Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
156 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
5 major parts of getting to yes
|
1. Separate the people from the problem
2. focus on interests, not positions 3. invent options for mutual gain 4. use objective criteria 5. encourage commitment |
|
|
7 terms from getting to yes
|
1. Positions
2. Interests 3. Options 4. Alternatives (BATNAs) 5. objective criteria 6. relationships 7. commitments |
|
|
Positions
|
what a parts states that they want in a negotiation
|
|
|
interests
|
each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears
|
|
|
options
|
actions that require the agreement of the other party
|
|
|
Alternatives
|
actions that a negotiator can take s that do not require or involve the agreement of the other party
|
|
|
Objective Criteria
|
MV, replacement cost, blue book value
an ascertainable value |
|
|
Relationships
|
separate the relationship
|
|
|
commitment
|
source of persuasive power
commit to what you will do commit to what you will not do clarify what you want the other side to commit to |
|
|
Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
|
1. dont criticize, condemn or complain.
2. Give honest and sincere appreciation 3. arouse and eager want in the other person |
|
|
5 major parts of getting to yes
|
1. Separate the people from the problem
2. focus on interests, not positions 3. invent options for mutual gain 4. use objective criteria 5. encourage commitment |
|
|
7 terms from getting to yes
|
1. Positions
2. Interests 3. Options 4. Alternatives (BATNAs) 5. objective criteria 6. relationships 7. commitments |
|
|
Positions
|
what a parts states that they want in a negotiation
|
|
|
interests
|
each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears
|
|
|
options
|
actions that require the agreement of the other party
|
|
|
Alternatives
|
actions that a negotiator can take s that do not require or involve the agreement of the other party
|
|
|
Objective Criteria
|
MV, replacement cost, blue book value
an ascertainable value |
|
|
Relationships
|
separate the relationship
|
|
|
commitment
|
source of persuasive power
commit to what you will do commit to what you will not do clarify what you want the other side to commit to |
|
|
Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
|
1. dont criticize, condemn or complain.
2. Give honest and sincere appreciation 3. arouse and eager want in the other person |
|
|
Six Ways to Make People Like You
|
1. Become Genuinely Interested in other People
2. Smile 3. Remember the Person's Name 4. Be a good listener, encourage others to talk about themselves 5. Talk in term of the other person's interest 6. make the other person feel important and do it sincerely |
|
|
12 Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
|
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it
2. Show respect for the other person's opinion-- never say you are wrong 3. If you are wrong admit it quickly and emphatically 4. Begin in a friendly 5. Get the other person saying yes, yes immediately 6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking 7. Let the other person feel the idea is theirs 8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view 9. Be sympathetic to the other person's ideas and desires 10. Appeal to the nobler motives 11. Dramatize your ideas 12. Throw down a challenge |
|
|
Be a Leader: How to change people without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment
|
1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation
2. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly 3. Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person 4. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders 5. Let the other person save face 6. Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise 7. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to 8. Use encouragement- make the fault seem easy to correct 9. Make the other person happy about doing the things you suggest |
|
|
Four Steps of Negotiation
|
1. Preparation
2. Information Exchange 3. Agreement Proposals 4. Resolution |
|
|
Positions
|
What a party wants in a negotiation
|
|
|
Interest
|
underlying motivations
|
|
|
Internal Prep
|
Determination of interests, options and alternatives, Included BATNAS and RPs
|
|
|
External Prep
|
Determine other parties' interests, options, alternatives and BATNAS and RP
|
|
|
Synthesis
|
finding common ground and strategizing with the goal of creating a win-win negotiation
|
|
|
Alternatvies
|
Actions that do not require or involve the other party
|
|
|
BATNA
|
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
|
|
|
WATNA
|
Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
|
|
|
Options
|
Actions that require the agreement of the other party
|
|
|
information exchange
|
done to acquire information about their counter parts
|
|
|
Acquiring info purposes:
|
determine interests
find common interests identify the BZ |
|
|
Disclosing info purposes:
|
inform the other party
persuade the other party satisfy need to be heard |
|
|
Agreement Proposals
|
First offer
Counter offers Put it on paper |
|
|
Anchor
|
First legitimate offer, influence expected values
|
|
|
Agreement
|
makes both parties better off than if they had not agreed
|
|
|
Impasse
|
no agreement
|
|
|
top reasons for impasse
|
1. BATNAs
2. poor negotiating skills |
|
|
Cooperative Bargaining
|
Focus on finding slutions to the parties set of underlying needs and objectives
|
|
|
Adversarial
|
Zero-sum or Constant-sum, try to capture gains at expense of other party
|
|
|
Bargaining Zone
|
distance between the reservation points
|
|
|
Surplus allocation
|
Part of the distributive bargaining process; effectively divides the cooperative surplus that the parties create by reaching an agreement
|
|
|
integrative bargaining
|
tactic that enables negotiators to expand the BZ
|
|
|
Strategic Barriers
|
Information asymmetry- possession by one person of info that other side doesnt have
strategic behavior- claiming tactics to maximize the parties slice of the pie Principal/Agent Problem- motivations and desires differ |
|
|
Cognitive/Phsycological Barriers
|
Risk Aversion- small certain gain over uncertain large gain
Loss Aversion- large uncertain loss over small uncertain gain |
|
|
RP
|
the max or min amount a person will take in a negotiation
|
|
|
Cooperative Surplus
|
the value of the BZ
|
|
|
Factor Affecting RP
|
alternatives
preferences probabilities of future events risk preference transaction costs value of time effect of future opportunities |
|
|
Goals v. Bottom Lines
|
Bottom line- walk away point
Goal- highest legit expectation of what you could achieve |
|
|
Aspiration
|
the term a negotiator hopes to achieve
highest justifiable amount |
|
|
Specific Aspirations
|
better approach
commits to objective target |
|
|
Heuristics
|
rule of thumb that people often use to estimate the probabilities that various events will occur
|
|
|
Rational Choice/Economic Theory
|
negotiators will evaluate alternatives with their preference structure and the available information AND
make decisions based on objective information and quantifiable outcomes regardless of how the choices are presented to them |
|
|
Self Serving Bias
|
people arrive at judgment of what is fair that are biased in their own self interest
|
|
|
Prospect Theory
|
predicts that rational negotiators will be risk adverse when presented with options between risky and certain gains but risk seeking in order to avoid certain losses
|
|
|
The Framing Effect
|
individuals will prefer certain alternatives to risky ones in the realm of gains, (risk averse) BUT
prefer risky alternatives to certain ones in the realm of losses (loss aversion) |
|
|
The Endowment Effect
|
Value that an individual assigns an object
increases once the person obtains the object |
|
|
Status Quo Bias
|
people prefer the status quo because less chance of regret in the future
|
|
|
Anchoring
|
first legitimate offer on the table
can cause problems by drawing attention to it rather that objective criteria |
|
|
Anchoring strategy
|
extreme first offers can sway the other person's RP as long as it is not so extreme that it is not even considerable
|
|
|
Reactive Devaluation
|
A negotiated agreement may be of less value to a negotiator ONLY because the opponent proposed it
|
|
|
Why does Reactive Devaluation Happen
|
want what is out of grasp
more info about the quality of a persons status spite |
|
|
Integrative Bargaining
|
information sharing in order to
identify common/compatible interests and grow the cooperative surplus and generate options |
|
|
Cooperative Surplus
|
Created through expanding the BZ with integrative bargaining
|
|
|
Economies of Scale
|
method for creating value
decreased per unit cost as output increase |
|
|
Integrative v. Distributive bargaining
|
- Integrative bargaining creates value for the parties jointly, BY:
o establishing a bargaining zone where none would have otherwise existed OR o expanding a bargaining zone that would have existed anyway. - How the negotiators divide the cooperative surplus is a matter of distributive bargaining, not integrative bargaining. |
|
|
Methods of Integrative Agreements
|
adding or subtracting issues but the issues added or subtracted have to be of different values to the parties
log rolling- best when the issues are fixed |
|
|
Adverse Selection
|
- Occurs in all contexts where parties have private information about the quality of what they are offering as part of a bargain (sellers)
- If the goods are of high quality, value can be created for the seller by the seller insuring the quality of the goods (warranty) |
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
when the seller’s actions after an agreement has been reached CAN affect the value of the subject of the negotiation
|
|
|
Distributive Bargaining
|
2 methods
Power Social norms |
|
|
Emotional Power/ Intelligence
|
most important
|
|
|
Organizational Power
|
Power by position
|
|
|
Informational Power
|
having more info than the other party
|
|
|
Expertise
|
knowing the know
|
|
|
Moral Power
|
gains through appeals to fairness or morality
|
|
|
what is the point of power
|
divide the cooperative surplus
|
|
|
What is power
|
the ability to act of produce an effect
|
|
|
Four Bargaining Tactics Surrounding Power
|
Changing the BZ- power results from strong BATNA
Manipulating the Opponent's perception of the BZ- success on threatening impasse will hinge on opponent's perception of the BZ Commitments- action that may be against interest but requires an acquiese or impasse Demonstrating Patience- delay of reaching an agreement |
|
|
leverage
|
form of power, method of changing this negotiation by effecting the opponent outside the negotiation
|
|
|
Positive leverage
|
needs based, working on opponents needs
|
|
|
negative leverage
|
threats based
|
|
|
3 purposes of rebuttals
|
test persuasiveness
convey that opponent'e attempts to change BZ have failed turns tables on other guy |
|
|
subjective beliefs
|
dont have to believe you have a better BATNA just make them believe it
|
|
|
Secrecy v. publicity
|
negotiator can arrange to be charged with appeasement for every small concession they can place concession beyond their reach
|
|
|
paradox
|
power to constrain an adversary may depend on the power to bind oneself
|
|
|
Staking Reputation
|
If a negotiator is simultaneously engaged in many negs, and the counter-part is only engaged in this one, the singular cannot convincingly stake its bargaining reputation while the union can
|
|
|
Continuous Negotiations
|
using future negotiations to stand strong on this one
|
|
|
the last clear chance
|
leaves the last clear chance to avoid a breakdown to the other guy
|
|
|
Preemptive commitments
|
negotiator makes an irrevocable action, such that no response to the counterpart’s subsequent action is possible. Often impossible. Guy throwing steering wheel out the window
|
|
|
Reactive commitments
|
retains the physical ability to respond to the counter-part’s subsequent action. Easy to make, the problem is convincing the counterpart that the commitment is credible
|
|
|
Responding to Commitments
|
undo it- put them back where they were
lose face- find a way for them not to lose face |
|
|
Power Asymmetry
|
1. Disproportionately greater power on the part of one party often reduces the likelihood of a favorable outcome for the powerful party
2. ‘the harder you make it for them to say no, the harder you make it for them to say yes’ |
|
|
Miscalculating BZ
|
attempts to use power can lead to impasse
|
|
|
Weakness as a source of strength
|
a party with nothing to lose can be very powerful
|
|
|
bargaining with the weak
|
dont press for full advantage
allow the weaker side to save face |
|
|
fair division
|
profitable offers will be rejected if they are viewed as unfair
|
|
|
fairness
|
not defined, social concepts
|
|
|
Negotiation Dance
|
tit for tat
|
|
|
Equality
|
50/50
|
|
|
Equity
|
division by what you put into it
|
|
|
Need
|
waht you need
|
|
|
Fairness, Norms and Relationships
|
1. Individuals’ preferences for equal surplus allocation often depend on their relationship with the other party
2. Friends are likely to have an easier time agreeing on a particular deal point in a negotiation than are strangers |
|
|
Fairness and Preferences
|
1. party more likely to propose an equal allocation if the other party did better than they at a task v.
2. party more likely to propose an equitable allocation if they did better than the other |
|
|
Reciprocity Norm
|
if one person gives up something of value, we expect the other person to do the same thing
|
|
|
Convention Norm
|
an agreement on the standard term is fair to both parties
|
|
|
Negotiators Dilemma
|
when to conceal and when to reveal
whether to compete or cooperate |
|
|
Trust
|
willingness to accept vulnerability as a result of positive expectations about the future behavior of another person
|
|
|
Cooperation
|
best strategy in Prisoners Dilemma
only defect to hand out retaliation |
|
|
Conflict Styles
|
accomodating, avoiding, competing, collaborating, compromising
|
|
|
Cooperative v. Competing
|
more are cooperative, same level of effectiveness
|
|
|
Effective/Cooperative Goals
|
ethicalness, max settlement, fair settlement, meet needs, good relationships
|
|
|
Ineffective/Cooperative fall backs
|
unsure of themselves and values of case, indecisive, staller, indealist
|
|
|
Effective/Cooperative Strategies
|
accurate estimation of value of case, realistic, know other guys needs, share info objective and fair minded
|
|
|
Effective/Competitive Goals
|
max settlement, more for self, winning
|
|
|
Effective/Competitive Strategy
|
high opening, take it or leave it strategies, no care for other side's needs,
|
|
|
Empathy
|
process of demonstrating an accurate, nonjudgmental understanding of the other side's needs, interests and positions
|
|
|
Two Components of Empathy
|
perspective taking- trying to see the other side's POV
nonjudgmental expression- verbalizing the other party's POV in a manner that is open to correction |
|
|
Benefits of Empathy
|
facilitates value creation
facilitates distributive moves negates bluffing usually results in high value |
|
|
Assertiveness
|
ability to express and advocate for ones needs, interests and positions
|
|
|
Benefits of Assertiveness
|
confer distributive benefits- assertive negotiators tend to get more of what they want
Value creation- through direct claim of need |
|
|
Drawback of assertiveness
|
can create relationship problems
|
|
|
competing
|
characteristics- low empathy, high assertiveness; winning; purposeful and in control; conflict doesnt make them uncomfortable; stakes out positions
Drawbacks- high risk of escalation or stalemate, not good listeners, difficulty developing relationships, perceived as arrogant |
|
|
accommodating
|
characteristics- good relationships, want to feel liked, exudes concern, compassion and understanding, high empathy, low assertiveness
drawback- can be exploited |
|
|
avoiding
|
characteristics- low empathy and assertiveness, conflict is unproductive, appear detached and uninterested
drawbacks- miss oppurtunites to use conflict to solve problems, leave value on the table, bad relationships |
|
|
Indiviualism
|
- Individualistic Cultures:
1. Culture, norms and institutions promote the autonomy of the individual 2. Individual accomplishments are rewarded by economic and social institutions 3. Legal institutions protect individual rights - Individualistic People: 1. Strong self-interest 2. Set high personal goals in negotiations 1. High goals motivate to reject acceptable but suboptimal agreements 2. More likely to be a competitor style 3. Do not change behavior depending on with whom they are interacting BUT 4. Some are able to change to a cooperative style when confronted with the possibility of an impasse |
|
|
Collectivism
|
- Collectivist Culture:
1. Norms and institutions promote interdependence through emphasis on social obligations - Collectivist People: 1. more attuned to people and needs of people within their ‘in-group’ 1. if the other negotiator is an ‘in-group’ member, goal alignment should generate cooperative behavior in negs 2. tend to cooperate with ‘in-group’ people and compete with ‘out-group’ people |
|
|
Egalitarianism
|
- Egalitarian Culture -
1. Social boundaries are permeable 2. Social status may be short-lived 1. No obligation for superiors to look out for inferiors 3. Empowers conflicting members to resolve conflicts themselves 4. Support direct, face-to-face negotiations 5. Power in Egalitarian Culture: 1. Evaluated with respect to the situation under negotiations and the alternatives if no agreement can be reached |
|
|
Hierarchy
|
- Hierarchical cultures – male?
1. Social status implies social power 2. Social superiors are granted power and privilege, BUT 1. are obligated to look out for the needs of social inferiors 3. Conflict less frequent 1. Deference to social superiors 4. Power in Hierarchical: 1. Interpersonal relationships are dictated by social status 2. Social status confers social power and knowledge of status dictates how people interact |
|
|
High Context
|
- High-context culture: eastern
1. Less information is in the message itself 2. Meaning is inferred in the context (face to face) more so than directly interpreted from the communication 3. Previous thoughts and culture or relationship |
|
|
Low Context
|
- Low-context culture: western
1. Information is contained in explicit messages and meaning conveyed without nuance 2. Context unimportant 3. Communication is action oriented and solution minded |
|
|
Western
|
1. Focus on the individual, solving problems and material process
2. Low-context, problem solving model that views people as part of the problem, not the solution 3. US, Canada, GB, Western Euro |
|
|
Eastern
|
1. Focus on the collective good and preserving social structures
2. High-Context – style of communications, declines to view the immediate issue in isolation 3. Hierarchical 4. Relationships are key 5. Japan and China |
|
|
Men
|
1. Look for rational solutions
2. Competitors – winning focused |
|
|
Women
|
1. Seek to open communications and reach a result through understanding
2. Cooperators – relationship focused |
|
|
Reasons to use an Agent
|
Negotiation Expertise
Technical Expertise Signaling Dispassionate Observation Access Strategic Advantage Cost Effectiveness Spreading of Risk |
|
|
Agent Problems
|
Difference in Preference and interests
|
|
|
Self Perception
|
how you see yourself
|
|
|
Echoes
|
in litigation, if someone defects ot does something negative we respond in kind
|
|
|
Noise
|
the issues occurring in litigation
|
|
|
Coalition
|
bringing parties together
|
|
|
intermediate coalition
|
not all parties used to form coalition
|
|
|
Dangers of holding out
|
being left out of the coalition
|
|
|
free riding
|
gaining a benefit without being part of the coalition
|
|
|
blocking ability
|
where a coalition cannot operate or act without unanimous agreement from all relevant parties and one person refuses to cooperate
|
|
|
Single Negotiation Text
|
- lawyers or a neutral third party draft a proposed agreement and asks the other parties for suggestions and criticisms
- After receiving suggestions/criticisms, the original author redrafts the proposal - Revised draft is then resubmitted to the parties, and the process is done again - Most effective: o When drafted and revised by a neutral third party o Parties more willing to offer honest criticism and suggestions o No one is committed to the initial draft - Make sure o No one is cheating o Everyone knows o Changes are agreed to |
|
|
unbundling
|
breaking negotiation into parts
|
|
|
bundling
|
treat all as one deal
|
|
|
log rolling
|
trading issues to maximize values
|
|
|
General Rule of Ethics
|
if you have to ask if its ethical, its not
|
|
|
Misrepresentation
|
- NO affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts BUT
- There is misrepresentation if: o Lawyer affirms or incorporates a statement of another person that the lawyer KNOWS is false AND o Misrepresentation can occur by failure to act |
|
|
Fraudulent Misrep
|
- applies to: a misrepresentation of fact, opinion, intention or law
- for the purpose of inducing another to act or refrain in reliance upon that misrepresentation - if that happens – person who does it is subject to liability to the other for pecuniary loss caused justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation o a K is also voidable if this happens o agent is also subject |
|
|
Truthfulness in Statements to others
|
lawyer SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY:
o make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person OR o fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or KNOWINGLY assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client - Puffery is allowed |
|
|
Fact v. Opinion
|
- generally:
o misrepresentations of fact ARE actionable, but misrepresentations of opinion are NOT BUT o opinions CAN be untruthful - the actionable distinction: o whether the utterance is one that the other party is justified on relying |
