I have reached an agreement in both the inner and internal negotiation. I sought advice from supportive individuals, and they backed me. I believe I am in the right position for the upcoming negotiation.
In business negotiations, I am advised to seek legal counsel. I consult with the internal legal team and interpret the facts to strengthen my position. In an initial assessment, the legal team clearly states they see a ‘well over 50% chance’ of winning the case. To provide additional assurance to the in-house lawyers, a second opinion is requested from an external law firm. This ‘second opinion’ supports both my view and the position of the internal legal team. I feel that my position has been validated once again.
Further reading regarding dogmatism:
The accuracy of judgment: The scientific view on accurate judgments includes three main approaches: pragmatic, constructivist, and realistic. The pragmatic approach sees judgments as tools for social living and measures their accuracy by how well they facilitate social interactions. The constructivist approach considers judgments as social constructs and evaluates accuracy based on consensus among judges. The realistic approach assumes that judgments are real traits of individuals.1; 2
Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias can reinforce the “I am right” feeling by only considering contextual and situational elements that support one’s initial position. This cognitive bias is inherently
human and unavoidable. However, being aware of it helps limit its impact on personal,
business, and political decisions.3; 4; 5
Challenge about being right in negotiations: A significant challenge in the negotiation process might arise when the emphasis is placed too strongly on positions, focusing on who is right.3
Multiple forms of support: In politics, individuals often seek various forms of support to justify escalating a conflict. They might turn to international or domestic law, morality, religion, or history (including rewritten history) to reinforce their “I am right” stance. This pursuit of justification can lead to irrational escalation of conflicts.7;8
References:
1 Funder, D. C. 1995. On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychological review, 102(4): 652–670.
2 Kruglanski, A. W. 1989. The psychology of being” right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological bulletin, 106(3): 395–409.
3 Evans, J. & Feeney, A. 2004. The role of prior belief in reasoning. In J.P. Leighton & R.J. Sternberg (eds.) The nature of reasoning (78-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4 Williams, B.S. 2010. Heuristic and Biases in Military Decision Making. Military Review, 90(5): 40.
5 Kahneman, D. Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. . 2011. Before You Make that Big Decision. Harvard Business Review. 51–60.
6 Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. 2016. Essentials of negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7 Fearon, J. D. 1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization, 49(3): 379–414.
8 Hazan, P. 2024. Negotiating with the Devil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.
