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;
56 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
3 steps to prepare for a neg.
|
1. situational assessment (relation vs. outcome, leverage/power analysis)
2. determine "fit" of your style with the neg. 3. develop a plan (other sides interests, how to improve my BATNA, my strategy) |
|
situational fit and assessment
-create box |
perceived conflict over stakes on top
perceived importance of future relationship on L side high low high balanced relationships concerns low transaction tacit coordination |
|
6 strategies of developing the negotiation plan
|
ASSOCI
1. approach (d or i) 2. setting (mediator, timing..) 3. sequence issues 4. opening 5. concession pattern 6. info sharing |
|
4 obstacles that inhibit options
|
PF C(hang)S
1.premature judgement - never going to work so not going to try. 2.single answer search 3.Close-minded"solving the problem is their problem" 4.fixed pie assum. |
|
brainstorming components (3)
|
PRE
1.Purpose- setting, participants... establish what is going on. 2.Record ALL ideas- no-criticism rule 3. Evaluate ideas- invent improvements |
|
can you brainstorm with the opposing side?
|
YES!
|
|
making proposals following brainstorming (3)
|
PF Y
1. search for precedence/objective standards 2.frame the negotiation as favorable for the opposite side 3.make "yesable" proposals |
|
takeaways form Bullard house negotiation (2)
|
1. rapport is hard to establish, especially when stakes are high.
2. info sharing is key (BUYER couldn't disclose what they really wanted to do with the house, SELLER had to keep shareholder's interests in mind) |
|
3 types of trust
-especially important for which negotiation style -define each -is there a common order? |
-S-T transactional
1.calculus trust- good for ST, quick rapport 2. knowledge based- LT 3.identification-based-similarities, common goals -yes, order 1 2 3 |
|
bottom line vs. batna
|
bottom line: whats the lowest i will take in this negotiation?
batna: what's my options if i walk away from this nergotiation?? |
|
good communication practices
|
-two sided approach
-break up into smaller packages -repeat 2x -distractions and credible threats |
|
information exchange purposes (3)
|
RIE
1.establish rapport, communication setttings 2.learn interests 3.signaling expectations |
|
what is the goal of rapport?
-name -techniques to use |
become on a person-to-person relationship status
-similarity principle |
|
should rapport gain you bargaining advantage?
|
NO, do not over-do it. genuine is key.
|
|
techniques to use to learn interests, step 2 of info xchange process
|
1.ask questions
2. clarify for understanding 3.summarize skilled 40% > avg. 20% 4. identify SHARED interests |
|
signaling leverage if..
1. you only have a little leverage 2. you have a lot of leverage |
1.little: personalize, uncertainty of future, appeal to sympathy
2.lot: expect high/favorable, intend flexibility to ensure good future |
|
leverage box
|
actual leverage on top-H,L
how you want to act on L-firm, flexible -H, firm=confident demands, u set alternatives -L, firm=uncertain future, bluff -H, flex=generous, relationship investing -L, flex= sympathy, acknowledge power |
|
2 best questions to ask to obtain info on interests, issues,perceptions
|
1. what are THEY prepared to negotiate?
2. do they AUTHORITY to close? |
|
textoil negotiation debrief (2)
-basic plot -how/what learned |
1. negative bargaining zone of sailing gas station owner
2. creative solution |
|
good shepherd leverage situation
|
1.matt damon- weak and flex + leverage=gives $1 to signify sympathy
2.russian: weaker but firm - leverage: talks about uncertainty of future |
|
email negotiation
-pros (3) -cons (3) |
pros
1. convenience (computer, time) 2.have records 3. share good data efficiently cons 1. no non-verbals 2. leads to impasse (stalemate) 3. dangers of internet |
|
which takes less time to negotiate: email OR face-to-face/voice communication
|
face-to-face
studies show |
|
when should you open
-"never-open" rule exception |
when you are WELL INFORMED on the other side
-market value of your relationship |
|
anchor and adjustment effect
-definition -allows negotiator to _____ |
def: unconsiously adjust expectations in direction of opening offers
-"fix range" |
|
opening offer strategy
1.in a relationship neg. 2.in a transaction neg. |
1. rel=accomodating/fair
2.trans=optimistic |
|
contrast principle
-def -what offers create this |
-compare start to end to determine if got good deal
-optimistic offers create this |
|
when to NOT use optimistic offers (3)
|
1. no leverage
2. when other side won't negotiate 3.during balanced concerns neg. |
|
3 elements to a good commitment
|
1. finality
2.specificity 3. consequences (of not taking deal) |
|
what type of concession pattern in a transaction distributive neg.
|
firm, small concessions
|
|
why avoid big concessions in early stages
|
-appears less trustworthy
-weak |
|
concession devaluation
-def -ex |
-lose credibility => concessions lose value
-keep making huge concessions show an 'outrageous' opening offer, which is rude. |
|
4 ways to close the deal
-name and why/when -when do you use these 4 tactics |
ASSS
1.alternatives- provide choices bc ppl like that (A or B) 2.split the difference - fair, easy to understand, quick 3. sweetners-discounts, future offers 4. Scarcity/"exploding offers" - emotional response-when its a big issue for the other side, you have leverage -ONLY use when 90-95% close to closing deal |
|
scarcity effect
-define -when to use -what type of negioator uses these commonly |
def: walkout, exploiding offers
-use when linked to events outside of other party's control (you have leverage!) -interviews... exploding job ofer -competitive |
|
nibbling
-what it is -how to prepare as the negotiator |
def: modestly squeezes in one last request at end of neg.
-hold something back to give away at the end |
|
4 degrees of commitment
-purpose -name 4 |
SECURE agreement
1. social ritual-handshake 2.public announcement 3. accountability-contract 4.simultaneous exchange |
|
take aways from hacker star (3)
|
1. negative leverage
2. trust mend relationships 3. info exchange policy is important |
|
4 motives of unethical neg.
|
1. greed
2. competition 3.leverage imbalance 4.you want justice |
|
lying vs. bluffing
|
lying-you know it's not true, and the other party has no way of finding out
bluffing-no material misrepresentation ex./ lie=telling someone you have 10 FT employees bluff=telling ppl you have 10 employees |
|
3 school of bargaining ethics
1.its a game 2.do right thing even if hurts 3.what goes around comes around -define -ex of each |
1.its a game POKER school-win/lose style, must follow certain 'rules of ethics', but thats it. ex./ car salesman.
2.the do the right thing even if it hurts IDEALIST- being socially ethical ex./circuit court judge 3.what does around comes around PRAGMATIST- ex./ environmental issues |
|
tactics on dealing with unethical behavior (3)
|
1.probe
2.rely on relationships 3.maintain YOUR standards |
|
3 types of questions to be inquiring about position.. will result in underlying interests
|
1.'why' questions
2'.why no't and 'what if' 3.'what makes that fair' question do NOT say 'isn't that true..' |
|
formal 3rd party intervention types(3)
name define |
1.arbitration-arbitrator controls OUTCOME
2.mediation-mediator controls PROCESS 3.consensus binding |
|
chart of 3rd party inventions
|
control over outcome on bottom (ext party, party themselves)
control over process on L (party themselves, ext party) M,L N,A alphabetize bottom R up left to bottom L |
|
are managers mediators or arbitrator?
-techniques to use |
-mediator
-establish groundrules/FRAME WORK -identity interests -open communication |
|
8 steps of mediation
-name -describe |
POES FPFW-poes, fuck police final word
1.prepare 2.opening remarks 3.exploration, initial 4.summary, development of agenda 5.framing issues 6.problem-solving- brainstorm 7.Finalize agreement 8.Write contract |
|
debrief of gym equipment (2)
|
1. match intensity of parties
2.'side mirrors' to keep party in check |
|
with groups, why is it harder to reach integrative solutions (3)
|
SUR
1.stereotyping, categorization likely to occur 2.fail to uncover areas of mutual interest 3.less reciprocity |
|
groupthink
-define -results of -how to stop |
1.pressure to agree with group
2. leads to poor decision making/negotiating 3. devils advocate |
|
3 strategies for group neg.
|
BPS
1.brainwriting-INDEP. write down ideas, then share 2.assign process roles 3.NO sequential negotiations- always want to be able to make concessions |
|
when to use majority vote
|
when you're in a coalitition
|
|
why use consensus voting (2)
|
1.more committed to neg agreement
2. more satisfied |
|
facilitator steps (4)
|
1.set agenda-issues to discuss, time limit
2.ground rules-purpose to keep control of process (ex./only one person talks) 3.= contribution 4. problem-solving, NOT making decisions facilitator=mediator |
|
difference between facilitator and mediator
|
fac=let group talk first
med=YOU talk first to set rules, limits |
|
5 things to plan/discuss when doing a multi-party neg
|
1. who-facilitates, timekeeper,recorder
2. rules 3. vote? 4. conflicts? 5. agenda |
|
3 misconceptions of leverage
|
1.power=leverage
2. leverage is static. 3. leverage based on fats. |
|
3 types of leverage
-name, question to ask -ex. |
1.positive -opposing party needs based (what do THEY want that i have)
2. negative - threats (What can i take away to bargain with?) 3.normative - consistent with norms (what is the other party consistent with and cannot deny if i say? and how can i incorporate that into MY offer? baseball team ex./ 1.positive- stadium NEEDS me to play for them-$$ 2.negative- i threaten to not play 3. normative- made up $ contract for players, be consistent WITH YOUR PROMISE to our teacher/coach. w/o him we'd be nothing. |