Difference between revisions of "Carrot-and-stick negotiation"
(New page: ==Overview== category:power structure toolsCarrot-and-stick negotiation a type of behavior displayed during negotiation. It is characterized by offering incentives ("carrots") ...) |
(major rewrite; more sections) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | [[category:power structure tools]][[Carrot-and-stick negotiation]] a type of behavior displayed during [[negotiation]]. It is characterized by offering incentives ("carrots") and disincentives ("sticks") to persuade the other party towards one's desired course of action, without | + | [[category:power structure tools]][[Carrot-and-stick negotiation]] a type of behavior displayed during [[negotiation]] in which the conflict is seen entirely as a [[power struggle]] rather than a matter of differing understandings of [[fact]]. It is characterized by the offering of incentives ("carrots") and disincentives ("sticks") to persuade the other party towards one's desired course of action, without any interest in altering one's own goals in the light of new [[fact]]s or [[argument]]s which might be introduced by the other party. The incentives and disincentives are often very visceral in nature, i.e. rewards and threats intended to appeal to the more survival-oriented aspects of [[human nature]] – the "fight or flight" response – which tend to override other considerations, especially that of [[rationality|rational thought]]. |
| − | + | To the extent that this style of negotiation disregards the well-being of the other negotiating party, it is essentially [[psychopath]]ic in nature. | |
| + | ===surface similarities=== | ||
| + | It should be noted that carrot-and-stick negotiator (CN) can often seem superficially like a [[rational negotiation|rational negotiator]]. Despite the CN's disinterest in facts, s/he is often quite aware of their effect on other people, and will thus take them seriously as elements worthy of discussion. The difference is subtle on the surface, but may become apparent via such clues as (for example) a CN's disinterest in the ''details'' of a fact, or belief that two facts are equally persuasive when there is far less evidence for one than for the other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | By the same token, a genuine [[rational negotiation|rational negotiator]] (RN) may seem to be paying more attention to how a fact is ''popularly perceived'' than what it ''actually means'', but this could easily be due to the necessity of convincing other (less rational) people that the rational course of action is in their best interest. | ||
| + | ===effects=== | ||
| + | The correlation between this type of thinking negotiation and a disproportionate emphasis on popular opinion over objective fact may explain why so many people in positions of power seem to have so little grasp of reality (and why a disproportionate number of them seem to tend towards psychopathic behavior). | ||
Revision as of 22:15, 15 January 2008
Overview
Carrot-and-stick negotiation a type of behavior displayed during negotiation in which the conflict is seen entirely as a power struggle rather than a matter of differing understandings of fact. It is characterized by the offering of incentives ("carrots") and disincentives ("sticks") to persuade the other party towards one's desired course of action, without any interest in altering one's own goals in the light of new facts or arguments which might be introduced by the other party. The incentives and disincentives are often very visceral in nature, i.e. rewards and threats intended to appeal to the more survival-oriented aspects of human nature – the "fight or flight" response – which tend to override other considerations, especially that of rational thought.
To the extent that this style of negotiation disregards the well-being of the other negotiating party, it is essentially psychopathic in nature.
surface similarities
It should be noted that carrot-and-stick negotiator (CN) can often seem superficially like a rational negotiator. Despite the CN's disinterest in facts, s/he is often quite aware of their effect on other people, and will thus take them seriously as elements worthy of discussion. The difference is subtle on the surface, but may become apparent via such clues as (for example) a CN's disinterest in the details of a fact, or belief that two facts are equally persuasive when there is far less evidence for one than for the other.
By the same token, a genuine rational negotiator (RN) may seem to be paying more attention to how a fact is popularly perceived than what it actually means, but this could easily be due to the necessity of convincing other (less rational) people that the rational course of action is in their best interest.
effects
The correlation between this type of thinking negotiation and a disproportionate emphasis on popular opinion over objective fact may explain why so many people in positions of power seem to have so little grasp of reality (and why a disproportionate number of them seem to tend towards psychopathic behavior).