September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.

5in b2221-ch01 page 3

Chapter 1
Alternatives to Resolving Conflict

“One might as well try to ride two horses moving in different directions, as to try
to maintain in equal force two opposing or contradictory sets of desires”.
Robert Collier

Ask yourselves the question: When do you negotiate? Some people, when
asked this question, reply: “All the time”, while others say “on many occa-
sions”. The fact is that no one negotiates all the time; we negotiate only on
particular occasions; that is, only when we experience conflict with others.
Negotiation is a way to confront conflict. In the absence of conflict, there
is no reason to negotiate. However, the extent of success in resolving the
conflict through negotiation depends, among other things, on the nature of
the conflict and the available alternatives for actually finding a solution.
So, what do we know about the nature of conflict, the sources of conflict
and the alternatives available to us when confronting a conflict? Is negoti-
ation always the best alternative when confronting a conflict? How can we
decide when negotiation is the optimal alternative for confronting a conflict
or whether some other alternative should be considered? In the following
chapter, all these issues and their implications are discussed.

1. On the Nature of Conflict

What is conflict and how can we define it?1 A conflict usually emerges when
there is a change in the status quo, which also changes the existing balance

1A great deal of the literature has dealt with conflict over the last decades. Most of the
classic literature developed in the 80s and the 90s of the 20th century. We shall only refer
here to a few important contributions to the knowledge of conflict and conflict confrontation:
Coombs, C.H. and Avrunin, G.S. (1988), The Structure of Conflict, Lawrence Eribaum Asso-
ciates, Inc.; De Drew, C.W.K. and Van De Vliert, E. (1997), Using conflict in Organizations,

3
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 4

4 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

of control over resources or values. As long as the status quo is maintained,

the probability of conflict is low because people usually prefer to maintain
the current state of affairs, rather than change it. However, the world has
become a “small village”, which is constantly experiencing rapid changes in
politics, values and resources. The status quo is also changing rapidly in all
areas of life, stimulating conflicts between individuals, groups and nations.
As a result, conflict has become an integral part of people’s daily lives.
The nature of conflict is studied in many disciplines, among them
Decision-Making, Game Theory, Economics, Political Science, Sociology
and Psychology. Each discipline perceives conflict from a different point of
view. Some emphasize the negative aspects of conflict, while others observe
the positive aspects. Nevertheless, conflicts prevail everywhere, in personal
relations, among groups and among national entities; and a high proportion
of human interaction and effort is invested in trying to resolve conflicts.
Therefore, the question is not whether conflict is “good” or “bad”, but rather
what are the causes of conflict and how can we best confront it.

1.1. Defining Conflict

There are many definitions of the term conflict, but the most prevailing def-
inition relates to opposing interests (objective or conceptual) between and
among individuals, groups or nations, involving scarce resources and values
such as religion and ideology.2
Conflict can occur as a result of an objective situation or a subjective
perception. When conflict results from what seems to be an objective change
in the status quo, it is referred to as a “external” or “objective” conflict.
However, the same conflict may exist only in the minds of the parties or
individuals, in which case it can be referred to as a “concealed” or “subjec-
tively perceived conflict.3 In other words, conflict also exists in situations

Sage Publications; Pruitt, D.G. (1998). Social Conflict, Chapter 27, in Gilbert, D. Fiske, S.T.
and Lindzey, G. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th Edition, Vol. 2, pp. 470–503),
McGraw-Hill; Rubin, G. Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.T. (1994), Social Conflict: Escalation,
Stalemate and Settlement, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill.
2Wade-Benzoni, K.A. Hoffman, A.J. Thompson, L.L. Moore, D.A. Gillespie, J.J. and Baz-
erman, M.H. (2002), Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiation: The Role
of Values and Institutions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27(1), pp. 41–57.
3 Pruitt, D.G. (2001), Conflict and Conflict Resolution, International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Science Ltd.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 5

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 5

where people only perceive opposing interests. In a situation where there is

an objective change in the status quo, but people do not perceive opposing
interests, there is no conflict. In a situation where there is no change at all,
but people perceive opposing interests, there is conflict. Perceiving conflict
may be influenced, on a case-by-case basis, by many features relating to
the involved parties, such as their emotions, fear, stereotypes, cultural val-
ues and their perceived power balance. Nevertheless, regardless of whether
the conflicts are objectively or subjectively perceived; their consequences
can be severe, often damaging relationships between close friends and even
between married couples, or triggering on a larger scale, struggles, strikes
and even terror and wars.
It is noteworthy that the traditional literature discusses either “conflict
resolution” or “conflict management”. “Conflict resolution” refers to the
termination of a conflict, whereas, “conflict management” refers to mini-
mizing the negative aspects of a conflict. However, conflicts are not always
easy to resolve or manage. Therefore, the main issue is neither “conflict
management” nor “conflict resolution”, but rather “conflict confrontation”.
Obviously, the causes of the conflict should be taken into account when cal-
culating the best way to confront it. While it is not possible to discuss all
the causes of all conflicts here, we can still give some examples of the most
typical causes of conflicts.

1.2. What are the Main Causes of Conflicts?

Scarce resources as the cause of conflict: The access and control of scarce
resources4 has been a source of conflict for centuries. It is worth noting that
scarce resources can be either tangible or sociological/psychological. Some
examples of tangible scarce resources are: Land, as in a conflict between
neighbors over a property dispute, at the individual level, or at the national
level, in regard to water, which has long been the cause of bitter conflicts
in many regions and countries, as Mark Twain said: “Whiskey is for drink-
ing — water is for fighting over”. Disagreements over oil and natural gas
have also been a serious source of conflict in many regions throughout the
world. Some examples of the sociological/psychological causes of conflict

4An interesting review of the literature regarding scarce resources as a cause of conflict can
be found in Struver, G., (2010): Too Many Resources or Too Few? What Drives International
Conflicts? SSRN Working paper Series, October 2010.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 6

6 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

are: The perception of group deprivation, sometimes as a result of vertically

differentiated group; competition over an important (scarce) civil service
office, which is a source of power and other rewards. Other examples are:
Population density (objective or conceptual), which leads to demands for
non-available food or space, as well as a desire for territorial control, and
regime survival, are all causes of conflicts.
Values as a source of conflict: Religion has for centuries been a cause of
brutal, ongoing conflicts. It was already an important cause of conflict in
early ages,5 and also in so-called “modern times”. Conflicts over religious
domination exist between and within various religious sectors, as well as
between religious and secular populations. Religion, one of the main causes
of conflict, has been and remains the source of countless wars and acts of
terrorism.
Ideology has also been responsible for many painful conflicts throughout
human history. Thus, religion and ideology are similar in respect to being
major sources of conflict; they are also the most difficult conflicts to confront.
The “traditional” perception attributed to conflicts is that they trigger com-
petition and struggles between the different interests of individuals, groups
and nations. According to this conception, a system without conflicts or even
with a few minor conflicts is the most desirable one; the assumption being
that conflicts should be prevented at all costs.
Later perceptions of conflict considered it a natural phenomenon, typical
to every social system. Conflicts are inevitable when people live and work
together.6 Since conflicts are unavoidable, people should learn to live with
them, resolve them, and if possible, even reap some benefits from them.
While traditional conceptions are interested in preventing conflicts, and
other conceptions focus on resolving conflicts, it is also important to mention
some positive attributes of conflicts. Conflicts sometimes serve as a trigger
for social change and innovation, According to this conception, a social
system without conflicts may degenerate in the absence of triggers that lead
to change. Moreover, considering our subject matter, conflicts are important
because they are the reason and the trigger behind negotiation.

5 See, for example, Brams, S.J. (2003) Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible,
2nd revised Edition, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
6 De Drew. C.W.K. (2006), When Too Much and Too Little Hearts: Evidence for Curvilinear
Relationship between Task Conflict and Innovation, Journal of Management, Vol. 32(1), pp.
83–107.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 7

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 7

National, international and diplomatic conflicts are good examples of

conflict confrontation. While in this chapter only day-to-day examples are
presented, it is noteworthy that the type of considerations and methods used to
choose the best confrontation resolution alternative are the same, regardless
of whether we are facing day-to-day conflicts, national, labor relations or
any other type of conflict.

2. Considerations in Conflict Confrontation

2.1. What do People Consider When Confronting a Conflict?

As a rule, people take into consideration their expected gains versus their
expected losses in each decision during conflict confrontation. Since losses
are more painful than gains, it is reasonable to assume that the parties involved
in a conflict will not consider a decision in which the expected gain is slightly
higher than their expected losses. They also would not, rationally, consider a
decision in which they believe that their losses would outweigh their gains.
Imagine, for example, a scenario in which graduate students are study-
ing towards their Master’s degree. Their curriculum includes a fixed number
of elective courses and two seminars, which the students must complete
in order to qualify for their Master’s degree. It is important to note that a
seminar is considered the most demanding type of a course, especially in
terms of the students’ remaining leisure time. Now imagine that the uni-
versity authorities wish to make a change in the curriculum by adding an
additional (third) seminar — to the students’ curriculum. The students, how-
ever, oppose the university authorities’ intentions, by refusing to accept an
additional seminar. The conflict is obvious. The interest of university author-
ities is to optimize the quality of teaching, which they believe will promote
the university’s image, as well as increase the number of highly qualified
students that enroll in the Master’s program. The student representatives’
interest is to preserve the students’ leisure time, which they believe is very
limited, due to the current curriculum. Another interest of the students is to
prevent any additional initiatives on the part of the university that may harm
them. What should university authorities consider when deciding on how
to confront this conflict with their own students? In order to optimize their
gain, should they require a third seminar if, by doing so, they risk a students’
strike, bad publicity, as well as a possible reduction in the number of students
enrolling the graduate program? It seems that in order to optimize their own
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 8

8 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

interests, university authorities should take into consideration the possible

consequences of requiring students to take on a third seminar. Another alter-
native is that university authorities will consider some kind of cooperation
from their students. Then again, the authorities may consider giving up the
third seminar requirement, thereby endangering the university’s image as
a leading university and perhaps bringing about further student demands.
University authorities might come to the conclusion that in making such a
decision, their losses would outweigh their gains.
Imagine another scenario: A firm’s management has a great demand for
a senior professional employee with unique and rare knowledge. The human
resources manager has invested a lot of time trying to find a suitable can-
didate. When an appropriate candidate is finally found, the management is
ready to offer him generous work conditions and a good salary. However,
soon enough the management discovers that the candidate’s demands far
exceed what the management believes is a fair and generous offer.
What should the management consider when deciding how to confront the
conflict with the desirable candidate? Trying to force the candidate to accept
the management’s original offer with a sort of “take it or leave it” attitude
may be the best alternative to maximize management gain. However, since
the candidate may reject the offer, such a decision may backfire, ending
with the company losing a rare and desirable employee, resulting in added
expenditures and time spent looking for another suitable candidate. Should
the management consider conceding to the candidate’s demands, since it
has already invested so much time trying to find a suitable employee? How
would such concessions affect its other employees’ demands? Alternatively,
should the management try to negotiate, at the risk of failing to satisfy the
candidate? Might a new offer simply serve as an incentive for the candidate’s
increased demands? What kind of decision, on the part of the management,
would ensure that the gains outweigh the losses.

2.2. Cooperation as the Preferred Alternative

to Confront a Conflict
Perhaps the most famous theory that refers to conflict confrontation is the
Dual Concern Model. The Model assumes that the combination of the first
party’s concerns to both itself and the other party’s concerns provide some
insight into the parties’ considerations when confronting a conflict. This
combination of concerns yields four alternatives for confronting a conflict:
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 9

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 9

Contending, Yielding, Problem Solving and Inaction.7 It seems that the con-
cept of Problem Solving is very close to that of Negotiation.
In recent decades, various theories have maintained that choosing the
cooperation of all parties’ interests should be the main consideration when
confronting a conflict. In the dual concern theory, for example, Problem
Solving is the preferable consideration. The assumption is that if all involved
parties are concerned about one another and motivated to mutually confront
the conflict, there is a high probability of finding a resolution that satisfies
everyone. In other words, a competitive alternative, if chosen as a way to
confront a conflict, can bring about a non-optimal outcome. This is a debat-
able assumption because in some situations there are some better alternatives
than cooperation, in terms of gains and losses. In other situations, both com-
petitive and cooperative approaches to a conflict could yield the best result.

3. Alternatives to Confronting Conflict

It is possible to divide the alternatives to confronting a conflict into five broad

categories8 :

3.1. Coercion
One (or both) parties wishes to end the conflict by dominating the other party,
in order to achieve its own interests. At the individual level, for example, in
a divorce conflict, one party wishes to end the conflict by forcing the other
party to give up custody of the children, taking over all property gained by
the couple over the years or both.

3.2. Surrender
Yielding completely to the other party. Many conflicts have ended by one
party (usually the weaker one) giving up everything to the other. In business,
one firm may completely yield to another firm that wishes to control it.
In many cases, one of the parties has no choice, but to yield. However,

7 Pruitt, D.G. and Rubin, G. (1986), Social Conflict, McGraw-Hill.

8 Kleiman and Hassin, who examined unconscious conflicts in individuals, argue that this
type of conflict increases the likelihood of multiple thinking, rather than narrowing alterna-
tive options . See Kleiman, T, and Hassin, R.R. (2013), When Conflicts are Good: Uncon-
scious Goal Conflicts Reduce Confirmatory Thinking, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 105(3), pp. 374–387.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 10

10 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

sometimes yielding is voluntary. For example, in a conflict between loving

couples one party voluntary yields to the other party in order to preserve
good relations.

3.3. Withdrawal
One or both parties can escape the conflict by maintaining that no con-
flict exists. In the face of conflict, parties may simply ignore one another’s
demands, convincing themselves and others, that the situation is not actually
a conflict, but a normal situation. “It’s not that you’re spitting on me, it’s
just raining”: This old saying is an analogy for withdrawal from a conflict. If
there is no conflict, no response is needed, and the parties can easily maintain
their normal lives. For example, in a relationship between a couple, one or
both can leave the relationship, still maintaining good relationships, as if
there were never any conflicts between them.

3.4. Deferral9
Deferred conflict is time-related. One or both parties can defer the conflict
for a certain time, maintaining the status quo, with the hope that in time the
conflict will become irrelevant. It is possible to believe that, “if time cures
all”, it should be able to end a conflict as well. Deference also allows a party
to receive more information, to further consider a suitable decision, and also
to amend conceptions or misconceptions regarding the conflict. However, if
over time the conflict still exists, at least one party or both will have to deal
with it.

3.5. Negotiation
In order to deal with a conflict, both parties must engage in an exchange
process. During this process, each party offers the other objects that the
other party needs, while receiving in return objects that they need, with
the hopes of reaching an agreement. The main difference between negotia-
tion and the other alternatives to confront a conflict is that all of the other
(above-mentioned) alternatives can be accomplished by one party, whereas

9An interesting discussion of deferred conflict can be found in Tversky, A. and Shafir, E.
(1992), Choice under Conflict: The Dynamic of Deferred Decision, Psychological Science,
Vol. 3(6), pp. 358–361.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 11

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 11

in negotiation both (or all) parties must be involved (willingly, and at times,
even unwillingly) in the process.
Choosing negotiation as a preferable alternative, when attempting to
resolve a conflict, is typically culture-dependent. Due to cooperative social-
ization, mainly in the so-called “Western” countries, many people believe that
negotiation is the preferable alternative when confronting conflict. However,
negotiation is only one of several alternatives when trying to deal with a
conflict and it is not always the most effective one. Moreover, it could be
expensive, both in terms of financial resources and in terms of emotional
investment. Even during the negotiation process, if one or both of the parties
discover that negotiation is not the most effective alternative to their con-
flict, they should walk away from the process and decide to deal with their
disagreements by using other available alternatives.
Therefore, the first decision people should make in order to confront a
conflict is to examine all available alternatives and systematically choose
that which they consider to be the most effective alternative. Among other
considerations, they should look also at the alternative which is the least
risky and costly. In recent discussions of conflict resolution, there has been
too much emphasis placed on negotiation in which seemingly joint decisions
are made.

4. Choosing from Among the Alternatives

Choosing from among the earlier alternatives is complicated in the face

of uncertainty, regarding their consequences. Therefore, in order to choose
between the available alternatives, it is essential to assemble and evaluate
information regarding each party’s interests, goals and points of reservation.
In the following section, three methods are presented for choosing the best
alternative when confronting a conflict.

4.1. The Intuitive Choice

Intuition (“rules of thumb” or Heuristics) is one way to choose from among
the alternatives. Individuals and parties confronting conflict, use such “rules
of thumb” in order to avoid complicated decisions, by filtering information
to fit in with their past experience and previous conceptions. Therefore, intu-
ition is frequently adopted by many, because it is quick and simplifies the
complicated matter of choosing among alternatives. Of course, it is not a
systematic choice and, in many cases, leads to errors and ends with regrets
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 12

12 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

and/or cognitive dissonance. One example of an intuitive decision is when

the management decides to force its initial offer (which the management
believes is fair and generous) on the desirable candidate, in the face of the
uncertainty regarding the candidate’s response to the offer. Such a decision
may result in losing the candidate and the need to search for another. Assum-
ing that there is a shortage of high-quality employees, the management might
regret its decision, or justify it in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

4.2. The Subjective Importance Choice

The subjective importance attributed by a party to each alternative, tak-
ing into consideration its advantages and disadvantages as well as its risk
and cost.

4.3. Choosing According to Each Alternative’s

Expected Utility
A more systematic approach when choosing among the available alternatives
involves the listing of all of the relevant party’s alternatives and a consistent
analysis of their feasible outcomes. This type of analysis is based on evaluat-
ing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, taking into account
not only the consequences of a party’s own choice, but also the consequences
of the other party’s possible responses to each alternative. Accordingly, the
party can give each relevant alternative a subjective value (which could range,
for instance, between one and ten) and then select the alternative with the
highest subjective value. For example, we return to the conflict between the
management and the candidate: The Forced alternative value could receive a
value of 5, as the management predicts a 50% chance that the candidate will
decide to accept the offer. The Surrender alternative — yielding to the can-
didate’s demands — could be valued at 3, as the candidate’s high demands
may influence the requirements of many other employees in the firm. With-
drawal from the conflict is an irrelevant option in this case, and thus does not
receive any value. The Deferring alternative gives the management another
chance to inspect the labor market, hopefully without losing the candidate;
therefore, its value could be an 8. Negotiation could lead to a compromise,
but it may take time and effort, and may also be costly in regard to both time
and effort (as we will later discuss); therefore, it receives a value of 6. Con-
sidering the relative highest subjective given value, the management should
choose the Defer alternative as its best choice. It is worth mentioning that
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 13

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 13

when the chosen alternative’s value is higher than the other alternatives, the
choice is easy. However, when some alternatives receive close or identical
subjective values, choosing the “best” alternative becomes more compli-
cated. Therefore, a more comprehensive and refined method for choosing
among the alternatives is described as the third method, chosing according
to each alternative’s expected utility.

4.3.1. Choosing according to each alternative’s expected

utility: An example
Imagine the Braun family who has lived in the suburbs for many years.
During all these years, the family has enjoyed a quiet neighborhood, clear
air and tranquility. One day, a loud noise is heard from the neighbor’s yard.
The Braun family believes that this is only an isolated incident. However,
the noise continues day after day, from early morning until late at night. The
family members soon discover that their new neighbor has set up a little
workshop in his yard and intends to carry on certain activities on a daily
basis. That is the end of the quiet neighborhood, clean air and tranquility
for the Brauns. How should the Braun family confront the conflict with its
new neighbor? How should the family choose systematically between the
relevant available alternatives? The expected utility approach may enable
a more sophisticated systematic choice among the relevant alternatives, by
taking into account a few possible scenarios for each possible alternative.
The family may ascribe a subjective value to each possible scenario, and
consider as far as is possible a realistic probability of each scenario actually
taking place. The following is an example of the expected utility calculated
for each alternative that might be chosen by the Braun family.

4.3.2. The coercion alternative

Solidarity: The family can organize the majority of the suffering neighbors
to demonstrate and picket every day in front of the neighbor’s workshop.
Scenario 1 — The subjective value (ascribed by the family) to this scenario
is 6, while the probability of the evaluated effect of the demonstrations on
the new neighbor is 0.5. In other words, there is a 0.5 chance that, in the end,
the new neighbor will move his workshop.
Scenario 2 — Another possibility is that, as a result of the demonstrations,
the neighbor will agree to substantially reduce the noise level caused by his
workshop. The value ascribed by the family to this scenario is 4 (after all,
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 14

14 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

they will still have to deal with some level of noise), while the probability
of the neighbor’s reducing the noise is evaluated at 0.5. Thus, the expected
utility of the Coercion alternative is 5 (6 × 0.5 + 4 × 0.5 = 5.0).

4.3.3. The surrender alternative

The family does not want to quarrel with its new neighbor and decides to
keep on living in the house, believing that, in time they will get used to the
noise and pollution.
Scenario 1 — The value ascribed by the family to getting used to the noise
and pollution under the present conditions is 4, while the probability that the
family will actually get used to it is 0.2.
Scenario 2 — The family will stay inside the house as much as possible,
as they cannot get used to the noise and pollution. Inside the house, they
will suffer less from the noise, but the family knowingly “sentences itself to
‘house arrest”’ for an undefined time period. The family is not very happy
with the idea of being “imprisoned” within their own home. Therefore, the
value ascribed by the family to this scenario is 2, but the probability of
managing under such conditions is 0.8.
Thus, the expected utility of the surrender alternative is 2.4 (4 × 0.2 +
2 × 0.8 = 2.4).

4.3.4. The withdrawal alternative

The family will sell their house in order to move to a better neighborhood.
Scenario 1 — In the case of success in selling the house for a reasonable
price, the subjective value ascribed by the family would be 7, but the evaluated
probability of success (as regards selling the house for a reasonable price)
is 0.2.
Scenario 2 — The family will sell the house at a low price (a loss), due to
the noise and pollution. The subjective value ascribed by the family to such
a loss is 3, while the probability to actually sell the house at a very low price
is 0.8.
Thus, the expected utility for the withdrawal alternative is 3.8 (7 × 0.2 +
3 × 0.8 = 3.8).

4.3.5. The deferral alternative

The family will “silently” collect information about the neighbor (past prob-
lems with neighbors, the law, etc.) and consult a lawyer and a private
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 15

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 15

investigator regarding the neighbor and his workshop’s noise and pollution.
This will be time-consuming.
Scenario 1 — In the end, the family will be better prepared to confront
the conflict and decide upon the desirable measures. However, meanwhile
the family will suffer the noise and pay for the information. The subjective
value ascribed by the family in this scenario is 6, while the probability of
future success is 0.8.
Scenario 2 — The family finds that the collected information yields very
little (if any) support for taking real, practical measures against the neighbor.
In this case, the ascribed value is 0. Furthermore, since the evaluation of no
success in confronting the conflict is very limited; the family estimates its
probability at 0.2.
Thus, the expected utility for the Defer alternative is 4.8 (6 × 0.8 + 0 ×
0.2 = 4.8).

4.3.6. The negotiation alternative

At the beginning of the negotiations, the family will demand that the neighbor
move the workshop to another location.
Scenario 1 — The neighbor may be ready to move the workshop, but
will demand that the family fully compensate him for moving expenses.
The family evaluates that during the negotiation, the neighbor will lower his
initial demands, but the family will still have to pay some of the moving
costs. The family estimates the prospects of such a result to be 0.4, while
its subjective value is valued at 4. Scenario 2 — The family evaluates that
during the negotiations they will not be successful in getting the neighbor
to move his workshop, but can reduce its activities from 50 hours a week to
20 hours a week, (4 days, from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm), hours during which
the family members are usually away from home. Accordingly, the noise
and pollution suffering would be minimized, but the value of the family’s
property would drop substantially. The family ascribes this type of scenario
a value of 3, while the probability of minimizing the trouble as a result of
negotiation is evaluated as 0.6. Thus, the expected utility for the negotiation
alternative is 3.4 (4 × 0.4 + 3 × 0.6 = 3.4).
A systematic analysis, in accordance with the expected utility method,
enables a better comparison of all the alternatives than Intuition, and even
the Subjective Importance as described earlier. According to the Expected
Utility method, it is clear that the preferred alternative for the Braun family, at
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 16

16 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

Braun’s noise conflict

COERCION SURRENDER WITHDRAWAL DEFERRAL NEGOTIATIONS

Solidarity of No quarrel The family sells Silent
neighbors with new collection of Negotiations with
their house the new neighbor
neighbor information
Expected utility Expected
Expected Expected = 3.8 Expected
utility – 5.0 utility = 2.4 utility = 4.8 utility = 3.4

The The The family The The The noise

neighbor neighbor sells for a family workshop hours will
closes the reduces reasonable sells at a will be be
workshop the noise price low price moved reduced

Value = 6 Value = 4 Value = 7 Value = Value = 4 Value = 3

p = 0.5 p =0.5 p = 0.2 3 p = 0.4 p = 0.6
p = 0.8

The The family Better less

family gets doesn’t get prepared prepared
used to the used to the to to
noise noise confront confront

Value =4 Value = 2 Value = Value =

p = 0.2 p = 0.8 6 0
p = 0.8 p = 0.2

Figure 1: The Braun family’s expected utility for each alternative

least at the first stage of conflict confrontation, is Coercion with an expected

utility of 5.0, and definitely not Negotiation, with an expected utility of 3.4.
Figure 1 depicts the Braun family’s expected utility for each alternative.
It is possible that the best alternative — Coercion — according to the
results of the expected utility analysis, will fail to bring about the desired
pre-evaluated results, and the noise and pollution will continue. Therefore,
due to the continued suffering of the Brauns, as a result of the workshop, the
Braun family should try another alternative. However, in the second stage,
the family should also base its decision regarding the best alternative on
systematic analysis and once more calculate the expected utility of all the
remaining relevant alternatives. It should be noted that in the second stage
the subjective value and probability evaluations may change, due to new
information and a change in circumstances.
When the classical term BATNA, “Best Alternative to Negotiated Agree-
ment”, is applied to the earlier example, we find that Coercion is the
BATNA — the alternative with the highest expected utility (5.0); while the
Surrender alternative is the WATNA — the “Worst Alternative to Negoti-
ated Agreement”, having the lowest expected utility (2.4). Of course, when
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 17

Alternatives to Resolving Conflict 17

Fisher and Ury first introduced the classical term, BATNA,10 they referred to
the negotiation process, in which the negotiation fails and the involved par-
ties turn to their next-best alternatives. However, it is more reasonable to use
the best (BATNA) and worst (WATNA) alternatives in a previous stage — the
stage of choosing the alternatives to confront a conflict. Why choose nego-
tiation, which can reach an impasse and then turn to a better alternative, if it
is possible to avoid such (a common) mistake and choose another alternative
beforehand?
Finally, sometimes it is much more effective to confront a conflict using
two or more alternatives together, rather than one alternative. For example,
using a combination of coercion and negotiation might produce a better out-
come than using coercion or negotiation individually or any other individual
alternative in isolation.11 In addition, it is also possible to choose another
alternative, if the first alternative does not help resolve the conflict. It is most
important to systematically calculate your best and worst alternatives each
time. Unfortunately, a systematic method of choice is not always applied by
the parties who confront conflict.

Practical Applications
• Try to avoid intuition (“rules of thumb”) when deciding which alter-
native is best or worst when confronting a conflict. While intuition
might “work” for you by chance, there is a high probability that it
will lead you to make wrong decisions.
• You will do better if you choose the preferred alternative by systemat-
ically analyzing available alternatives, rather than by using intuition.
• Do not assume that the best alternative when confronting a conflict
is always negotiation. At times, it might be the worst alternative.
• Consider alternatives that optimize your expected gains and mini-
mize your expected losses.
• If it is problematic to ascribe value or probability to each alternative
in a certain situation, you might as well choose the “Deferral” option.
Deferral might not be your best alternative in the end, but it may give

10 See the revised edition — Fisher, R. Ury, W. and Patton, B. (2011), Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Penguin Books.
11Van De Vliert, E. Nauta, A. Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), Constructive Conflict at
Work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20(4), pp. 475–491.
September 28, 2015 18:51 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice - 9.75in x 6.5in b2221-ch01 page 18

18 The World of Negotiation: Theories, Perceptions and Practice

you more time to consider the consequences of each choice, and

allow you to collect more and better information. Time and informa-
tion may be crucial in identifying/detecting the available alternatives
and choosing the best one. However, take care since by deferring
your decision you might lose the “objects” you wished to gain, such
as a house or other important acquisition.
• Your best alternative in the first stage may not be the best alternative
as time progresses.
• Be flexible. Do not simply stick to one alternative from the beginning
to the end of the confronting conflict process. Switching from the
first chosen alternative to another is both possible and legitimate. For
example, if Withdrawal does not work for you, switch to Coercion or
Negotiation. If neither Coercion nor Negotiation is the best alterna-
tives at the current stage, consider switching to Deferring, and so on.
However, before each switch, try to systematically calculate your best
and worst alternatives at that time.
• It is sometimes best to choose more than one alternative, such as
coercion and negotiation, at the same time, rather than one individual
alternative.
• When choosing an alternative, or a combination of alternatives, try
to avoid the influence of stress, fatigue or other distractions, which
may cause you to choose erroneously.