The Morality of Bargaining: Identity versus Interests in Negotiations with Evil

Shell, G. Richard

doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00284.x

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A nontrustworthy spouse? (see also Mnookin 2010; Shell 2010). Remember that for Margalit, not all compromises with rotten regimes are themselves rotten.…”

Section: The Moral Uses Of Compromises: Lessons For Both Macro‐ and Mmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This book, like others addressing similar issues — such as Robert Mnookin's Bargaining with the Devil (2010), which is reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Richard Shell (2010) — is written against the backdrop of specific historic negotiation dilemmas: Neville Chamberlain's “deal” at Munich (see also Bottom 2010, elsewhere in this issue), the Yalta conference, and other significant World War II negotiations, recent negotiations with such terrorist organizations or rogue states as North Korea, Iran, and the Taliban, and, especially, in Margalit's case, the on‐ and off‐again peace negotiations involving Israel and Palestine. Margalit's abstract negotiation dilemmas between “countries A, B, C, and D” or “Over‐Dogs and Under‐Dogs” (see pp.…”

Section: Moral Philosophy History and Compromise In Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compromise, Negotiation, and Morality

Menkel‐Meadow

2010

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A nontrustworthy spouse? (see also Mnookin 2010; Shell 2010). Remember that for Margalit, not all compromises with rotten regimes are themselves rotten.…”

Section: The Moral Uses Of Compromises: Lessons For Both Macro‐ and Mmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Moral Philosophy History and Compromise In Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Compromise, Negotiation, and Morality

Menkel‐Meadow

2010

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When using the reframed methodology, decisions over considering some elements sacred (valued) and profane (devalued) are the result of dialogical processes where consensus (such as in the case just mentioned) or accommodations can take place and where negotiation plays an important role. By negotiation we mean ‘talking and listening, understanding what the other side wants and having a chance to persuade them’ (Fisher, in Shell, 2010, p.457). The dialogical process involves critical reflexivity as well as ‘jointly creating meaning and shared understanding between participants’ (Franco, 2006, p.814).…”

Section: Hermes Programme Evaluation In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Systems thinking concepts within a collaborative programme evaluation methodology: The Hermes Programme evaluation

Pinzon-Salcedo

Torres‐Cuello

2021

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducing systems thinking concepts in the programme evaluation field has been mostly aimed at supporting the practice of evaluation, rather than towards making theoretical advancements in the evaluation field. This paper introduces ideas and principles from systems thinking at the theoretical and practical levels in the programme evaluation field as applied to a peace-building programme called the Hermes Programme in Colombia. This document demonstrates how systems thinking concepts and tools were used in the practice of evaluation. We show the theoretical development of the proposed evaluation and explain how its stages were carried out in evaluating the Hermes Programme. This paper also illustrates the benefits of using systems thinking in evaluation.

show abstract

“…Sometimes the pervasiveness of negotiations in systems practice goes unnoticed because we are guided by our belief that negotiation is only about making concessions. However, negotiation ‘is talking and listening, understanding what the other side wants and having a chance to persuade them’ (Fisher, in Shell, , p. 457). These are activities strongly linked to systemic practice insofar as this practice involves human interaction as well as dealing with human interests, objectives, needs and values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Moral Frameworks in Negotiation Practice: A Critical Systems Perspective

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiations are part of systemic interventions. Because moral frameworks affect goal setting and decision‐making processes in negotiation, they can have an important effect in systemic interventions. In this paper, we use critical systems thinking to improve our understanding of the structure of moral frameworks and judgments in negotiation. We explore several moral frameworks that are applied in negotiation, and we demonstrate how boundary critique can be employed to understand and deal more reflexively and holistically with moral judgments that are part of negotiations in systemic interventions. By adopting a critical perspective of our assumptions and rationality in negotiation practice, we attempt to show how to open negotiations that are part of systemic interventions to more reflexive and informed possibilities. This can help us to avoid implementing changes in a systemic intervention that promote moral perspectives, which are not based on a holistic and reflexive exploration of the stakeholders' moral frameworks. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

The Morality of Bargaining: Identity versus Interests in Negotiations with Evil

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Compromise, Negotiation, and Morality

Compromise, Negotiation, and Morality

Systems thinking concepts within a collaborative programme evaluation methodology: The Hermes Programme evaluation

Examining Moral Frameworks in Negotiation Practice: A Critical Systems Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About