Only $35.99/year

Terms in this set (39)

1. Competing Style
-very uncooperative and very assertive
-my way or the high way
-more assertive and less cooperative
- like to win
- dominating style
-claim value
-take whole pie
-my way or the high way
-very uncooperative and very assertive
-win-lose
-hard on relationships
-prefer to negotiate in games that result in gains and losses
-finding best solution for self
2. Collaborating Style
-very cooperative and very assertive
-two heads are better than one
-listen to the other side
-make things extra complicated and create more problems because of extra focuses and extra focuses make things more complicated
-solve problems in interactive and engaging ways
-encourage everyone to be involved
-two heads are better than one
-very cooperative and very assertive
-probe beneath surface of conflict to discover basic interests, perceptions and new solutions
-committed to finding best solution for everyone
-win-win
3. Compromising Style
-lets make a deal
-star is in the middle (inbetween unassertive and assertive, inbetween uncooperative and cooperative; dead center in the grid/graph)
-might miss opportunities
- good for relationships
-closure as quickly as possible
- make issues out of everything
-let's make a deal
-star is in the middle (inbetween unassertive and assertive, inbetween uncooperative and cooperative)
-fair standards
4. Avoiding Style
-very unassertive and very uncooperative
-never do today what you can put off till tomorrow
-deferring and dodging confrontational aspects of negotiation
-never do today what you can put off til tomorrow
-very unassertive and very uncooperative
-can be seen a graceful and tactful diplomacy
-permits group to function better in face of disfunction
-conflict reducing methods as clear rules
-do not like confrontation- minimize it
5. Accommodating Style
-very unassertive and very cooperative
-it would be my pleasure
-satisfaction from solving other peoples' problems
-it would be my pleasure
-very unassertive and very cooperative
-good relationship building skills
-sensitive to others
-
-An actor has power in a given situation (situational power) to the degree that he can satisfy the purposes (goals, desires, or wants) that he is attempting to fulfill in that situation. ability to influence others
-power gives advantage
-party with power can influence other party to do what they want
-Major sources of power:
1. Informational sources of power
-most common source of power
-having more info on topic
-derived from the negotiator's ability to assemble and organize data to support their position, arguments or desired outcomes
-a tool to challenge the other party's position or desired outcomes
2. personal power
-power based on personality and individual differences
-cognitive (orientation) (ideologies about power)
-motivation (orientation) (specific motives to use power)
-disposition and skills (cooperation vs competitive)
-morals
3. power based on position in an organization
-legitimate power: grounded in title, duties, and responsibilities of a job description and "level" within an organization hierarchy
-power based on control of resources associated with that position
4. power based on relationships
-goal interdependence
-how parties view their goals
-referent power
-based on an appeal to common experiences, common past, common fate, or membership in the same groups
-networks
-power is derived from whatever flows through that particular location in the structure (usually info and resources)
5. contextual sources of power
-power is based in the context, situation or environment in which negotiations take place
-BATNAS
-Culture
-agents, constituencies and external audeinces

Tactics when others have more power:
-never do an all-or-nothing deal
-make the other party smaller
-make yourself bigger (build coalitions)
-build momentum through doing deals in sequence
-use the power of competition to leverage power
-good information is always a source of power
-ask many questions to gain more info
-do what you can to manage the process
-know your BATNA - have a good one
-make the most of your assets
-negotiate on merits
-develop best solution
**-develop your BATNA
-This approach on negotiation focuses on the interests of the parties and emphasizes conflict management and conflict resolution
-goal: find mutually shared outcome: win-win

Methods: people, interests, options, criteria
1. Separate people from the problem being negotiated
-issues should be decided on their merits, rather than being influenced by emotions or by the individuals who are involved
-distangle relationship from substance; deal directly with the people problem
-people bargaining puts relationship and substance in conflict
-understand what the other side is thinking- put yourself in their shoes
-don't blame them for your problem
-understand emotions
-don't react emotionally
-don't get angry or upset at person
-deal with sensitivity of human beings
2. Focus on the negotiating parties' interests, not their positions
-the underlying interests or motivations that drive individuals in a negotiation are often quite similar. By focusing on interests, the parties may see that they are not as opposed as they thought there were initially. Any discussion about interests should offer concrete and specific detail. This makes the interests more real and credible.
-interests define the problem
-identifying interests
-ask questions: why and why not?
-each side has multiple interests
-acknowledging interests as part of the problem
-put the prob before your answer
3. Invent options for mutual gain
-sometime people will focus too narrowly when generating ideas
-not inventing
-people rarely think of new ideas in a negotiation
-people may limit their focus to their own immediate interests
-obstacles that inhibit the inventing of new ideas: premature judgement, searching for the single answer, the assumption of a fixed pie, thinking that solving their problem is their problem
-prescriptions:
-separate inventing from deciding
-broaden your options
-look through the eyes of different experts
-invent agreements of different strengths
-invent options
-LOOK FOR MUTUAL GAIN
-shared interests
-joint differing interests
-ask for their preferences
4. Insisting on using objective criteria
-negotiate on some basis independent of the will of either side- that is, on the basis of objective criteria
-take objective standards into account
*commit yourself to reaching a solution based on principle, not pressure. concentrate on the merits of the problem, not on personality of the parties. be open to reason but closed to threats
-approach agreement through discussion of objective criteria
-fair standards and fair procedures
-the agreement cannot be improved by further discussion
-there is no value left on the table and all creative options have been thoroughly explored

-4 signs of Win-Win potential
1. Does the negotiation contain more than one issue?
-win-win: if has more than one issue certain parties can win on certain issues while the other party wins on the other issues. so both sides win
-win-lose: if one side is very competitive and tries to win on all issues. distributive. competitive. does not give in to other side or let them have any victory. out to get the whole pie
-ex: issues like: cost of buying theater show, cost of room and board for cast and crew (one wins on each, give and take)
2. Can other issues be brought in?
-expand pie- create value
-to help make more fair and to help both sides agree on the main issues
-bring up future relationship, autograph signings, future shows wanna buy
-win-win: another issue will be brought in that helps benefit both sides and makes the agreement more fair. if the agreement is not as fair to one side, bring in another issue to help supplement and make it fair. profitable to both sides. creates value
-win-lose: one side does not want to discuss other issues. wants to take the whole pie. won't benefit one side. may not be profitable to both sides
3. Can side deals be made?
-like adding another show
-win-win: create value, help negotiate and get to an agreement, help make agreement more fair, can help get to prices that are better for both sides, maintains and builds relationship
-win-lose: may only benefit one party, may not help, may not be profitable for both, tarnish relationship
4. Do parties have different preferences across negotiation issues?
-certain things in negotiation are more of a priority to certain parties
-win-win: if diff priorities both parties get what they want in their priorities. both parties get what they want because what they want most is different. so able to negotiate around that
-win-lose: both parties have same preferences so one person loses, one party wants to win all no matter what- competitive
---> become an investigative negotiator
-focus on interests not positions
-issues
-the problem
-separate the people from the problem
-the conflict
-what is under discussion
-CLAIM value
-winning the issue and taking all or most
-win-lose
-exploiting other side
-being more powerful
-taking advantage of other side
-CREATE
-agreement where both sides win
-win-win
-finding shared interests
-finding common issues
-position
-WHAT you want
-likely to be concrete and specific
-is what you believe- value you have assigned
-the stance/side you take
-position you take is motivated by your interests
-parties problem conflict of position
goal to agree on position
-ex: position: wanting window open and wanting window closed. interest: no draft and wanting fresh air
-position is that you want something and what you want
(-the problem)
-don't bargain over positions
- tells other side what you want, anchor
-relationships
-don't tarnish relationships
-can lead to tarnishing relationship
-do not argue over positions --> unwise outcomes
-focus on interests, not position
-achieved when each party gets exactly what they initially demanded
-agreement becomes less likely when focus on position
-v timely
-risk no agreement will be made
-tarnish relationships
-CREATE value
-expanding the pie= position acheivement
-modifying the resource pie
-goal work as a team
-CLAIM value
-one side gets what it wants - or more of it
-competitive
-give and take
-goal claim victory
-dominant styles and people
-interests
*-interests define the problem
*-the key to achieving an integrative agreement is the ability of both parties to understand and satisfy each other's interests
-why you want something. why you want your position
-identifying interests critical step in the integrative barginging process
-interests are the underlying concerns, needs, desires, or fears that motivate a negotiator to take particular position
-while negotiators may have trouble satisfying each others postions, an understanding of the underlying interests may permit them to invent solutions to meet each other's interests
-underlying crap
-every negotiator has two types of interests: in the substance and in the relationship
-focus on interests, not position
-makes it possible to develop a solution
-for every interest usually several possible solutions
-behind apposed positions lie many more shared interests than conflicting ones
-shared and differing interests --> agreement
-CLAIMING value
-exploiting common interests
-CREATING value
-finding compatibility in different interests (often the key to unlocking the puzzle of value creation)
-inventing solutions to meet each others interests
-understanding each sides interests --> invention of solutions that meet both sides needs
-defining/finding each others interests (window example of opening window in another room so get fresh air but no draft)
-makes possible to develop a solution (by looking at interests)
-usually several possible solutions for every interest
-UNCOVERING interests
*-ask why?
-why does the party want a certain thing
-why is this important
-put yourself in their shoes
-ask why not? think about their choice
-realize each side has multiple interests
-make a list to sort out interests
-most powerful interests are basic human needs
-WHY MAKE DISTINCTION
-very different
-position what you want, interests why you want it
-position concrete and specific, interests not- intangible, inconsistent
-interests more important and what you need to look for to find solutions and focus on, not position
-focus on interests not position
-negotiate on basis independent of the will of the other side
-can make up the standard
-reach a solution based on principle not pressure
-concentrate on the merits of the problem, inside of the parties ability to cope with issue
-a fair/object model that both parties negotiate/agree by that both parties think is fair/objective and is used when negotiating
-can cause both sides to change their position
-fair/objective/impartial/unbiased guildelines/standards that both parties agree on and agree is fair and is used when negotiating. set before negotiating
-agreement based upon these standards
-apply to both sides
-one cuts the other chooses (for procedure)
-may propose agreement based upon: market value, precedence (priority), scientific judgement, professional standards, efficiency, cost, what a court would decide, moral standards, equal streatment, tradition, reciprocity
-WHY IMPORTANT
-the more you bring standards of fairness, the more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair
-better your chance of benefiting from past experience
-agreement using this is less vulnerable to attack
-reduces the number of commitments that each side must make and then unmake as they move toward an agreement
-use time efficiently
-more efficient. important to efficiency
-help both parties realize agreement is fair
-can cause both sides to change their position
-mutually satisfactory agreements
-can lead to better solutions
-able to forecast the consquences of any proposal --> help convince parties of tentative agreement
-can strengthen relationship of negotiators
-shared goal in determining objective criteria
-wiser outcome
-reduces the cost of backing down
-easier to follow a principle or independent standard than to give into the other sides positional bargaining
-can be persuasive
-parties should search for precedents, industry standards, arbitration decisions, or other objectively fair outcomes and processes that can be used as benchmarks for legitimizing the fairness of the current settlement
-EXAMPLES
-If a lease contains standard terms or if a sales contract conforms to practices in the industry, there is less risk that either negotiator will feel that he was harshly treated or will later try to reject the agreement.
-standards help people come to an agreement, less to argue over because also set standards that you do not have to argue over
-help both parties realize agreement is fair
-buying a house
-looking at the costs of other houses in the neighborhood, how old the house is etc. to find a fair price or price range or price wont go lower or higher than. market value and depreciated cost
-what the standards are in that neighborhood: how much houses usually go for or the price range they usually go for
-you want high price i want low, look at other houses in the nieghborhood etc. to figure out range
-buying a used car
-when negotiting on price use standards such as age, mileage, how much it costs when new etc to get to fair price
-negotiating how much you will get paid/hr look at how much other people with your job in the area are usually getting paid. and minimun wage
-negatively framed problems primarily elicit risky responses
-positively framed problems primarily elicit more sure responses
-what does this mean for our negotiation behavior?
-framing effects: most of us will treat risk involving perceived gains differently from risks involving perceived losses
-we are much more likely to make concessions (a thing that is granted due to demands) and try to compromise when we are negotiating over how to allocate gains
-we are much more likely to be inflexible and risk reaching an impasse (a situation in which no progress is possible) when we are negotiating over how to allocate losses
-reference point: the status quo from which gains and losses are evaluated
-if you want to induce (persuade) your counterparty to maintain status quo (induce risk aversion (disklike) or conservatism) then you should present options as gains relative to a reference point
-if you want to induce a change in behavior, then you should frame the choice as a loss
*-losses change people; gains dont influence people
-cognitive biases tend to impede negotiator performance
-cognitive biases in a negotiation:
-anchoring and adjustment
- the effect of the standard (anchor) against which subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are measured (objective criteria)
-mythical fixed-pie beliefs
- negotiators assume that all negotiations involve a fixed pie
-ignoring others' cognitions
- negotiators don't bother to ask about the other party's perceptions and thoughts, leaving them to work with incomplete info, and producing faulty results
-reactive devaluation
-the process of devaluing the other party's concessions simply because the other party made them
-endowment effect
-the tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you posses
-issue framing and risk
-frames can lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral about risk in decision making and negotiation
-Confronting your own biases
1. use 'System 2' thinking
-system 2 thinking corresponds to the reasoned thought and is slower, conscious, effortful, explicit and logical
2. learn through the use of analogies
-apply analogical reasoning- the conscious comparison of different situations on dimensions that are similar (eg negotiation debriefs; focus on principles not particulars)
3. adopt the outside lens
-try to remove or detach yourself from the situation to take an outside perspective (or ask for an outsider opinion)
-put self in other side's shoes?
1. Reciprocation
-you, then me, then you, then me...
-you do something, then i reciprocate and do something (smiling back)
-exchanging things with others for mutual benefit
-be the first to give:
-service
-info
-concessions
-gift giving
-give what you want to receive
-people repay in kind
-examples:
-if you have two options to present to a client, which should you present first? more costly or less costly?
-more costly
-if a coworker smiles at you first and then you smile at them back
-if someone says no to you, if you retreat from the situation you lose, if you retreat in the situation you win
-i know you'd do the same for me
2. Consensus (social proof)
-people proof, people power
-unleash people power by showing:
-responses of many others
-others' past successes
-testimonials of similar ones
-people follow the lead of similar others
-use peer power whenever it's available
-people do what other people like them are doing
-people rely heavily on the people around them for cues on how to think, feel and act
-persuasion can be extremely effective when it comes to peers
-people do what other people they know are doing. if everyone is doing it they are more likely to do it
-peer pressure works best when the people who already did it are similar to person who hasnt done it yet and they know them
-examples
-charities going around door to door to try to get money. if show the person a list of all of the other people in the neighborhood they know (who are like them) who have already donated, they are much more likely to donate. longer list of donors the more likely that person is to donate
-list form of social evidence on how they should respond
-wouldnt have worked if list of strangers (or worked as well)
3. Authority
-showing knowing
-establish position through
-professionalism
-industry knowledge
-your credentials
-admitting weaknesses first
-if has both strengths and weaknesses, admit the weaknesses first and then say "however our strongest points overwhelm that particular weakness." this establishes yourself as both knowledgeable and honest
-people defer to experts
-expose your expertise; don't assume it's self-evident
-people believe experts
ex: Discovery and Animal Planet (Shark Week, Mermaids Uncovered)
-establish your expertise before try to influence
4. Consistency
-the starting point
-start:
-small and build
-with active commitments
-and public positions
-toward voluntary choices
-people align with their clear commitments
-make their commitments active, public and voluntary
-people need to feel committed to what you want them to do in order to persuade
-make people feel obligated to you in order to persuade
-people tend to stick with the stance they make
-commitment has powerful effect on future actions
-people stick with something they commit to (example sign a petition they will stick with it)
-written and spoken out loud (especially in front of people) more likely to effect future and people will do it
-get it in writing- especially if made public
5. Scarcity
-the rule of the rare
-emphasize
-genuine scarcity
-unique features
-exclusive info
-people want more of what they can have less of
-highlight unique benefits and exclusive info
-people are more motivated by the idea of losing something than gaining something
-items become more valuable as they become less available
examples: limited time, limited supply, one of a kind offers --> mobilize action
6. Liking
-making friends to influence people
-uncover:
-similarities
-areas for genuine compliments
-opportunities for cooperation
-people like those who like them
-uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise
-people more likely to buy something or do something for someone if they like the seller/person making the request
-not just buying/doing favor to please themselves, but also to please seller/request maker
-giving bigger tips to waiters you like
-if you want to influence people, win friends
-if you want to influence people, make friends
-similarity and praise --> liking
-cultivate good relationships
-friends more likely to do stuff for friends
*about relationships