NNN verslag 2008

1st Symposium of
The Netherlands Negotiation
Network Clingendael
December 15th 2008

Seminar on Negotiation Research and Training in the Netherlands

Organized by

Paul Meerts, Clingendael Institute

Per van der Wijst, Tilburg University

Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, Delft University of Technology

The structure of this document is equal to the program of the seminar.

Registration 9.00

Opening & Welcome by Paul Meerts 9.30

Introduction by Bernard Bot, Chair of Clingendael institute 9.45

First workshop scientific perspectives to negotiation 10.00

Chair:  Gwendolyn Kolfschoten

Speaker: Ellen Giebels
Speaker: Ilja van Beest
Speaker: Per van der Wijst

Break 11.00

Discussion   11.30

Lunch   12.30
During lunch Ideas for the Netherlands Negotiation Network will be collected
and several computer program demonstrations will be offered for those
interested.

Second workshop scientific perspectives to negotiation   13.30

Chair: Per van der Wijst
Speakers: Machteld de Hoon
Speaker: Michel Handgraaf
Speaker: Gwendolyn Kolfschoten

Break 14.30

Discussion 15.00

Closure & reflection by Paul Meerts 16.00

Reception 16.30

The document concludes with Contact information.

Netherlands Negotiation Network Clingendael, 15 December 2008
1


Opening & Welcome by Paul Meerts

Inaugural Meeting of the Netherlands Negotiation Network

By Paul Meerts

On Monday December 15th. Clingendael Institute in The Hague welcomed the participants at the first
and inaugural meeting of the Netherlands Negotiation Network (NNN). Unifying the Dutch branches
of the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) Programme of the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and Group Decision and negotiation (GDN), as well as the
Clingendael International Negotiation Group (CLING).

This new network aims at establishing contacts and understanding between practitioners,
researchers and trainers in The Netherlands and neighbouring countries. It will meet once a year (in
2009 at Clingendael Institute on Friday December 11), is setting‐up a Linkedin Network and envisages
ad‐hoc common activities. The first one took place at the UNESCO Institute of the University of Delft
on December 16, 2008.

For 2009 a Troika of Gwendolyn Kolfschoten (Technical University Delft / GDN), Pieter van der Wijst
(University of Tilburg / GDN) and Paul Meerts (Clingendael Insitute / PIN) will act as a Coordinating
Committee. The Netherlands Negotiation Network will consist of all participants and presenters of
the December 2008 meeting and all others who express the wish to be a network member.

The first network conference had Bernard Bot as its keynote speaker. As a Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Kingdom of The Netherlands – as well as its Permanent Representative to the European Union,
Deputy Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador to Turkey and Secretary General of the
Ministry  – he has been involved in diplomatic negotiations ever since. His speech gave rise to a very
interesting and intensive discussion.

After an opening statement on the purpose and the future of the network, the morning session
continued with a panel chaired by Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, followed by an afternoon panel presided
by Per van der Wijst. Panel members presented findings of negotiation research in The Netherlands,
followed by Questions and Answers with thirty high level participants, all being practitioner,
researcher or trainer themselves.

Paul Meerts is Advisor to the Director of the Clingendael Institute and Professor in International
Negotiation Analysis at the College of Europe in Bruges (Belgium) and the University of Economics in
Prague (Czech Republic). He is a Member of the Steering Committee of the Processes of International
Negotiations (PIN) Programme at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in
Laxenburg (Austria) and of the Advisory Board of the Journal of International Negotiation
(Washington). As co‐founder of Clingendael he has been Director of the Department of Training and
Education (1983‐1989) and Deputy Director of the Institute (1990‐2006).

2


First workshop scientific perspectives to negotiation

Chair:  Gwendolyn Kolfschoten
Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten is an assistant Professor at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of
Technology Policy and Management, department of Systems Engineering in the Netherlands. She is
an experienced facilitator of thinkLets‐based Group Support Systems workshop having worked with
numerous public and private organizations. Her research focuses on the quality of thinkLet‐based
collaboration process design for complex tasks. Her research has been presented at HICSS and
CRIWG, AMCIS and GDN conferences and has been published in the International Journal of
Computer Application in Technology, International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies and Group
Decision and Negotiation.

Speaker: Ellen Giebels
Ellen Giebels (Ph.D., University of Groningen, 1999) is associate professor in the Department of
Psychology & Communication of Health & Risk of the University of Twente, the Netherlands. Her
research focuses on conflict, negotiation, and mediation, particularly in crisis environments. Ellen is
(co‐) author of numerous peer‐reviewed articles and several books, including “Crisis Negotiations: A
multi‐party perspective” (with Sigrid Noelanders) and “Conflict Management” (with Martin C.
Euwema). Three of her papers received a best paper award, including her work on cultural
differences in crisis negotiations (with Paul J. Taylor), which won the 2007 Best Applied Paper award
of the International Association for Conflict Management conference. Next to her academic work,
Ellen is active as an advisor and trainer for several governmental agencies (law enforcement,
defense) throughout Europe.

Negotiation in crisis environments

My research associates and I focus on understanding the ways in which conflict parties’
communication and influence strategies shape the progress of interaction, and how this differs
across types of incidents and relationships, time periods, and cultures. We address issues such as
effective strategy use and the prediction of outcome, and include factors like power (a)symmetry,
resource depletion and conflict stress. In order to understand the complex dynamics of conflict
negotiations, we use a range of research methods, varying from experimental studies in laboratory
settings to analysis of authentic conflict negotiations, such as in hostage incidents, interrogation
situations, and police‐civilian interactions in problematic neighborhoods. Employing a multi‐party
perspective, we acknowledge that negotiation parties may have asymmetrical conflict perceptions,
and consider the psychological effects for (potential) victims of escalated conflicts and the
implication for negotiation strategies.

3


4


5


6


7


8


9


Speaker: Ilja van Beest
My main research interests are coalition formation, social exclusion, negotiation, and symptom
attribution. The general theme of my research on coalition formation is that coalition behavior can
only be truly understood when researchers take into account that self‐interest is only part of the
story. The other part is that fairness considerations determine whether a coalition is actually formed.
This line of research is sumarized in an overview article that introduces a social utility model of
coalition formation (Van Beest & Van Dijk, 2007). A provocative finding in this line of research is that
players rather form a fair coalition that does not maximize their individual payoff than an unfair
coalition that maximizes their individual payoffs.

Another major research line is social exclusion. Different than coalition formation this area does not
focus on the choice of exclusion but on the consequences of exclusion. In my first attempt to
investigate social exclusion I focused on the agents of exclusion. The main finding was that ignoring
others leads to guilt and impaired cognitive abilities. This is an interesting finding because it suggests
that exclusion may actually hurt the one who excludes. Subsequent studies focused more on the
victims of exclusion. In a line of experiments I show that people are hurt when ostracized even when
it is financial beneficial. In fact, just as much as when it is financially harmful (Van Beest & Williams,
2006).

Apart from coalition formation and social exclusion, I have always had an interest in how people that
suffer from a severe disease attribute physical symptoms. A dominant theme in this research is that
people are likely to attribute negative physical states to their illness even if this is objectively not the
case. For example, children with asthma that are put under stress may misattribute their stress to
having an asthma attack (Rietveld & Van Beest, 2006).

Discussing social and financial payoffs in negotiation

We often face problems that we cannot solve alone. On such moments we  need the help of others.
The process of selecting the most appropriate  person is addressed by social psychological research
on coalition  formation. In government formation, for example, political parties are  likely to select a
coalition partner that will maximize their own   political agenda. However, an underappreciated
consequence of   coalition formation is that the decision to select a specific   coalition partner by
default also implies that other potential  coalition partners are not selected. This may sound obvious,
and  indeed, exactly what coalition formation is all about. But, as I will  show in the current talk, it
leads to some counterintuitive findings  when people face problems in which they either negotiate
about gains  or losses. Using, a slightly adapted :‐), game of Russian roulette in which players either
allocated   gains or losses, I will demonstrate that the decision to include is   sensitive to payoff
valence, whereas the consequences of being  excluded is not. This demonstrates that individuals are
perhaps more sensitive to social payoffs than to financial payoffs. Or, as in the Olympic spirit, it often
not about winning or losing but indeed just about participating.

10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


Speaker: Per van der Wijst
Per van der Wijst (1960) is assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Information
Sciences of Tilburg University. He currently teaches negotiation strategies, communication and
decision processes, and designing functional communication. His recent research interests are in
interpersonal negotiation processes, conflict management and the related communication processes.
After receiving his Ph. D at Tilburg University (1996), he has worked 8 years in Belgium as a lecturer
at the University of Liege, where he was responsible for the Dutch language acquisition program
within the BA and MA program of Germanic languages. From 2004, his main work activities have
been in Tilburg, where he has taught discourse analysis and organizational communication before
switching to the current program. He is still living with his family in Wallonia, the French speaking
part of Belgium, which keeps his interest for intercultural communication and bilingualism alive.

His research activities have been varied. His Ph.D‐thesis was on politeness strategies and
negotiations, in French and Dutch. He has published on the language of negotiators and on cultural
differences in politeness matters. His interest in discourse and communication led furthermore to
joint work on persuasive communication, chat communication and the role of media in language
acquisition. His present research focuses on decision processes and conflict management. Papers on
the role of in‐ or out‐group factors on the decision process in conflict management have been
submitted for publication. Ongoing research focuses on deception in negotiations.

Good Relations and Negotiations. Facilitation or stress?
One of the most popular activities on the internet is to share information and experiences on
community websites, like Facebook and Hyves, or to share it with the entire world through personal
weblogs or personal websites. New friendships are easily made, old friends are found back,
relationship management seems to flourish. Business relations can profit from these sources of
information and this enables them to personalize their relations more easily than a decade ago.

The increased opportunities for rapport management are most likely welcomed by most business
men, since negotiators who have a good relationship have serious advantages. Several studies have
shown that friendship has indeed a positive effect on problem solving and integrative bargaining
tasks. However, in distributive settings, friendship can also hamper the negotiation process and lead
to worse outcomes. Parties in a close relationship often do not push hard enough, out of fear for
conflicts. They also may sacrifice their own preferences in order to safeguard the relationship. A
friendship relation can also lead to the assumption of relational “safety”, giving space to less ethical
strategies such as misrepresenting information or bluffing. A recent study of friend negotiators for
example, indicated that they deceived each other more often than negotiators who did not know
each other. They reported that “their friendship and mutual trust was solid enough to handle this”.
Nevertheless, the same study indicated that their friendship did suffer from the negotiation.

It is clear that a close relation in a negotiation context can be an asset as well as a pitfall. The studies
carried out in this field still raise many questions, which can benefit from a thorough discussion.

19


20


21


22


23


Second workshop scientific perspectives to negotiation
Chair: Per van der Wijst
Per van der Wijst (1960) is assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Information
Sciences of Tilburg University. He currently teaches negotiation strategies, communication and
decision processes, and designing functional communication. His recent research interests are in
interpersonal negotiation processes, conflict management and the related communication processes.
After receiving his Ph. D at Tilburg University (1996), he has worked 8 years in Belgium as a lecturer
at the University of Liege, where he was responsible for the Dutch language acquisition program
within the BA and MA program of Germanic languages. From 2004, his main work activities have
been in Tilburg, where he has taught discourse analysis and organizational communication before
switching to the current program. He is still living with his family in Wallonia, the French speaking
part of Belgium, which keeps his interest for intercultural communication and bilingualism alive.

His research activities have been varied. His Ph.D‐thesis was on politeness strategies and
negotiations, in French and Dutch. He has published on the language of negotiators and on cultural
differences in politeness matters. His interest in discourse and communication led furthermore to
joint work on persuasive communication, chat communication and the role of media in language
acquisition. His present research focuses on decision processes and conflict management.  Papers on
the role of in‐ or out‐group factors on the decision process in conflict management have been
submitted for publication. Ongoing research focuses on deception in negotiations.

Speakers: Machteld de Hoon
Machteld de Hoon is Associate Professor in Civil Law, at Tilburg University. Her research focus is
contract law (in particular long‐term contracts), negotiations, conflict management and conflict
resolution systems. In 2005, she finished her PhD on managing conflicts when long‐term contracts
are ended unilaterally. More recently, she published on the role of blame in contract law, using input
from other social sciences. Furthermore, she is involved in research pilots hosted at the district court
of Zutphen and The Hague, experimenting with ‘tailor made’ legal proceedings. Additionally, she will
be appointed as a Judge at the District Court of ‘s‐Hertogenbosch in December 2008. She takes part
in TISCO (Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems), a
research group focusing on 'justice needs' of individuals in case of legal problems.

“Communication/negotiation support from a legal perspective: TISCO research”
Research shows that 5 % of disputes between Dutch civilians ends up in court, and 45 % ends in a
mutual agreement. Yet, lawyers tend to focus primarily on duties, rights and proceedings in court,
instead of how to solve the conflict. The Dutch Ministry of Justice expressed the policy to strengthen
the self‐solving capacitates of civilians. Offering communication and negotiation support is one way
to make that happen. Many research projects of TISCO (Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies
of Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems) focus on offering support in some way. For example,
TISCO researchers developed a code of conduct for personal injury claims.  Others work on a code of
conduct for divorce. One of the central questions we address is how to improve the access to justice,
for those in need for legal help. Some of us are involved in pilots experimenting with new
proceedings in court. One of the pilots (at the District Court of Zutphen) experiments with early oral
sessions, hosted by both a judge and a mediator. Others focus on tools to develop objective criteria,
and make them easily accessible for a broad public. The role of substantive law (e.g. contract law) in
conflict management has our attention as well. Some rules seem to trigger blame unnecessarily.

24

These (and many other unmentioned) projects are laid down in the TISCO research program 2009‐
2013: Justice needs of individuals in case of legal problems.

25


26


27


28


29


30


Speaker: Michel Handgraaf
Dr. Handgraaf wrote his dissertation on Self‐interest and Other‐oriented Motives in Social Decision
Making at Leiden University. After working as a Postdoc and Assistant Professor at the department of
Economic and Social Psychology, he is currently employed as an Assistant Professor at the
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Amsterdam and as a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia
University, New York. He does research on the role of power and powerlessness in interdependent
situations and bargaining, and on the reasons for the aversion people frequently feel with regard to
negotiation. This line of research focuses on the friction that may occur when moral ideals (such as
speaking the truth and being fair and generous) are in conflict with the pursuit of self‐interest,
something that frequently occurs when people negotiate. Recently, he has developed an interest in
the lack of decision making: decision avoidance, procrastination, buck passing etc. At CRED he works
on research that focuses on environmental decision making by groups vs. individuals and the effects
of preparation and framing on subsequent decision outcomes.

The Effects of Power, Moral Sentiments and Role‐focus on Negotiation.

In my talk I will talk about three related projects, each about negotiation.
The first project focuses on the role of power and powerlessness in interdependent situations and
bargaining. In a recent paper, we use Ultimatum‐ and Dictator Games to investigate whether the idea
that power corrupts is true. We show that people indeed behave less generously the more power
they have, but interestingly enough become more generous when they are absolutely powerful. This
is contrary to lay beliefs about the effects of power and leads to interesting and sometimes
counterproductive patterns of behavior by the less powerful.

The second project deals with the fact that people frequently avoid negotiations, even when
negotiating promises to bring all parties involved higher outcomes than not negotiating. We argue
and show that one of the reasons people avoid negotiation is the friction people expect to occur
when moral ideals (such as speaking the truth and being fair) are in conflict with the pursuit of self‐
interest, something that frequently occurs when people negotiate.

The third and final project deals with the differences between parties in asymmetric negotiation
situations. In this project we show that different roles (such as buyer vs. seller) may induce different
motivations that will lead negotiators to enter a situation with different aims, which in turn may lead
to different behavior on relevant variables such as initial offers and persistence in a negotiation.

31


Speaker: Gwendolyn Kolfschoten
Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten is an assistant Professor at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of
Technology Policy and Management, department of Systems Engineering in the Netherlands. She is
an experienced facilitator of thinkLets‐based Group Support Systems workshop having worked with
numerous public and private organizations. Her research focuses on the quality of thinkLet‐based
collaboration process design for complex tasks. Her research has been presented at HICSS and
CRIWG, AMCIS and GDN conferences and has been published in the International Journal of
Computer Application in Technology, International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies and Group
Decision and Negotiation.

Consensus Building from a Collaboration Engineering perspective

Research authored by

Dr. Robert O. Briggs
Dr. Ir. Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten

Prof. Dr. Gert‐Jan de Vreede

In many groups, decisions cannot be made by fiat because no single person has sufficient expertise,
resources, or power to mandate the cooperation of others. When success‐critical stakeholders are
not in hierarchical relationships, then one may not be able to require others to go along with a
proposal.  Even when hierarchical relationships exist, it is often in the interests of a superior to obtain
the consent of subordinates whose contributions are critical to the success of an effort. In such
multi actor situations, groups must reach consensus in order to proceed and succeed.

When looking at consensus in a broader perspective of negotiation, commitment, choice and
decision making, many methods and approaches are available, but the choice between techniques
and approaches is challenging. A lack of consensus or disagreement often surfaces in a conflict or at
least challenging situation with many stakeholders. In this presentation we will present a diagnostic
tool to show different sources of disagreement and different objects of disagreements when groups
seek consensus. Based on this diagnostic a more deliberate choice for consensus building methods
can be chosen.

32


33


34


35


36


37


Contact information

Paul Meerts
Advisor to the Director of the Clingendael Institute
pmeerts@clingendael.nl

dr. Per van der Wijst
Universitair docent
Faculteit Geesteswetenschappen
Dpt. Comm.‐Inform.wetensch
per.vanderwijst@uvt.nl

Dr. Ir. Gwendolyn Kolfschoten
Assistant Professor Collaboration Engineering
Department of Systems Engineering
Faculty of Technology Policy and Management
Delft University of Technology
e‐mail: g.l.kolfschoten@tudelft.nl
www: http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl

Dr. Ellen Giebels
Associate professor
Department of Psychology & Communication of Health & Risk
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences
University of Twente
e.giebels@utwente.nl

Michel J.J. Handgraaf
University of Amsterdam
Dept. of Psychology
Handgraaf@uva.nl
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.j.j.handgraaf/

Dr. Machteld W. de Hoon
Associate Professor Civil Law, Tilburg University (TISCO)
m.w.dehoon@uvt.nl

Dr. Ilja van Beest
Psychologie, FSW, Universiteit Leiden
vanbeest@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Home Page

38

NNN verslag 2008

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à NNN verslag 2008

Similaire à NNN verslag 2008 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

NNN verslag 2008