Popular in Professional

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

High school change

Boston College Andrew Hargreaves

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Negotiating in Professional Relationship

View more insights in Professional - Business - Leadership

View more figures from Wilfrid Laurier University

View the page of Tatiana Astray

Read the Study

Next in Business

Teaching Democracy and Capitalism

Robert Bruna | University of Virginia

Do Employees Cheer for Private Equity?

Oleg Gredil | Tulane University

Tatiana Astray provides a theoretical model with two mediators, Integrative Bargaining Behaviours and Integrity Trust, and a serial mediating method through Psychological Safety.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 8, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the insights gained from research on negotiating in professional relationships, emphasizing the importance of relationship quality over purely economic models of negotiation. It references Greenall's 1987 research that revealed rather counterintuitive behaviors where individuals maintained relationships during economic hardships instead of switching to cheaper alternatives, demonstrating a deep understanding of long-term relational value.

The speaker's own research involved interviews with lawyers to study how negotiation strategies varied across different career stages, revealing that seasoned lawyers tend to focus on relationship management and trust rather than aggressive negotiation tactics. The research identifies two aspects of relationship quality: "relationship capacity" (the ability to handle difficult conversations) and "relationship experience" (perception of mutual regard).

Additionally, the study highlights the significance of subjective value outcomes—how satisfied individuals feel with the negotiation process—as a predictor of future economic outcomes. The speaker conducted quantitative studies to further explore the relationship between quality and negotiation success, finding that high-quality relationships foster integrative bargaining behaviors and allow for open communication, ultimately leading to better negotiation outcomes.

The research underscores practical implications, such as the need to differentiate between relationship capacity and subjective experience when forming business relationships, suggesting strategies tailored to the relational context, whether new or established. The findings advocate for a shift in perspective, viewing negotiations as opportunities to build cooperative relationships rather than merely competitive encounters. This video video approach not only leads to richer professional experiences but also fosters a positive work environment where individuals enjoy their interactions.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:01.165
Negotiating in,

00:01.165 --> 00:03.165
professional relationships came actually,

00:03.305 --> 00:04.405
from two parts.

00:04.745 --> 00:09.165
One is really old research from Greenall in 1987,

00:09.265 --> 00:11.925
and what he noticed was that in professional relationships,

00:11.925 --> 00:14.565
people did things that were very counterintuitive from an

00:14.805 --> 00:15.885
economic, model.

00:15.985 --> 00:18.685
For example, when there were bad economic forces,

00:19.305 --> 00:23.085
you would expect, individuals to switch suppliers

00:23.145 --> 00:24.725
to kind of cheaper relationships

00:24.745 --> 00:26.765
and really take advantage of individuals.

00:27.185 --> 00:28.205
But what he found was

00:28.205 --> 00:30.045
that actually people didn't do these switches

00:30.115 --> 00:31.805
that they held onto the relationships.

00:32.105 --> 00:33.805
And from an economic model, this was seen

00:33.805 --> 00:35.045
as kind of irrational.

00:35.545 --> 00:38.925
Why wouldn't you leverage the opportunities in the market?

00:39.705 --> 00:43.525
Um, but what he dig dug deeper, what he noticed, what was

00:43.525 --> 00:45.965
that people actually cared about their relationships.

00:45.985 --> 00:47.685
And what was happening in these times is

00:47.685 --> 00:51.445
that they were preserving the, the business relationships

00:51.445 --> 00:53.765
that they had, so that later when there was an economic

00:54.245 --> 00:58.085
hardship and maybe they were on the other end of that,

00:58.445 --> 01:00.885
equation, their relationships protected them.

01:01.425 --> 01:02.885
So this was a really deep insight.

01:03.045 --> 01:05.845
'cause what it said was that individuals weren't irrational.

01:06.895 --> 01:09.705
They just weren't, behaving under an economic model.

01:09.705 --> 01:11.705
They were doing something that was socially rational.

01:12.045 --> 01:14.145
So my research was kind of built on this idea

01:14.145 --> 01:17.305
that people are not, as I said, irrational.

01:17.305 --> 01:19.185
They actually have very deep rationalities

01:19.245 --> 01:20.785
for why they maintain relationships

01:20.805 --> 01:22.825
and how it impacts their professional relationships.

01:22.925 --> 01:25.145
But actually, these are long term views.

01:25.145 --> 01:27.145
People are trying to maximize the most out

01:27.145 --> 01:28.905
of their relationship, which means

01:28.905 --> 01:31.785
that any individual negotiation is kind

01:31.785 --> 01:33.465
of in the wash over the long term.

01:34.325 --> 01:37.385
Um, later, what I did was I actually negotiated all the top

01:37.575 --> 01:39.305
lawyers in Toronto.

01:39.565 --> 01:41.985
So we have our Bay Street, and I went around

01:42.005 --> 01:43.985
and I, interviewed early

01:44.205 --> 01:46.985
and late career stage negotiators,

01:47.275 --> 01:48.985
where lawyers are doing this in their

01:48.985 --> 01:50.425
profession every single day.

01:51.045 --> 01:54.425
And what I found was that all the late stage lawyers had

01:54.575 --> 01:55.625
very different insights

01:55.625 --> 01:56.825
and very different negotiation

01:56.825 --> 01:58.305
strategies than the young lawyers.

01:58.885 --> 02:01.825
So the young lawyers were actually a little bit more brash.

02:02.095 --> 02:05.265
They didn't realize, that they would be negotiating

02:05.265 --> 02:06.505
with their counterparts all the time.

02:07.085 --> 02:08.745
But these late stage lawyers realized

02:08.815 --> 02:10.545
that their bar was really small.

02:10.645 --> 02:13.585
And so they had to do these relationship based tactics

02:13.585 --> 02:15.345
where they had to manage the relationship.

02:15.775 --> 02:18.505
They had to think about how one individual negotiation was

02:18.505 --> 02:20.185
gonna impact a future client.

02:20.885 --> 02:23.985
And they were always managing the idea of trust, right?

02:24.325 --> 02:25.825
One thing, one lawyer told me,

02:25.825 --> 02:27.025
you know, you killed them with kindness.

02:27.685 --> 02:29.665
So you lay this very solid foundation

02:29.745 --> 02:30.745
of being very trustworthy,

02:30.805 --> 02:32.465
but to your benefit in the long term.

02:32.925 --> 02:35.225
And this was really counterintuitive, to

02:35.225 --> 02:36.545
how we looked at negotiations.

02:36.925 --> 02:40.025
So I became really interested in this idea of like, how do,

02:40.205 --> 02:42.145
how does relationship quality actually

02:42.145 --> 02:43.305
impact the negotiation?

02:43.685 --> 02:45.905
And in the literature we look at relationship types.

02:46.005 --> 02:49.465
So are we friends with them? Are there our partners?

02:49.645 --> 02:51.265
Is it just a professional relationship?

02:51.645 --> 02:53.985
But we didn't really look at the variation of

02:53.985 --> 02:56.505
that relationship quality, which impacts a lot

02:56.505 --> 02:59.565
what happens in the negotiation, process.

02:59.745 --> 03:02.885
So the actual negotiation behaviors and in the outcomes.

03:04.295 --> 03:06.315
So let me chat a little bit about,

03:06.455 --> 03:08.155
how we define relationship quality

03:08.615 --> 03:10.515
and then its impact on negotiations.

03:10.515 --> 03:12.915
Before I get into, some of the research that I did,

03:13.335 --> 03:14.795
so negotiation,

03:14.795 --> 03:17.635
relationships can be broken down into two types,

03:17.775 --> 03:18.915
or two subcategories.

03:18.935 --> 03:22.155
One is the type, so the degree of interdependence.

03:22.155 --> 03:25.475
And in the work context, we have no,

03:26.235 --> 03:28.595
recourse into who our professional partners are.

03:28.695 --> 03:30.035
So that part is solidified,

03:30.575 --> 03:33.155
but relationship quality, which is the perception of

03:33.155 --> 03:34.875
that interdependence being positive

03:34.875 --> 03:36.195
or negative,

03:36.335 --> 03:39.115
is a little bit more varied in the professional context

03:39.335 --> 03:40.635
and actually has an impact on

03:40.635 --> 03:42.075
who we decide to do business with.

03:42.535 --> 03:43.915
Um, do we decide to trust them?

03:43.935 --> 03:45.315
Do we decide to share information?

03:45.775 --> 03:49.035
And that variation actually does have an impact on the

03:49.035 --> 03:50.755
process, the beliefs and the outcomes.

03:51.575 --> 03:55.725
Um, so we know from early research that yes,

03:55.725 --> 03:58.645
relationships impact the norms,

03:58.745 --> 04:00.205
the negotiation behaviors

04:00.305 --> 04:03.005
and the outcomes in terms of economic outcomes

04:03.065 --> 04:05.005
and subjective value out outcomes.

04:05.065 --> 04:07.085
So subjective value outcomes is really like

04:07.785 --> 04:10.925
how satisfied are you with the process, the relationship,

04:10.925 --> 04:14.125
and the outcome, the economic outcome itself.

04:15.665 --> 04:19.165
Um, and, let me,

04:19.345 --> 04:22.405
let me break down a little bit about why the subjective

04:22.405 --> 04:24.645
component outcome is important to negotiations

04:24.665 --> 04:26.965
and why it's specifically tied to relationship quality.

04:27.585 --> 04:30.725
So early on when we started studying negotiations, the,

04:30.985 --> 04:32.405
the economic outcome is something

04:32.405 --> 04:33.805
that people were really interested in.

04:33.865 --> 04:37.445
Of course, we wanna maximize negotiations at any point.

04:38.065 --> 04:40.405
Um, but what was interesting is when we, again, take

04:40.405 --> 04:43.165
that long-term view of relationships, we actually found

04:43.165 --> 04:46.125
that, economic outcome wasn't always the best predictor

04:46.125 --> 04:47.165
of future economic outcome.

04:47.825 --> 04:52.235
And early work by Hillary, Hillary anger,

04:53.355 --> 04:56.515
I, my God, I always mess up red iPhone by Hillary anger,

04:56.615 --> 04:57.915
iPhone, by, yeah.

04:57.975 --> 05:01.755
She basically did this really important research to show

05:01.755 --> 05:05.235
that the subjective value outcome had the biggest impact on

05:05.675 --> 05:06.715
economic outcome in the future.

05:07.935 --> 05:11.395
And that's because it's not ju when we negotiate,

05:11.415 --> 05:13.435
we don't just care about maximizing outcome.

05:13.455 --> 05:15.235
We actually are always answering the question of,

05:15.255 --> 05:16.675
do I wanna work with you again?

05:17.055 --> 05:18.715
Do I wanna negotiate with you again?

05:18.855 --> 05:20.995
Can I trust you in a future negotiation?

05:21.655 --> 05:23.195
Um, and her work was interesting

05:23.315 --> 05:26.515
'cause she, interviewed MBAs,

05:26.705 --> 05:28.395
following their job offer.

05:29.615 --> 05:33.315
And this job offer negotiation predicted,

05:34.115 --> 05:38.195
a long-term turnover satisfaction with the job, more so than

05:38.195 --> 05:39.355
that economic outcome.

05:39.375 --> 05:41.635
And in future work, she actually tied the subjective

05:41.635 --> 05:43.155
component to future economic outcomes.

05:43.215 --> 05:45.035
So it, it teaches us that

05:45.035 --> 05:47.395
that subjective component is really important,

05:47.535 --> 05:49.555
really looking to establish how,

05:49.555 --> 05:51.875
relationship quality impacts negotiations.

05:52.615 --> 05:54.755
We don't actually have any real world studies.

05:54.935 --> 05:57.765
So my dissertation was looking at when proving that concept

05:57.945 --> 05:59.285
and then bringing it into the lab.

05:59.945 --> 06:04.405
Um, so the first study was, I actually sent out,

06:04.905 --> 06:08.005
surveys to people, working whether

06:08.005 --> 06:10.845
or not there were lawyers, business individuals.

06:11.305 --> 06:14.285
Um, and I was just looking to establish that basic link,

06:14.435 --> 06:15.605
high quality relationships

06:15.665 --> 06:18.565
or low quality relationships, impact negotiation processes

06:18.565 --> 06:19.805
and that subjective component.

06:20.385 --> 06:22.205
The second study, I brought it into a lab

06:22.545 --> 06:24.445
and I put, I,

06:24.765 --> 06:26.965
I actually assessed the people's relationship

06:27.305 --> 06:30.405
and then I created high and low relationship quality groups

06:30.545 --> 06:32.685
and then put these groups, a few weeks

06:32.685 --> 06:34.645
after into a negotiation simulation.

06:35.165 --> 06:37.125
I measured the outcomes and then I measured their

06:37.125 --> 06:39.205
relationship quality again a few weeks out.

06:39.425 --> 06:41.365
And that allowed me to track whether

06:41.365 --> 06:44.645
or not relationship quality actually had an impact in this

06:44.645 --> 06:47.045
naturalistic setting beyond what people reported.

06:47.705 --> 06:49.805
So first, let me speak to relationship quality.

06:49.965 --> 06:52.565
'cause I, I think intuitively we think we know

06:52.685 --> 06:54.045
what it means, but when you break it down,

06:54.065 --> 06:55.165
it actually means something else.

06:55.765 --> 06:58.965
Relationship quality is made up of two sub components.

06:59.145 --> 07:00.765
One is relationship capacity,

07:01.145 --> 07:02.885
and then the relationship experience.

07:03.145 --> 07:05.565
So the relationship capacity is that part

07:05.565 --> 07:06.685
that people don't often think about.

07:07.195 --> 07:09.405
It's the capacity of the relationship

07:09.585 --> 07:12.005
to handle difficult conversations

07:12.785 --> 07:15.685
and to engage in the processes needed to problem solve.

07:15.745 --> 07:18.365
So the sub components would be emotional caring capacity.

07:18.365 --> 07:21.565
So can you handle more difficult emotions, the ility,

07:21.565 --> 07:24.485
which means after you handle the difficult emotions,

07:24.485 --> 07:26.685
can you kind of come back to a good base?

07:26.985 --> 07:28.045
And the connectivity,

07:28.115 --> 07:31.475
like is there a we in the relationship?

07:31.905 --> 07:34.875
Then the subjective component is more intuitive.

07:35.135 --> 07:36.235
The positive regard

07:36.255 --> 07:39.155
and the mutuality are we both reciprocal in our exchanges?

07:39.455 --> 07:41.235
And both these things are very important,

07:41.235 --> 07:42.515
especially in a professional context,

07:42.515 --> 07:44.355
because you might like a person,

07:44.495 --> 07:46.995
but if you can't actually do the negotiation properly,

07:47.295 --> 07:48.915
you're gonna get a worse outcome.

07:49.415 --> 07:50.555
You might love a person,

07:50.775 --> 07:51.875
but if you can't work with them,

07:52.425 --> 07:54.835
it's a dysfunctional relationship in the work context.

07:55.815 --> 07:59.435
Um, so that variability is very important.

07:59.495 --> 08:00.835
And specifically that factor,

08:00.835 --> 08:02.395
that capacity for negotiations.

08:02.975 --> 08:07.715
So in the first, survey, I asked individuals first,

08:08.015 --> 08:10.275
identify a good

08:10.295 --> 08:12.035
or a bad situation that you had just

08:12.035 --> 08:13.115
to cue that relationship.

08:13.855 --> 08:15.275
Um, and I randomized whether

08:15.275 --> 08:17.435
or not people were answering on,

08:17.625 --> 08:19.475
like a good relationship or positive.

08:19.735 --> 08:21.835
And then afterwards I assessed the mediator's psychological

08:21.895 --> 08:23.435
safety or integrity.

08:23.695 --> 08:26.355
And I asked them what happened in that last interaction?

08:26.695 --> 08:29.635
Did you engage in integrative or distributive behaviors?

08:30.015 --> 08:31.955
And then kind of what was your outcome?

08:32.215 --> 08:33.955
And let me just break that down a little bit more.

08:34.185 --> 08:38.155
Psychological safety is the salience of,

08:38.635 --> 08:40.235
a relationship being difficult

08:40.235 --> 08:41.795
or risky to express ourselves.

08:42.375 --> 08:46.355
But integrative trust is one of the core aspects of trust,

08:46.775 --> 08:49.715
that we've seen over many studies

08:50.025 --> 08:51.555
that actually impact negotiation.

08:51.555 --> 08:53.915
Outcome and integrity just basically means, do you say

08:53.915 --> 08:55.035
what you're going to say?

08:55.265 --> 08:57.685
Do you follow a moral code? Do you follow up?

08:57.865 --> 09:01.325
And in the workplace, this factor is very important for,

09:01.375 --> 09:02.405
maximizing outcomes

09:02.405 --> 09:04.845
because of course, if we negotiate with people

09:04.905 --> 09:06.525
who don't think they're gonna follow through,

09:06.695 --> 09:08.845
we're not gonna wanna secure our deals with them,

09:08.845 --> 09:10.645
and we're not gonna wanna share information, both

09:10.645 --> 09:13.285
of which are very important factors to,

09:13.845 --> 09:17.245
maximize those outcomes, those negotiation processes,

09:17.265 --> 09:19.005
the integrative and the bargaining behaviors.

09:19.225 --> 09:20.645
Um, distributed bargaining

09:20.645 --> 09:21.765
and behaviors are really important.

09:21.825 --> 09:25.005
So integrative behaviors, basically is related

09:25.145 --> 09:28.685
to assessing how much value there is in a negotiation table.

09:29.315 --> 09:31.845
It's what we could say is expanding the pie.

09:31.945 --> 09:35.245
So sharing information, exchanging preferences,

09:35.505 --> 09:37.965
and then distributive bargaining behaviors is

09:37.965 --> 09:39.005
how we cut the pie.

09:39.625 --> 09:41.525
And it has to be very sequential.

09:41.785 --> 09:43.325
We have to first expand

09:43.785 --> 09:46.325
and then we have to claim value for ourselves,

09:46.625 --> 09:49.165
and it has to be done in a very specific way

09:49.165 --> 09:50.365
so we don't ruin the relationship.

09:50.365 --> 09:52.085
Because if you're asking all these nice questions

09:52.085 --> 09:53.405
and then you're really rude afterwards

09:53.405 --> 09:54.885
as you're claiming value for yourself,

09:54.905 --> 09:57.445
the person's actually gonna not wanna negotiate with you.

09:57.625 --> 09:59.405
The implementation deal is gonna follow through.

09:59.585 --> 10:00.845
So that ability

10:00.865 --> 10:02.405
to engage in both behaviors are very

10:02.405 --> 10:03.605
important to securing those outcomes.

10:04.305 --> 10:08.525
Um, so in that first study, what I basically found was yes,

10:08.525 --> 10:10.725
relationship quality had a direct

10:11.265 --> 10:14.805
and, unique effect on bargaining behaviors specifically.

10:15.185 --> 10:16.725
So having a really good relationship

10:16.725 --> 10:18.245
with someone allowed you

10:18.245 --> 10:21.805
to engage in those information sharing, behaviors

10:21.805 --> 10:25.525
that then had the possibility to expand economic outcomes.

10:26.065 --> 10:29.205
But at a very practical level, that subjective component,

10:29.865 --> 10:34.405
it had, an interesting, a negative effect on that.

10:35.145 --> 10:39.765
But if the person engaged in high quality relationships

10:39.985 --> 10:42.805
had an overall positive effect on subjective value, outcome,

10:42.905 --> 10:45.725
and relationship quality specifically interestingly,

10:45.825 --> 10:48.885
had a negative effect, which then becomes positive.

10:49.545 --> 10:52.605
If you take into account the integrative trust,

10:53.135 --> 10:55.405
which basically means if trust is there,

10:55.475 --> 10:57.165
it's gonna have a positive outcome,

10:57.665 --> 11:00.565
but in itself it can have a bit of a negative outcome.

11:00.565 --> 11:03.085
So if you like someone, but they're kind of untrustworthy,

11:03.315 --> 11:06.285
it's not actually gonna lead to a good work outcome.

11:06.505 --> 11:09.765
And in the subsequent study, we do find a little bit

11:09.825 --> 11:11.045
of the same findings.

11:11.705 --> 11:15.565
So in the second study, we got individuals,

11:15.705 --> 11:19.165
to negotiate based on whether they had that positive

11:19.185 --> 11:23.725
or, sorry, low or high, quality dyad.

11:24.265 --> 11:28.085
And we took more objective measures of,

11:28.665 --> 11:29.725
the negotiation behavior.

11:29.725 --> 11:32.045
So counterpart had to actually report on

11:32.045 --> 11:33.125
their counterparts behavior.

11:33.505 --> 11:35.405
So it's not just what you said you thought you did,

11:35.435 --> 11:37.725
it's actually what the other person perceived you

11:37.725 --> 11:38.885
doing, which is very important.

11:39.425 --> 11:41.765
And then what's great is we had,

11:41.825 --> 11:43.005
how much they actually achieved.

11:43.025 --> 11:44.845
And again, that subjective value component.

11:46.585 --> 11:50.365
And what I found was that, again,

11:50.365 --> 11:52.725
high quality relationships specifically impact

11:52.725 --> 11:54.365
that integrated bargaining behavior.

11:55.065 --> 11:58.125
Um, it can decrease though distributive behaviors,

11:58.225 --> 12:00.365
but that's okay because in the long term, if

12:00.365 --> 12:01.965
that relationship can engage in both,

12:02.065 --> 12:03.325
it will maximize outcomes.

12:03.375 --> 12:05.365
We're just capturing it in one go.

12:05.665 --> 12:07.845
So what we're looking for is really those integrated

12:08.125 --> 12:09.845
behaviors that are gonna solidify the relationship.

12:10.825 --> 12:12.205
And then in this context,

12:12.455 --> 12:15.885
while we did not find a direct effect on economic outcomes,

12:16.145 --> 12:18.325
it did enhance the subjective value outcomes.

12:18.785 --> 12:21.125
So what we are expecting is over the long term,

12:21.225 --> 12:23.845
if these individuals kept negotiating,

12:23.845 --> 12:25.445
they're actually gonna maximize

12:25.675 --> 12:27.645
that business potential over the course

12:27.645 --> 12:28.685
of their relationship.

12:29.745 --> 12:32.665
Um, high quality relationships had

12:32.665 --> 12:35.265
that direct effect on subjective value outcome,

12:35.325 --> 12:38.185
and that was mediated fully by the integrative behaviors

12:38.245 --> 12:39.945
and serially me mediated

12:39.965 --> 12:42.105
by psychological safety and integrative outcomes.

12:42.165 --> 12:44.705
And what's that saying? What that's what that is saying,

12:45.315 --> 12:48.905
sorry, is that high quality relationships,

12:50.325 --> 12:52.395
allow people to engage in the behaviors needed

12:52.395 --> 12:54.515
to expand the pie, which then lets them,

12:54.735 --> 12:55.795
capture it better.

12:56.135 --> 12:57.995
But more importantly, it's doing it in a way

12:57.995 --> 12:59.035
where people feel safe

12:59.055 --> 13:01.915
and they're bu building that integrity, that,

13:02.305 --> 13:03.675
that concept of trust.

13:04.175 --> 13:06.475
And over time, this will allow them to,

13:06.665 --> 13:09.435
capture more economic value.

13:09.895 --> 13:12.355
So when we take both studies together, it does a few things.

13:12.355 --> 13:14.915
First of all, it establishes that high quality relationships

13:14.915 --> 13:16.995
and that variability is very important

13:17.015 --> 13:18.275
for professional relationships,

13:18.925 --> 13:22.195
especially when we consider the ability to capture

13:22.715 --> 13:24.235
economic outcomes over the long term.

13:24.775 --> 13:28.075
We also identify these novel mechanisms in this context,

13:28.555 --> 13:30.675
specifically the integrative bargaining behaviors

13:30.815 --> 13:32.555
and integrative trust.

13:32.655 --> 13:35.915
And also that serial mediation, which is specifically

13:35.915 --> 13:40.075
that psychological safety informs and benefits trust.

13:40.535 --> 13:42.835
And this is important because actually trust takes a really

13:42.945 --> 13:45.795
long time to build trust is not something that comes easily

13:46.145 --> 13:47.235
because it's,

13:47.425 --> 13:50.635
it's built in risky situations when we can attribute the

13:50.635 --> 13:53.595
person's behavior to them, not to the situation.

13:53.975 --> 13:56.715
So psychological trust becomes the hack in which we

13:56.715 --> 13:58.395
understand specific behaviors needed

13:58.695 --> 14:00.235
to lay the foundation for trust.

14:01.295 --> 14:05.485
Um, when we think about the practical implications,

14:05.505 --> 14:08.085
and there are many, because this is very much a behavioral

14:08.255 --> 14:11.405
study, it tells us that we actually need to monitor

14:11.965 --> 14:15.565
relationship variance, but separate it out by capacity

14:15.705 --> 14:17.085
and subjective experience.

14:17.085 --> 14:18.165
So the capacity is,

14:18.475 --> 14:20.605
does this relationship have the actual tools

14:20.785 --> 14:22.525
to engage in difficult conversations

14:22.585 --> 14:25.245
and the strategies to problem solve

14:25.265 --> 14:26.845
and to reach good negotiation outcomes?

14:27.345 --> 14:28.365
Or do we have that?

14:28.365 --> 14:30.925
But we're missing the subjective experience, which is,

14:31.465 --> 14:32.565
do we feel happy?

14:32.635 --> 14:34.365
Have we laid the behavioral cues

14:34.365 --> 14:36.805
to suggest there's reciprocity that we, that we

14:37.515 --> 14:38.885
care about the person, right?

14:39.105 --> 14:42.205
And so we can really create very different organizational

14:42.295 --> 14:45.045
strategies when we think about a client not working.

14:45.945 --> 14:48.965
Um, and then we can also develop very nuanced negotiation

14:49.365 --> 14:51.645
strategy based on where the relationship is at.

14:51.745 --> 14:53.365
So for very new relationships,

14:53.465 --> 14:56.885
you wanna focus on exhibiting those integrated bargaining

14:57.085 --> 15:00.245
behaviors so that you are establishing subjective,

15:00.555 --> 15:02.925
good subjective experiences with the negotiation so

15:02.925 --> 15:05.285
that you can maximize negotiation outcomes in the future.

15:05.985 --> 15:08.885
And also starting to lay the foundations of trust,

15:08.945 --> 15:10.445
but it's not gonna come right away.

15:10.465 --> 15:12.525
So laying the foundations of trust is making sure

15:12.525 --> 15:13.885
that when you say you're gonna do something,

15:13.885 --> 15:16.445
you deliver making sure if you email

15:16.905 --> 15:19.165
and say, look, I'm gonna have this report in two weeks.

15:19.185 --> 15:20.485
You better have it in two weeks.

15:20.765 --> 15:22.365
'cause it's, it's the ability to say

15:22.365 --> 15:25.445
what we do is gonna be followed up with actual act outcomes,

15:26.425 --> 15:29.445
but for established relationships when once we have a client

15:29.505 --> 15:31.445
or once we have someone we're working really well,

15:31.875 --> 15:35.245
what we wanna do is really, enhance

15:35.245 --> 15:36.565
that integrity trust.

15:36.625 --> 15:40.965
So really focus on acting fair again, reinforcing

15:40.965 --> 15:42.405
that we're someone that's very stable,

15:42.505 --> 15:44.285
that's gonna follow through on our actions.

15:45.065 --> 15:48.285
Um, and so the strategy is slightly different

15:48.285 --> 15:51.365
for organizations, in future work.

15:51.525 --> 15:53.045
I did also look at,

15:53.305 --> 15:56.965
how emotional expressions help negotiators start

15:56.965 --> 15:58.165
to lay the foundations of trust.

15:58.185 --> 15:59.725
So for example, in early relationships,

15:59.725 --> 16:03.325
what are the most important relate, emotional cues?

16:04.105 --> 16:07.285
And in that study, we had individuals negotiate

16:07.285 --> 16:08.725
where they didn't know each other that well,

16:09.065 --> 16:12.765
and we coded, the emotional cues.

16:12.765 --> 16:14.885
So we didn't tell them that this is happy,

16:14.955 --> 16:16.765
this is contentious, this is excited.

16:17.025 --> 16:18.805
We gave them just the behavioral cues

16:18.805 --> 16:20.285
because of course when we see labels,

16:20.745 --> 16:22.405
we don't objectively assess what's

16:22.405 --> 16:23.685
happening in the relationship.

16:24.465 --> 16:27.405
And we had individuals, code their counterpart

16:27.585 --> 16:28.965
and their counterpart's important.

16:29.205 --> 16:31.645
'cause the perception of these cues is what's gonna impact

16:31.645 --> 16:34.805
the negotiation outcome and future relationship.

16:35.505 --> 16:38.285
And here what I found is the strongest, way

16:38.285 --> 16:41.125
to start establishing a good relationship is actually the

16:41.235 --> 16:42.365
cues for excitement.

16:42.985 --> 16:46.285
So literally at the very beginning showing

16:46.285 --> 16:48.565
that positive regard, being really excited,

16:48.875 --> 16:52.165
literally saying, Hey, I'm really excited to be working

16:52.235 --> 16:56.845
with you, starts a behavioral dynamic that creates

16:57.235 --> 16:59.525
that ability to then for people to open up

16:59.545 --> 17:01.725
and engage in those integrative behaviors,

17:01.725 --> 17:04.125
which is sharing the information that you need

17:04.425 --> 17:06.965
to then be able to achieve better outcomes.

17:07.705 --> 17:10.645
And I personally, I love that study,

17:10.875 --> 17:13.925
because it gives you very practical advice about what to do.

17:14.345 --> 17:16.605
For me, it's a massive hack anytime I start relationships.

17:16.865 --> 17:19.405
So when I think about the implications of my dissertation,

17:19.705 --> 17:21.845
one thing it highlights to me is that relationships matter.

17:22.875 --> 17:24.365
Even though we're in a professional setting

17:24.465 --> 17:26.525
and we think business is business, it's not,

17:26.535 --> 17:28.605
we're social creatures engaging in some sort

17:28.605 --> 17:29.725
of cooperative experience.

17:29.785 --> 17:33.245
And so actually relationship is the foundation in which

17:33.765 --> 17:35.365
business is allowed to flourish or not.

17:36.775 --> 17:38.995
And so it, I I think it's beautiful

17:38.995 --> 17:41.755
because when we think about, let's say salespeople

17:41.755 --> 17:43.675
and I talk to salespeople and I train 'em all the time,

17:43.735 --> 17:45.155
and sometimes they'll say things like,

17:45.255 --> 17:47.275
I'm really scared about being disingenuous.

17:47.895 --> 17:49.075
But actually negotiations

17:49.305 --> 17:50.645
Is not about disingenuous.

17:50.715 --> 17:54.365
It's about being very much yourself, being open, allowing

17:54.465 --> 17:56.485
for the possibility to have difficult conversations

17:56.505 --> 17:59.365
and come through the other side and help your counterpart.

17:59.705 --> 18:00.805
And it's very freeing.

18:00.805 --> 18:03.365
It frames the entire, context

18:03.465 --> 18:06.205
of negotiations from being one where you're competitive,

18:06.205 --> 18:07.285
where you're trying to take advantage

18:07.545 --> 18:09.085
to actually being a process of

18:09.625 --> 18:12.125
how do we create the best business relationship

18:12.185 --> 18:13.645
so we get the most out of it,

18:13.705 --> 18:15.565
and what does that look like, right?

18:15.585 --> 18:17.405
And it's very exciting when we say, Hey,

18:17.575 --> 18:19.285
we're building positive,

18:19.355 --> 18:20.885
like high quality relationships.

18:21.305 --> 18:24.725
And now work isn't just about like these mundane tasks,

18:24.955 --> 18:27.485
it's actually about enjoying the process of working

18:27.485 --> 18:30.085
with the people that we, do business with.

18:30.085 --> 18:32.845
Because that capacity to have difficult conversations is,

18:33.025 --> 18:36.245
is there, but also that positive regard is there.

18:36.265 --> 18:38.165
We actually enjoy our interactions.

18:38.265 --> 18:40.005
And I don't know, I think it's,

18:40.125 --> 18:41.165
I think it's very liberating.

18:41.165 --> 18:43.085
I think it it brings a very different framework,

18:43.625 --> 18:44.805
mindset to work.

18:44.865 --> 18:46.805
And it's one that I find very empowering

18:46.865 --> 18:48.445
and just personally very enjoyable.

Understanding Relationships in Professional Negotiations

00:00:00 - Negotiating in, professional relationships came actually, from two parts. One is really old research from Greenall in 1987, and what he noticed was that in professional relationships, people did things that were very counterintuitive from an economic, model. For example, when there were bad economic forces, you would expect, individuals to switch suppliers to kind of cheaper relationships and really take advantage of individuals. But what he found was that actually people didn't do these switches that they held onto the relationships.
00:00:33 - as kind of irrational. Why wouldn't you leverage the opportunities in the market? but what he dig dug deeper, what he noticed, what was that people actually cared about their relationships. And what was happening in these times is that they were preserving the, the business relationships that they had, so that later when there was an economic hardship and maybe they were on the other end of that, equation, their relationships protected them. So this was a really deep insight.
00:01:06 - They just weren't, behaving under an economic model. They were doing something that was socially rational. So my research was kind of built on this idea that people are not, as I said, irrational. They actually have very deep rationalities for why they maintain relationships and how it impacts their professional relationships. But actually, these are long term views. People are trying to maximize the most out of their relationship, which means that any individual negotiation is kind of in the wash over the long term.
00:01:37 - lawyers in Toronto. So we have our Bay Street, and I went around and I, interviewed early and late career stage negotiators, where lawyers are doing this in their profession every single day. And what I found was that all the late stage lawyers had very different insights and very different negotiation strategies than the young lawyers. So the young lawyers were actually a little bit more brash. They didn't realize, that they would be negotiating
00:02:07 - But these late stage lawyers realized that their bar was really small. And so they had to do these relationship based tactics where they had to manage the relationship. They had to think about how one individual negotiation was gonna impact a future client. And they were always managing the idea of trust, right? One thing, one lawyer told me, you know, you killed them with kindness. So you lay this very solid foundation of being very trustworthy, but to your benefit in the long term. And this was really counterintuitive, to how we looked at negotiations.
00:02:40 - how does relationship quality actually impact the negotiation? And in the literature we look at relationship types. So are we friends with them? Are there our partners? Is it just a professional relationship? But we didn't really look at the variation of that relationship quality, which impacts a lot what happens in the negotiation, process. So the actual negotiation behaviors and in the outcomes. So let me chat a little bit about, how we define relationship quality

Impact of Relationship Quality on Negotiations

00:03:10 - Before I get into, some of the research that I did, so negotiation, relationships can be broken down into two types, or two subcategories. One is the type, so the degree of interdependence. And in the work context, we have no, recourse into who our professional partners are. So that part is solidified, but relationship quality, which is the perception of that interdependence being positive or negative, is a little bit more varied in the professional context
00:03:40 - who we decide to do business with. do we decide to trust them? Do we decide to share information? And that variation actually does have an impact on the process, the beliefs and the outcomes. so we know from early research that yes, relationships impact the norms, the negotiation behaviors and the outcomes in terms of economic outcomes and subjective value out outcomes. So subjective value outcomes is really like how satisfied are you with the process, the relationship,
00:04:15 - and, let me, let me break down a little bit about why the subjective component outcome is important to negotiations and why it's specifically tied to relationship quality. So early on when we started studying negotiations, the, the economic outcome is something that people were really interested in. Of course, we wanna maximize negotiations at any point. but what was interesting is when we, again, take that long-term view of relationships, we actually found
00:04:46 - of future economic outcome. And early work by Hillary, Hillary anger, I, my God, I always mess up red iPhone by Hillary anger, iPhone, by, yeah. She basically did this really important research to show that the subjective value outcome had the biggest impact on economic outcome in the future. And that's because it's not ju when we negotiate, we don't just care about maximizing outcome.
00:05:15 - do I wanna work with you again? Do I wanna negotiate with you again? Can I trust you in a future negotiation? and her work was interesting 'cause she, interviewed MBAs, following their job offer. And this job offer negotiation predicted, a long-term turnover satisfaction with the job, more so than that economic outcome. And in future work, she actually tied the subjective component to future economic outcomes. So it, it teaches us that
00:05:47 - really looking to establish how, relationship quality impacts negotiations. We don't actually have any real world studies. So my dissertation was looking at when proving that concept and then bringing it into the lab. so the first study was, I actually sent out, surveys to people, working whether or not there were lawyers, business individuals. and I was just looking to establish that basic link, high quality relationships

Impact of Relationship Quality on Negotiation Outcomes

00:06:18 - and that subjective component. The second study, I brought it into a lab and I put, I, I actually assessed the people's relationship and then I created high and low relationship quality groups and then put these groups, a few weeks after into a negotiation simulation. I measured the outcomes and then I measured their relationship quality again a few weeks out. And that allowed me to track whether or not relationship quality actually had an impact in this naturalistic setting beyond what people reported.
00:06:49 - 'cause I, I think intuitively we think we know what it means, but when you break it down, it actually means something else. Relationship quality is made up of two sub components. One is relationship capacity, and then the relationship experience. So the relationship capacity is that part that people don't often think about. It's the capacity of the relationship to handle difficult conversations and to engage in the processes needed to problem solve. So the sub components would be emotional caring capacity.
00:07:21 - which means after you handle the difficult emotions, can you kind of come back to a good base? And the connectivity, like is there a we in the relationship? Then the subjective component is more intuitive. The positive regard and the mutuality are we both reciprocal in our exchanges? And both these things are very important, especially in a professional context, because you might like a person, but if you can't actually do the negotiation properly, you're gonna get a worse outcome.
00:07:50 - but if you can't work with them, it's a dysfunctional relationship in the work context. so that variability is very important. And specifically that factor, that capacity for negotiations. So in the first, survey, I asked individuals first, identify a good or a bad situation that you had just to cue that relationship. and I randomized whether or not people were answering on, like a good relationship or positive.
00:08:21 - safety or integrity. And I asked them what happened in that last interaction? Did you engage in integrative or distributive behaviors? And then kind of what was your outcome? And let me just break that down a little bit more. Psychological safety is the salience of, a relationship being difficult or risky to express ourselves. But integrative trust is one of the core aspects of trust, that we've seen over many studies
00:08:51 - Outcome and integrity just basically means, do you say what you're going to say? Do you follow a moral code? Do you follow up? And in the workplace, this factor is very important for, maximizing outcomes because of course, if we negotiate with people who don't think they're gonna follow through, we're not gonna wanna secure our deals with them, and we're not gonna wanna share information, both of which are very important factors to, maximize those outcomes, those negotiation processes, the integrative and the bargaining behaviors. distributed bargaining

Integrative Behaviors in Negotiation Dynamics

00:09:21 - So integrative behaviors, basically is related to assessing how much value there is in a negotiation table. It's what we could say is expanding the pie. So sharing information, exchanging preferences, and then distributive bargaining behaviors is how we cut the pie. And it has to be very sequential. We have to first expand and then we have to claim value for ourselves, and it has to be done in a very specific way so we don't ruin the relationship. Because if you're asking all these nice questions
00:09:53 - as you're claiming value for yourself, the person's actually gonna not wanna negotiate with you. The implementation deal is gonna follow through. So that ability to engage in both behaviors are very important to securing those outcomes. so in that first study, what I basically found was yes, relationship quality had a direct and, unique effect on bargaining behaviors specifically. So having a really good relationship with someone allowed you to engage in those information sharing, behaviors that then had the possibility to expand economic outcomes.
00:10:29 - it had, an interesting, a negative effect on that. But if the person engaged in high quality relationships had an overall positive effect on subjective value, outcome, and relationship quality specifically interestingly, had a negative effect, which then becomes positive. If you take into account the integrative trust, which basically means if trust is there, it's gonna have a positive outcome,
00:11:00 - So if you like someone, but they're kind of untrustworthy, it's not actually gonna lead to a good work outcome. And in the subsequent study, we do find a little bit of the same findings. So in the second study, we got individuals, to negotiate based on whether they had that positive or, sorry, low or high, quality dyad. And we took more objective measures of,
00:11:29 - So counterpart had to actually report on their counterparts behavior. So it's not just what you said you thought you did, it's actually what the other person perceived you doing, which is very important. And then what's great is we had, how much they actually achieved. And again, that subjective value component. And what I found was that, again, high quality relationships specifically impact that integrated bargaining behavior. it can decrease though distributive behaviors, but that's okay because in the long term, if
00:12:02 - it will maximize outcomes. We're just capturing it in one go. So what we're looking for is really those integrated behaviors that are gonna solidify the relationship. And then in this context, while we did not find a direct effect on economic outcomes, it did enhance the subjective value outcomes. So what we are expecting is over the long term, if these individuals kept negotiating, they're actually gonna maximize that business potential over the course of their relationship. high quality relationships had

Building Trust for Better Negotiation Outcomes

00:12:35 - and that was mediated fully by the integrative behaviors and serially me mediated by psychological safety and integrative outcomes. And what's that saying? What that's what that is saying, sorry, is that high quality relationships, allow people to engage in the behaviors needed to expand the pie, which then lets them, capture it better. But more importantly, it's doing it in a way where people feel safe and they're bu building that integrity, that, that concept of trust.
00:13:06 - capture more economic value. So when we take both studies together, it does a few things. First of all, it establishes that high quality relationships and that variability is very important for professional relationships, especially when we consider the ability to capture economic outcomes over the long term. We also identify these novel mechanisms in this context, specifically the integrative bargaining behaviors and integrative trust. And also that serial mediation, which is specifically
00:13:40 - And this is important because actually trust takes a really long time to build trust is not something that comes easily because it's, it's built in risky situations when we can attribute the person's behavior to them, not to the situation. So psychological trust becomes the hack in which we understand specific behaviors needed to lay the foundation for trust. when we think about the practical implications, and there are many, because this is very much a behavioral
00:14:11 - relationship variance, but separate it out by capacity and subjective experience. So the capacity is, does this relationship have the actual tools to engage in difficult conversations and the strategies to problem solve and to reach good negotiation outcomes? Or do we have that? But we're missing the subjective experience, which is, do we feel happy? Have we laid the behavioral cues to suggest there's reciprocity that we, that we care about the person, right?
00:14:42 - strategies when we think about a client not working. and then we can also develop very nuanced negotiation strategy based on where the relationship is at. So for very new relationships, you wanna focus on exhibiting those integrated bargaining behaviors so that you are establishing subjective, good subjective experiences with the negotiation so that you can maximize negotiation outcomes in the future. And also starting to lay the foundations of trust, but it's not gonna come right away.
00:15:12 - that when you say you're gonna do something, you deliver making sure if you email and say, look, I'm gonna have this report in two weeks. You better have it in two weeks. 'cause it's, it's the ability to say what we do is gonna be followed up with actual act outcomes, but for established relationships when once we have a client or once we have someone we're working really well, what we wanna do is really, enhance that integrity trust. So really focus on acting fair again, reinforcing

Building Trust Through Emotional Expressions in Negotiation

00:15:42 - that's gonna follow through on our actions. and so the strategy is slightly different for organizations, in future work. I did also look at, how emotional expressions help negotiators start to lay the foundations of trust. So for example, in early relationships, what are the most important relate, emotional cues? And in that study, we had individuals negotiate where they didn't know each other that well, and we coded, the emotional cues.
00:16:14 - this is contentious, this is excited. We gave them just the behavioral cues because of course when we see labels, we don't objectively assess what's happening in the relationship. And we had individuals, code their counterpart and their counterpart's important. 'cause the perception of these cues is what's gonna impact the negotiation outcome and future relationship. And here what I found is the strongest, way to start establishing a good relationship is actually the cues for excitement.
00:16:46 - that positive regard, being really excited, literally saying, Hey, I'm really excited to be working with you, starts a behavioral dynamic that creates that ability to then for people to open up and engage in those integrative behaviors, which is sharing the information that you need to then be able to achieve better outcomes. And I personally, I love that study, because it gives you very practical advice about what to do.
00:17:16 - So when I think about the implications of my dissertation, one thing it highlights to me is that relationships matter. Even though we're in a professional setting and we think business is business, it's not, we're social creatures engaging in some sort of cooperative experience. And so actually relationship is the foundation in which business is allowed to flourish or not. And so it, I I think it's beautiful because when we think about, let's say salespeople and I talk to salespeople and I train 'em all the time, and sometimes they'll say things like,
00:17:47 - But actually negotiations Is not about disingenuous. It's about being very much yourself, being open, allowing for the possibility to have difficult conversations and come through the other side and help your counterpart. And it's very freeing. It frames the entire, context of negotiations from being one where you're competitive, where you're trying to take advantage to actually being a process of how do we create the best business relationship so we get the most out of it, and what does that look like, right?
00:18:17 - we're building positive, like high quality relationships. And now work isn't just about like these mundane tasks, it's actually about enjoying the process of working with the people that we, do business with. Because that capacity to have difficult conversations is, is there, but also that positive regard is there. We actually enjoy our interactions. And I don't know, I think it's, I think it's very liberating. I think it it brings a very different framework, mindset to work. And it's one that I find very empowering

Building Trust in Professional Negotiations

00:18:46 -

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Faculti

Popular in Professional

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

High school change

What is constitutional ideology?

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

Negotiating in Professional Relationship

Next in Business

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Page Structure

Popular in Professional

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Accessibility Options

Contrast Adjustment

Text Size Adjustment

Text Spacing Adjustment

Line Height Adjustment

Cursor Size Adjustment

Page Structure Options

Page Structure