Trust vs. active distrust, Conflict and Negotiation Types

Solution Preview

---

Let's take a closer look at these interesting questions. I also provided some extra information at the end this response that expands on a section of this response, and if referred to in the response.

RESPONSE:

1. What are the differences between forms of trust and active distrust?

Trust is "confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability" (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861722260/trust.html).

Mistrust is "suspicion about or lack of confidence in somebody or something" (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=mistrust).

Trust presents in different ways, and if trust becomes the norm, people respond in different ways than if there is active mistrust, including:

* Consider your recommendations on their merits, rather than through the haze of mistrust
* Take action on important financial matters sooner rather than later
* Buy multiple products from you with confidence
* Remain clients for decades rather than days or months
* Gladly refer you to their friends and families
* Not sue you. (http://www.ethicscheck.com/news/pdf_articles/bselling/g-02_06.pdf)

Similarly, when trust overrides mistrust, the person would engage in some of the following:

* Enjoy your career and your clients a lot more
* Have a better reputation in your community
* Get more referrals from professionals in other fields
* Take more pride in your work and your accomplishments
* Have less employee turnover in your firm
* Earn greater respect from your spouse and children
* Make a great deal more money
* Retire earlier rather than later
* Not be forced to understand the limits of your E&O policy (http://www.ethicscheck.com/news/pdf_articles/bselling/g-02_06.pdf)

The exact opposite is true with active mistrust.

b. How can a "business relationship" approach assist disputants in a conflict situation where there is low trust or high distrust?

Trust normally develops over time, but this is a luxury many negotiators of dispute do not have. When a dispute occurs, especially where there is active mistrust, establishing trust is critical to achieving success, because all conflict situations/negotiations involve some level of risk. Even though negotiators in a conflict situation "usually say that they're prepared to bargain in good faith...talks sometimes collapse because each side lacks trust in the other's competence and good intentions." The first step to inspiring trust is to demonstrate trustworthiness. There are six proposed strategies for negotiators to consider, including speak the language, manage your reputation, make dependence a factor, make unilateral concessions, explain your demands and maximize joint gain (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4033.html). Each of these is expanded in excerpt at the end of this response.

At the National Ethics Bureau, they know that advisors can increase their personal trust quotient by leaps and bounds when they implement the following four strategies:

1. Enhance your personal credibility by broadening your education and delivering
top-shelf professional results.
2. Assure your personal reliability by always following through on your client commitments.
3. Achieve greater client intimacy by connecting emotionally with your clients and their families, if possible.
4. Always put your clients' interests ahead of your own. (http://www.ethicscheck.com/news/pdf_articles/bselling/g-02_06.pdf)

Trust is important in the world of business, regardless of the type of business. If a company "wants to reshape their business and life", "it is important to trust among those you serve and love." (http://www.ethicscheck.com/news/pdf_articles/bselling/g-02_06.pdf)

2. What are the five negotiation styles and when is it best to use them to resolve conflict?

There are 5 negotiation styles, and most people use a mix of these negotiation styles:

1. Avoider (I Lose - You Lose)

These people "hate conflicts and avoid them at all costs"; therefore, "making an agreement with an avoider is very difficult." (http://literacynet.org/icans/chapter05/negotiation.html)

When to use?

? When the value of investing time to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefit; or if the issue under negotiation is trivial (trivial to both parties).

? Sometimes there is just not enough at stake to risk a difficult conflict situation. If there is a lot of emotion in a negotiation, it's pointless pushing through and hammering it out.

? Better to allow people to calm down first, let the testosterone hormone leave everyone's system first so that reason and rationality can reappear. At that point an avoid style is likely the most pragmatic alternative - suggest a timeout of 15-20 minutes.

? What to do when you're dragged into a negotiation unprepared? Under these circumstances, avoidance is probably the most sensible strategy. Either avoid the meeting, or avoid discussing the issues upon which you need to prepare. (http://www.negotiations.com/articles/negotiation-conflict-profiles/)

2. Compromiser (I Lose / Win Some - You Lose / Win Some)

These people like "to maintain a productive relationship. So they will make a compromise first, giving the other person what they want in order to reach an agreement and preserve the relationship. Compromising usually requires that both people give up something in order to reach an agreement. It ...