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;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Negotiation Theories and Models (6) |
Competitive and Coordinative
Competitive and Cooperative Adversarial and problem-solving Hard, soft, and principled (Fisher and Ury)
Disruptive and integrative
Functional and developmental |
|
|
Recognized Patterns of Negotiators
COMPETITIVE |
Tries to maximize tangible resource gains for own client within limits of the current dispute- problem
Makes high opening demands and is slow to concede
Uses threats, confrontation, argumentation Manipulates people and the process
Is not open to persuasion on the substance Is oriented to quantitative and competitive goals |
|
|
Recognized Patterns of Negotiators
PROBLEM-SOLVING |
Tries to maximize returns for own client including any joint gains available
Focuses on common interests of parties Tries to understand the merits as objectively as possible Uses non confrontational debating techniques
Is open to persuasion on the substance
Is oriented to qualitative goals: a fair, wise, durable agreement, efficiently negotiated |
|
|
Competitive negotiator: defeats the opponent
CHARACTERISTICS |
Tough, Clever, Thorough, Articulate, Unemotional, Demanding, Aggressive, Unapproachable, Believes the world is scarce of resources, competitive, and independent transactions |
|
|
Problem-solver: negotiates not against the opponent, but with the other side
CHARACTERISTICS |
Also thorough, Also articulate, Personable, Cooperative, Firm, Principled, Concerned about other sides interests, Committed to fairness and efficiency, Believes there are plenty of resources valued differently, cooperative to meet values, and all one cohesive transaction |
|
|
Competitive Negotiator
BEHAVIORS
|
Maximizes own returns
Considers others needs or interests as not legitimate and only important when they conflict their competitive negotiators needs or interests
Views all disputing processes and strategies as equally valuable and useful to achieve own returns Only cooperates to maximize own returns Choose strategies like military maneuvers Presents a strong defense
Tries to control the process to reach own goal
Often a fixed strategy in negotiation: Has decided on their case, not going to budge. Unbreachable position. No confusion or indecision. |
|
|
Problem-solving Negotiator
BEHAVIORS |
Maximizes own return within larger time and community context
Considers needs and interests as relevant and legitimate to resolving dispute
Competitive but not antagonistic
Tries to discover and share joint gains available
Concentrates on substance of dispute or decision
Considers negotiation and other voluntary processes as superior to non voluntary methods
Flexible, adaptable to circumstances: Legitimacy because concentrating on merits. More objective and controllable. Less dependent on other side giving in. Recognizes strength through joint gain. |
|
|
Competitive Negotiator
DOWNSIDE RISKS |
Strong bias toward confrontation. Encourages use of coercion and pressure. Hard on relationships. Prone to break-downs. Promotes misinformation and misjudgment.
Guards against responsiveness and openness to opponent, restricting access to jointgain.
Encourages brinkmanship and creates impasses.
Increases difficulty in predicting responses of opponent because it relies on manipulation and confrontation to control process.
Contributes to overestimation of possible return through alternatives because it does not focus on objective analysis of substantive merits as proper standard.
|
|
|
Problem-solving Negotiator
DOWNSIDE RISKS |
Strong bias towards cooperation, creating internal pressures to compromise and accommodate.
Avoids strategies that are confrontational because they risk impasse, which is viewed as failure.
Sensitive to other’s perceived interests, increasing vulnerability to deception and manipulation by a competitive opponent.
Increases difficulty of establishing definite aspiration levels and bottom lines becauseof reliance on qualitative goals.
Requires substantial skill and knowledge of process.
Requires strong confidence in own assessment/perception regarding interests/needs of other side.
|
|
|
The more proficient a negotiator becomes under either theory, the more that person will resemble the problem-solving negotiator.
Only this theory satisfies all three standards of a good theory: |
Describes realities reasonably:
depends onopponent
Is useful indeveloping strategies:
agreed, in cases
Provides consistently good outcomes:
unless against a competitor |
|
|
Prisoner's Dilemma |
Competitive vs. Competitive: Worst collective outcome
Competitive vs. Problem-solving: Better for competitive
Problem-solving vs. Problem-solving: Best collective outcome |
|
|
Definition of Negotiation |
Negotiation is a process by which two or more parties, each with their own goals and perspectives, coordinate areas of interest through concession and compromise to reach agreement and take jointly decided action about areas of common concern in a situation in which neither side has or wants to use complete power. |
|
|
Approaches to Negotiation |
Win-Lose: I win at all costs, you lose
Lose-Win: Peace-at-any-price
Win-Win: Seeking an agreement with a joint gain
Mixed: Realistic understanding that one party will win more than the other |
|
|
Interests and Positions |
In any negotiation, both parties enter understanding that their interests cannot be achieved without some cooperation from the other party. |
|
|
Needs |
Essential human needs, such as security, affiliation, self-esteem, and recognition are at the base of all negotiations. |
|
|
Bottom lines and alternatives |
Each negotiation has positions where there are better alternatives than the agreement.
Called theBATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
|
|
|
Relationship: Power Paradoxes |
Power is based on giving: Providing the other party with concessions makes them dependent on those concessions. Gives power.
To use power is to lose it: Somewhat paradoxically, when you exercise power you get a gain, perhaps, but lose power because you no longer have that power.
The manipulationof power might have integrative effects: If power is gained by giving, the other side might give to increase their power at the same time.
An inferior power position might provide a tactical advantage: If you have nothing to lose, it might make the party with something to lose fearful. |
|
|
Styles of negotiations |
High Agreement /High Trust: The negotiating parties are allies. Affirm the relationship is utmost goal.
High Agreement /Low Trust: The parties are bedfellows. Most effective to reaffirm agreement, to determine what the other side wants, to find procedures to work together.
Low Agreement /Low Trust: These parties are adversaries. Establish own position without making demands, to understand the other’s positions, to acknowledge the responsibility for the problem, and to detail plans of action. Mixed: These parties are fence sitters. Get them to decide where they stand and examine the issues.
Low Agreement,High Trust: These parties are opponents. They need to affirm the relationship, to determine each sides position, and use creative problem solving to reach an outcome. |
|
|
Stages |
Site selection: Can be critical because of advantages/disadvantages.
Negotiation opening: Telegraphs what style you will be using. |
|
|
Principles for managing conflict and disagreement constructively |
Maintain mutual respect
Seek common ground
Deal with disagreement only after choosing an appropriate level of flexibility and involvement |
|
|
Strategies for managing conflict and
Primary Characteristics |
Be flexible: Flexibility
Choose how involved and or aggressive to be with divergent view: Involvement
|
|
|
Nine Strategies for managing conflict and disagreement constructively |
Dominate “Do it my way": Firm and More involved Smooth “try it, you will like it”: Firm and middle of the road involvement
Maintain “Wait”: Firm and less involved
Bargain “Let’s make a deal”: more involved and middle of the road flexibility Coexist “Agree to disagree”: Middle of the road involvement and flexibility
Decide by Rule “Let’s be fair”: Less involved and Middle of the road flexibility Collaborate “Let’s work together”: More involved and Flexible Release “Its yours to do”: Middle of the road involvement and flexible Yield “I’ll go along”: Less involved and flexible
|
|
|
Process for managing conflict and disagreement constructively
Potential sources of conflict |
Information is interpreted differently
Goals appearto be incompatible
Boundaries are violated
Old wounds have not healed
Symptoms are confused with underlying causes.
|
|
|
Process for managing conflict and disagreement constructively
Develop astrategy and an action plan |
Mutually agree when to negotiate
Decide how to monitor the process and the costs of not living up to an agreement |
|
|
Process for managing conflict and disagreement constructively
Implementation- Carry out the plan |
Maintain a tone of mutual respect and good will
Monitor results to verify that the agreement is being honored
If not, learn why and take corrective action
Reinforce behavior supporting agreement
Learn from each experience. |
|
|
True or False?
“Attempts to resolve conflict involve assessing the relative power of the people involved and the relationship between them” |
True |
|
|
True or False?
“Negotiation and mediation are . . . only effective when the people involved are of relatively equal power” |
False
|
|
|
True or False?
With large power differences, one person can always exercise their power to get what they want.” |
False, good resolutions involve both sides |
|
|
Do both parties “agree to put aside their power” when agreeing to negotiate? |
No, they bring their best arguments. |
|
|
Part of the definition ofconflict |
Struggles over values and scarce resources. |
|
|
First step to resolving conflicts |
See if resources are really as scarce as is the perception. |
|
|
What steps do you take if the Goal is a win-win negotiation? |
Unpack the conflict: Determine all the components of each issue. Changes single issue conflicts into multipleissue conflicts, which allow people to trade based on the intensity of their preference.
Looking for the reasons that led to the problem
Be the first to make a concession to link issues up for trade-offs: Taking the lead in a negotiation can be very important. |
|
|
True or False?
“Negotiation is nothing more than a process for reaching an agreement when there are conflicting interests. The basis of negotiation is exchange: each party gains and gives concessions until they reach agreement” |
False
We want to ultimately "Enlarge the Pie"
Create mutual gains for both parties by working together
|
|
|
True or False?
“Over dependence on logical persuasion has been the biggest obstacle to effective negotiating.” |
False
Logical persuasion works when there is superior knowledge. If you are in a dispute with someone, they clearly do not think that your view of the dispute is superior knowledge.
“An idea thathas to be defended is least likely to change.” |
|
|
Alternative to logical reasoning:
The exchange strategy |
Turn the logical reasoning problem back on the other person
State exactly what you need, let them reason what it costs |
|
|
Three elements to the exchange strategy |
State what youneed. Ask about and listen carefully to the problems caused by your request.
Find ways to “pay for what you want” or to satisfy the other person’s needs. |
|
|
Different kinds of currencies to pay for what you want:
Type 1 |
Anything the influencer can do that will alleviate problems caused by his or her request
Related |
|
|
Different kinds of currencies to pay for what you want:
Type 2 |
Anything that has value to the other person other than related to the influencer's request.
Unrelated |
|
|
True or False?
“The successful negotiation is one that reaches the best agreement – not just any agreement” |
False
Don't really know what is the "best" because outcomes are different |
|
|
Prior to the negotiation |
Preparation is key.
“The trick is to acquire all the information concerning the issues involved, even ones you may not deem important at first glance.” |
|
|
Preparation List |
What are your objectives?
Are some objectives more important than others?
What is your ideal settlement?
What are your needs and interests?
What will you accept if you cannot achieve your primary objectives?
Is there a point in which you will decide it is not worth doing the deal?
What concessions are you prepared to make?
Do the same thing for the other side. |
|
|
Cross culturalissues |
Americans tend to be insensitive to other cultures.
Americans also tend to be insensitive in general –race, gender.
Why create conflicts? Instead, build trust. |
|
|
Clarifying authority |
If you are negotiating for someone, clarify that you are allowed to enter into a reasonable settlement. |
|
|
Put your thoughts on your positions in writing |
You will want to look back on it as the negotiation wears on |
|
|
During the negotiation:
Climate-setting |
No small talk,but set the tone of behavior and respect and trust for the whole negotiation.
You are reasonable, willing to discuss anything, will not get bent out of shape, we are here to work together. |
|
|
Good Negotiators...
|
Clarify: makesure no misunderstanding
Summarize: summarize important points of agreement and to validate the opinions/statementsof others.
Proposeand seek solutions: once all of the issues are out, take some risk and begin with propositions to address some of the problems or offer the other side to start with proposition.
Ask questions: control the negotiation through getting the other person to speak and be involved.
Actively listen
Put the agreement in writing |
|
|
True or False?
A negotiation situation is “as attempt by two or more parties to change the terms and conditions of their relationship in a situation in which it is to their mutual benefit, or in which it is impossible to quit the relationship” |
False
|
|
|
What do you do when caught by surprise with a negotiation? |
Stall |
|
|
Three criteria to call a negotiation a success |
Reaching a favorable solution
Concluding the process in a reasonable amount of time
Ensuring you reach the desired psychological state / relationship |
|
|
Preparing for Negotiation |
Analyze goals
Set your goals
Set the stage
Tactically plan your moves |
|
|
Step 1: Analyze the issue Fractionate the issues |
Divide into the smallest possible components |
|
|
Step 1: Analyze the issue
Classify each issue |
Win–win: both parties can reach their goals
Win–lose: direct opposition, mostly money
Mix of both
(Allows for application of the exchange theory) |
|
|
Step 1: Analyze the issue
Identify |
Identify opponent needs |
|
|
Step 1: Analyze the issue Aspiration Levels |
Determineaspiration levels |
|
|
Step 1: Analyze the issue
Personal relationship desired |
Determine future desired relationship |
|
|
Step 2: Set your goals |
Rate the unpacked issues as vital, desirable, or unimportant.
Then you can trade them |
|
|
Step 3: Set the Stage
Four Aspects |
Agenda
Physical Arrangements
Use of negotiating agents
Audience |
|
|
Step 3: Set the Stage
Agenda |
Define terms and issues
Discuss issues requiring a creative solution early
Negotiate the easy issues first to build consensus
Deal with the difficult win-lose issues later |
|
|
Step 3: Set the Stage
Physical Arrangements |
Use your own place if possible, usually
Don’t use the “dirty tricks” |
|
|
Step 3: Set the Stage
Use of negotiating agents |
Never negotiate with the opponent's agent
Agents can be sent with limited authority
Principal can disavow agents’ actions |
|
|
Step 3: Set the Stage Audience |
For maximum flexibility, no audience should be present For tough win-lose negotiations, an audience should be present |
|
|
Step 4: Tactically plan your moves
Opening Demands |
Get opponent to state their position first to get info and their aspirations
Make your opening demand your best case (possible) scenario so it is reasonable
Change their aspiration level |
|
|
Step 4: Tactically plan your moves
Concession pattern |
Small concessions on the large issues
Large concessions on the unimportant issues
“Throw aways” you do not care about |
|
|
Step 4: Tactically plan your moves
Ways to break impasses |
Call for a recess
Throw away concession
Make them call their boss |
|
|
Step 4: Tactically plan your moves
Make opposing negotiator feel good |
Prevent them from becoming entrenched
Let them know you understand their problem
Listen and respond
Complement them
Apologize if necessary. |
