Building Momentum in Negotiations: Time‐Related Costs and Action‐Forcing Events

Abstract

Using the negotiations over the future of Northern Ireland and other case examples, the author develops a conceptual framework for analyzing how negotiators seek to build momentum and overcome stalemate. The framework focuses on the choices negotiators face between taking action and waiting in the hope that counterparts will make concessions, exploring the importance of perceptions of time‐related costs and action‐forcing events in shaping decision making. The framework highlights the uneven, nonlinear nature of the flow of negotiation processes from initiation to agreement or breakdown, and focuses on the ways negotiators seek to influence the flow by shaping perceptions of time‐related costs, structuring action‐forcing events, and creating linkages among sets of negotiations.

Co-operation and conflict in a hospital: interprofessional differences in perception and management of conflicts

“…In a busy hospital setting the dimension of 'perceived urgency' seems to be a major determinant of con ict style. This gives importance to professionals' perception of time and how such differences in time perception may in uence work behavior, including con ict management, as recently pointed out by other studies (Ancona &Chong, 1996;Watkins, 1998;Carstensen et al, 1999).…”

Construction Dispute Research

“…13.1). Watkins (1998) suggested that (1) negotiator's interest is sensitive to early events which are profoundly influential to events thereafter; (2) negotiator's withdrawal action impacts the negotiation in an irreversible way and create barriers to further negotiation; and (3) a slight loss of interest may have no apparent effect on the negotiation, but a greater loss may lead to disproportional consequence of complete withdrawal. The effort needed to put negotiation back on track once withdrawal happened is enormous and the phenomenon is analogous to the catastrophe flags proposed by Gilmore (1981).…”

Negotiating in a Complex World

“…As the process evolves, negotiators also can take actions to reshape the structure by, for example, involving or excluding other parties, altering the issue-agenda, setting up action-forcing events, and linking and de-linking negotiations. (For a discussion of approaches to shaping the structure of negotiations see Watkins 1998a. ) Negotiators therefore cannot afford to be reactive; they must enact their situations.…”

“…They may be the result of unilateral moves or consensual agreement among negotiators. They may be intended to spur counterparts or constituents, or both (see Watkins 1998b).…”