ABSTRACT
I. Measuring Negotiation Effectiveness............................ 148 A. The 1976 Williams S tudy ......................................... 148 B. The Need for a New Study....................................... 150
1. Demographics................ ................ .................... 150 2, New Theories and Confusing Terms................ 150
C. Updates to the Study Instrument........................... 152 1. Rating Scales ....................................................... 153
a) Adjective Scales............................................ 153 b) Bipolar Scales................................................ 154 c) Goals and Objectives.................................... 155 d) Effectiveness Rating..................................... 155
2. Self-Assessment Section..................................... 156 3. Negotiation Training and ADR Experience . . . 156
II. Background and Population Characteristics................ 157
A. Administration of the S u rv ey .................................. 157 B. Demographics........................................ .................... 158
1. Response Rates and G eography....................... 158 2. D iversity................................................................ 158 3. Experience Level.................................................. 159 4. Subject M a tte r ...................................................... 160
III. Substantive Results of the New S tu d y ................... 162 A. Problem-Solving and Adversarial Styles of
N egotiating................................................................... 162 1. Adjective Ratings ................................................ 163 2. Bipolar R a tin g s......................... ......................... 164 3. Goals ...................................................................... 165 4. Effectiveness Ratings................................ . ........ 166
a) Adjective Ratings........................................... 168 b) Bipolar Ratings.............................................. 168 c) Goals................................................................ 169
2. Three Cluster A nalysis....................................... 171 a) Adjective R atings........................................... 171 b) Bipolar Ratings.................................. ........... 173 c) Goals............................................................... 174 d) Effectiveness.................................................. 174
C. Judging the Effectiveness of Adversarial Behavior-Two A pproaches........... ..................... 176 1. Two Cluster Analysis........................... ...............- 176
a) Adjective R atings........................................... 176 b) Bipolar Ratings.............................................. 177 c) Goals................................................................ 179
2. Four Cluster A nalysis........................................ 179 a) Adjective R atings........................................... 180 b) Bipolar Ratings.............................................. 181 c) Goals................................................................ 183 d) Effectiveness.................................................. 184
IV. Changes in Effective Negotiating Over the Past 25 Y ears.................................................................................... 184 A. Effective Problem-Solving....... ................................ 185 B. Effective Adversarial.................................................. 186 C. Effective Behavior on the Goals Ratings................ 187 D. Effectiveness Regardless of S ty le ............................ 187 E. Comparing Effectiveness Ratings over Tim e......... 189
Spring 2002] Shattering Negotiation Myths 145
V. Potential Limitations on the S tudy .............................. ...... 190 A. Self-Selection..................................................................... 190 B. Projection and Punishment .. *................................ ...... 192 C. The Definition of Effectiveness................................ ...... 195
VI. Conclusion........................................................................... ...... 196
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Firmness in support of fundamentals, with flexibility in tactics and method, is the key to any hope of progress in negotiation.”1 While he was referring to foreign policy, this advice could equally apply to lawyers in their day-to-day negotiations. Many lawyers, however, find themselves drawn more to the words of Niccolo Machiavelli: “The prince who relies upon their words, without having otherwise provided for his security, is ruined . . . ,”2 In other words, trust no one.
