Enough talk. The other side needs to understand the validity of my position. I don’t care if they don’t want to or can’t understand; it’s time for action.
That’s why I sent out the first documents. The positions are stated once again, and the negative consequences for the other party are outlined for the first time.
The other party must confirm receipt of the documents and respond in writing. What was previously a relatively easy conflict to resolve is now formalized in writing and is therefore no longer easy to resolve.
Further reading actions instead of words:
Importance of actions over words: In negotiations, it’s essential to prioritize the negotiating partner’s actions over their promises. The agreement should be structured to avoid advance payments, ensuring commitments are fulfilled before proceeding further.1
Underlying trust: According to Rousseau et al. (1998: 395), trust is “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another”. This definition emphasizes that trust is not merely a passive feeling but an active psychological state where an individual willingly accepts vulnerability, driven by the belief that the other party will act favorably or as expected. Trust, therefore, involves a relationship where one party, the trustor, places confidence in another party, the trustee. This relationship can be inherently asymmetrical, implying a power dynamic where the trustor depends on the trustee’s actions. Additionally, trust can be mutual, where both parties place confidence in each other, fostering a balanced and reciprocal dynamic.3
Importance of underlying trust in negotiations: Trusting someone can feel effortless when the
stakes are low. However, as the stakes rise, so does the complexity of trust. When the
potential consequences of betrayal or failure become more significant, the weight of the risk
naturally increases.4-5
Actions in the political environment: In politics, actions can vary in their level of violence. They can range from the public establishment of a war cabinet and the publication of official statements to the strategic positioning of military equipment, public military trainings, or even the launching of rockets
into the territory of the opposing side (with limited casualties).6;7
References:
1 Schranner, M. 2001. Verhandeln im Grenzbereich: Strategien und Taktiken für schwierige Fälle. Berlin: Econ.
2 Rousseau, D. M. 1998. Trust in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 186–88.
3 Jøsang, A., Keser, C., & Dimitrakos, T. 2005. Can we manage trust?. In International Conference on Trust Management (93–107). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
4 Malhotra, D. 2004. Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2): 61–73.
5 Snijders, C., & Keren, G. 2001. Do you trust? Whom do you trust? When do you trust?. In Advances in group processes (129–160). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
6 Freedman, L. & Gamba-Stonehose, V. 1991. Signals of War: the falkland conflict of 1982. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7 Fearon, J. D. 1997. Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1): 68-90.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.
