominantly use a problem-solving bargaining style. Moreover, compared to one-time negotiation, those who expect to interact in the future have harmonious expectations and seek mutually beneficial solution. Viacom and Sony negotiated a deal in 2013 based on future cooperation. Viacom, the owner of cable channels including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and MTV agreed to let several of their channels be carried by Sony’s internet TV service a first-of-its-kind agreement between a major programmer and a technology giant not traditionally a television provider. Both parties recognized the mutual benefit of having popular Viacom channels on a system that targets a young demographic uninterested in traditional cable and satellite providers.