Showing posts with label Essentials of Negotiation Summaries and MindMaps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essentials of Negotiation Summaries and MindMaps. Show all posts
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Chapter 9 EN Managing Difficult Negotiations: Individual Approaches
It is not uncommon for negotiations, especially distributive ones, to become contentious to the point of breakdown. In extreme cases, conflict escalates and interpersonal enmity increases. Negotiations are “difficult to resolve” to the extent that the process of conflict resolution is characterized by the following dynamics:
The Atmosphere is Charged with Anger, Frustration, and Resentment
Channels of Communication Are Closed or Constrained
The Original Issues at Stake Have Become Blurred and Ill Defined
The Parties Tend to Perceive Great Differences in Their Respective Positions
The Parties Become More Locked In to Their Initial Negotiating Positions
People on the Same Side Tend to View Each Other Favorably
Mayer suggests that dispute resolution involves three major components in strategies for resolving impasse—joint approaches:
Cognitive resolution
Emotional resolution
Behavioral resolution
Through any number of different avenues—breakdowns in communication, escalation of anger and mistrust, polarization of positions and refusal to compromise, the issuance of ultimatums, or even the avoidance of conflict—negotiations often hit an impasse. Productive dialogue stops. The parties may continue talking, but the communication is usually characterized by trying to sell or force one’s own position, talking about the other’s unreasonable position and uncooperative behavior, or both. When these breakdowns occur, the parties may simply agree to recess, cool off, and come back tomorrow. More commonly, however, the parties break off negotiation and walk away angry and upset. Although they may privately wish there was some way to get back together, they usually don’t know how to arrange a reconciliation.
There are five major strategies that negotiators can use to get detailed negotiations back on track and return to a more productive flow of events:
Reduce tension by separating themselves from one another through cooling off periods, talking about emotions and feelings, or attempting to synchronize de-escalation of the conflict.
Improve the accuracy of communication by role reversal or mirroring the other’s statements.
Keep the number of issues under control so that issues are managed effectively, new issues are not carelessly added, and large issues are divided into smaller ones.
Search for common ground rules and effective time management, developing common expectations through a “covenant,” and reframing.
Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives for both parties by providing “yesable” proposals, asking for different decisions, sweetening offers, and using objective criteria to evaluate solutions.
The tools that we discussed are broad in function and in application, and they represent self-help for negotiators in dealing with stalled or problematic exchanges. None of these methods and remedies is a panacea, and each should be chosen and applied with sensitivity to the needs and limitations of the situations and of the negotiators involved. A truly confrontational breakdown, especially one that involves agreements of great impact or importance, sometimes justifies the introduction of individuals of agencies who themselves are not party to the dispute.
The Atmosphere is Charged with Anger, Frustration, and Resentment
Channels of Communication Are Closed or Constrained
The Original Issues at Stake Have Become Blurred and Ill Defined
The Parties Tend to Perceive Great Differences in Their Respective Positions
The Parties Become More Locked In to Their Initial Negotiating Positions
People on the Same Side Tend to View Each Other Favorably
Mayer suggests that dispute resolution involves three major components in strategies for resolving impasse—joint approaches:
Cognitive resolution
Emotional resolution
Behavioral resolution
Through any number of different avenues—breakdowns in communication, escalation of anger and mistrust, polarization of positions and refusal to compromise, the issuance of ultimatums, or even the avoidance of conflict—negotiations often hit an impasse. Productive dialogue stops. The parties may continue talking, but the communication is usually characterized by trying to sell or force one’s own position, talking about the other’s unreasonable position and uncooperative behavior, or both. When these breakdowns occur, the parties may simply agree to recess, cool off, and come back tomorrow. More commonly, however, the parties break off negotiation and walk away angry and upset. Although they may privately wish there was some way to get back together, they usually don’t know how to arrange a reconciliation.
There are five major strategies that negotiators can use to get detailed negotiations back on track and return to a more productive flow of events:
Reduce tension by separating themselves from one another through cooling off periods, talking about emotions and feelings, or attempting to synchronize de-escalation of the conflict.
Improve the accuracy of communication by role reversal or mirroring the other’s statements.
Keep the number of issues under control so that issues are managed effectively, new issues are not carelessly added, and large issues are divided into smaller ones.
Search for common ground rules and effective time management, developing common expectations through a “covenant,” and reframing.
Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives for both parties by providing “yesable” proposals, asking for different decisions, sweetening offers, and using objective criteria to evaluate solutions.
The tools that we discussed are broad in function and in application, and they represent self-help for negotiators in dealing with stalled or problematic exchanges. None of these methods and remedies is a panacea, and each should be chosen and applied with sensitivity to the needs and limitations of the situations and of the negotiators involved. A truly confrontational breakdown, especially one that involves agreements of great impact or importance, sometimes justifies the introduction of individuals of agencies who themselves are not party to the dispute.
Chapter 8 EN Global Negotiation Summary
This chapter examined various aspects of a growing field of negotiation that explores the complexities of negotiating across borders. We began the chapter with a discussion of the American negotiating style, from both American and non-American perspectives. While there is a great deal of consistency in perceptions of the American negotiating style (e.g., Americans are straightforward, impatient), it is important to remember that there is also a lot of variability within cultures (i.e., not every American negotiates in the same way).
Next, we examined the results of a research program by John Graham and his colleagues that compared American negotiators with negotiators from several countries. Graham and his colleagues found that regardless of where negotiators were from, they negotiated the same level of outcomes on a standard negotiation task. The process of negotiation differed across countries, however, suggesting that there is more than one way to attain the same negotiation outcome. Finally, this research program also suggested that negotiators seem to use different strategies when negotiating with people domestically and internationally.
We then examined some of the factors that make cross-border negotiations different. Phatak and Habib suggest that both the environmental and the immediate context have important effects on global negotiations. We then discussed Salacuse’s description of the environmental factors that influence global negotiations: (1) political and legal pluralism, (2) international economics, (3) foreign governments and bureaucracies, (4) instability, (5) ideology, and (6) culture. We added one more environmental factor—external stakeholders—from Phatak and Habib. Phatak and Habib’s immediate context factors were discussed next: (1) relative bargaining power, (2) levels of conflict, (3) relationship between negotiators, (4) desired outcomes, and (5) immediate stakeholders. Each of these environmental and immediate context factors acts to make cross-border negotiations more difficult, and effective international negotiators need to understand how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to make sense of global negotiation outcomes in light of the multiple factors that can simultaneously influence them.
Next, we turned to a discussion of Hoftede’s work on culture, the factor that has been most frequently used to explain differences in negotiations across borders. Hofstede defines culture as the shared values and beliefs held by a group of people, and is the most comprehensive study of cultural dimensions in international business. He concluded that four dimensions could summarize cultural differences: (1) individualism/collectivism, (2) power distance, (3) masculinity/femininity, and (4) uncertainty avoidance.
We then examine how cultural differences can influence negotiations. Foster, adapting work by Weiss and Stripp, suggests that culture can influence global negotiations in several ways, including (1) the definition of negotiation, (2) the selection of negotiators, (3) protocol, (4) communication, (5) time, (6) risk propensity, (7) groups versus individuals, and (8) the nature of agreements.
This chapter concluded with a discussion of how to manage cultural differences when negotiating across borders. Weiss presents eight different culturally responsive strategies that negotiators can use with a negotiator from a different culture. Some of these strategies may be used individually, whether others used jointly with the other negotiator. Weiss indicates that one critical aspect of choosing the correct strategy for a given negotiation is the degree of familiarity (low, moderate, or high) that a negotiator has with the other culture. However, even those with high familiarity with another culture are faced with a daunting task if they want to modify their strategy completely when they deal with the other culture.
Next, we examined the results of a research program by John Graham and his colleagues that compared American negotiators with negotiators from several countries. Graham and his colleagues found that regardless of where negotiators were from, they negotiated the same level of outcomes on a standard negotiation task. The process of negotiation differed across countries, however, suggesting that there is more than one way to attain the same negotiation outcome. Finally, this research program also suggested that negotiators seem to use different strategies when negotiating with people domestically and internationally.
We then examined some of the factors that make cross-border negotiations different. Phatak and Habib suggest that both the environmental and the immediate context have important effects on global negotiations. We then discussed Salacuse’s description of the environmental factors that influence global negotiations: (1) political and legal pluralism, (2) international economics, (3) foreign governments and bureaucracies, (4) instability, (5) ideology, and (6) culture. We added one more environmental factor—external stakeholders—from Phatak and Habib. Phatak and Habib’s immediate context factors were discussed next: (1) relative bargaining power, (2) levels of conflict, (3) relationship between negotiators, (4) desired outcomes, and (5) immediate stakeholders. Each of these environmental and immediate context factors acts to make cross-border negotiations more difficult, and effective international negotiators need to understand how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to make sense of global negotiation outcomes in light of the multiple factors that can simultaneously influence them.
Next, we turned to a discussion of Hoftede’s work on culture, the factor that has been most frequently used to explain differences in negotiations across borders. Hofstede defines culture as the shared values and beliefs held by a group of people, and is the most comprehensive study of cultural dimensions in international business. He concluded that four dimensions could summarize cultural differences: (1) individualism/collectivism, (2) power distance, (3) masculinity/femininity, and (4) uncertainty avoidance.
We then examine how cultural differences can influence negotiations. Foster, adapting work by Weiss and Stripp, suggests that culture can influence global negotiations in several ways, including (1) the definition of negotiation, (2) the selection of negotiators, (3) protocol, (4) communication, (5) time, (6) risk propensity, (7) groups versus individuals, and (8) the nature of agreements.
This chapter concluded with a discussion of how to manage cultural differences when negotiating across borders. Weiss presents eight different culturally responsive strategies that negotiators can use with a negotiator from a different culture. Some of these strategies may be used individually, whether others used jointly with the other negotiator. Weiss indicates that one critical aspect of choosing the correct strategy for a given negotiation is the degree of familiarity (low, moderate, or high) that a negotiator has with the other culture. However, even those with high familiarity with another culture are faced with a daunting task if they want to modify their strategy completely when they deal with the other culture.
Chapter 7 EN Ethics in Negotiation Summary
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. They differ from morals, which are individual and personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Ethics proceed from particular philosophies, which purport to (a) define the nature of the world in which we live, and (b) prescribe rules for living together.
Explanations and justifications are self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct. First, they allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conduct that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. The adequacy of these explanations to others has a strong effect on mitigating the impact of deceptive behavior to themselves as well. We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more judgments about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgments about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Negotiators with these characteristics will probably be unsuccessful over time unless they are skillful at continually staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct.
The primary factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical—we believe that negotiation process raises several critical ethical issues. Much of what has been written on negotiating behavior has been strongly normative about ethics and has prescribed “shoulds” and “should nots”. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually make decisions about when and where to use specific tactics. To understand this process better, we have approached the study of tactic choice from a decision-making framework, examining the ethical overtones of these choices. We also briefly discussed the ways in which negotiators can respond to another party who may be using deceptive tactics.
We began by considering several negotiation cases, show how ethical questions can be critical to the selection of particular strategic and tactical options.
We proposed that negotiators who choose to use an unethical tactic usually decide to do so to increase their negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information in the negotiation, getting better information about the other party’s plan, or undermining the other party’s ability to achieve his or her objectives. We then presented a simple model of ethical decision making.
Research on negotiators ethics and on various aspects of this model leads us to the following conclusions:
While individual negotiators may disagree as to which negotiating tactics are ethical and which are unethical, the research reported here suggests that there is much more convergence than might have been expected.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic can probably best be understood through a decision making model. It is clear that many individual differences and situational variables are also likely to affect that decision.
In deciding to use a deceptive tactic, a negotiator is likely to be more heavily influenced by (a) his or her own motivations, (b) expectations of what the other negotiator and the other party.
Negotiators who have considered the use of deceptive tactics in the past or who are considering their use should ask themselves these questions:
(a) Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
(b) How will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
(c) How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics my get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness in the long run..
Explanations and justifications are self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct. First, they allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conduct that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. The adequacy of these explanations to others has a strong effect on mitigating the impact of deceptive behavior to themselves as well. We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more judgments about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgments about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Negotiators with these characteristics will probably be unsuccessful over time unless they are skillful at continually staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct.
The primary factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical—we believe that negotiation process raises several critical ethical issues. Much of what has been written on negotiating behavior has been strongly normative about ethics and has prescribed “shoulds” and “should nots”. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually make decisions about when and where to use specific tactics. To understand this process better, we have approached the study of tactic choice from a decision-making framework, examining the ethical overtones of these choices. We also briefly discussed the ways in which negotiators can respond to another party who may be using deceptive tactics.
We began by considering several negotiation cases, show how ethical questions can be critical to the selection of particular strategic and tactical options.
We proposed that negotiators who choose to use an unethical tactic usually decide to do so to increase their negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information in the negotiation, getting better information about the other party’s plan, or undermining the other party’s ability to achieve his or her objectives. We then presented a simple model of ethical decision making.
Research on negotiators ethics and on various aspects of this model leads us to the following conclusions:
While individual negotiators may disagree as to which negotiating tactics are ethical and which are unethical, the research reported here suggests that there is much more convergence than might have been expected.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic can probably best be understood through a decision making model. It is clear that many individual differences and situational variables are also likely to affect that decision.
In deciding to use a deceptive tactic, a negotiator is likely to be more heavily influenced by (a) his or her own motivations, (b) expectations of what the other negotiator and the other party.
Negotiators who have considered the use of deceptive tactics in the past or who are considering their use should ask themselves these questions:
(a) Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
(b) How will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
(c) How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics my get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness in the long run..
Chapter 6 EN Finding and Using Negotiation Leverage
There are three major sources of leverage: information and expertise, control over resources, structural position, and the location within an organizational structure (which leads to either formal authority or informal power based on where one is located relative to flows of information or resources). Imbalances in these power sources across the table are inevitable, but effective negotiators can take steps to alter the power dynamics before and during negotiation.
By leverage, we mean the process of gaining or using various sources of power in order to obtain and use temporary advantage over the other negotiating party.
Kolb and Williams identify three strategic levers available to help people navigate the shadow negotiation:
Power Moves
Process Moves
Appreciative Moves
Negotiators may also want to alter party’s beliefs about the importance of his own objectives and convince him that his concessions are not as valuable as he first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the party’s position, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence.
Influence is based on an approach developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo that suggest that there are two general paths by which people are persuaded . The first path occurs consciously and involves integration of the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual, frameworks, etc.)
In order to examine a very large number of influence (leverage) tools that one could use in negotiation, these tools were considered in two broad categories: influence that occurs through the central route to persuasion, and influence that occurs through the peripheral route to persuasion.
Our discussion of peripheral routes to influence will consider three sets of strategies: message aspects, attributes of the persuader, and elements of the influence context.
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
We consider how the receiver—the target of influence—either can shape and direct what the sender is communicating, or can intellectually resist the persuasive effects of the message. Effective negotiators are skilled not only at crafting persuasive messages, but also at playing the role of skilled “consumers” of the messages that others direct their way.
By leverage, we mean the process of gaining or using various sources of power in order to obtain and use temporary advantage over the other negotiating party.
Kolb and Williams identify three strategic levers available to help people navigate the shadow negotiation:
Power Moves
Process Moves
Appreciative Moves
Negotiators may also want to alter party’s beliefs about the importance of his own objectives and convince him that his concessions are not as valuable as he first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the party’s position, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence.
Influence is based on an approach developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo that suggest that there are two general paths by which people are persuaded . The first path occurs consciously and involves integration of the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual, frameworks, etc.)
In order to examine a very large number of influence (leverage) tools that one could use in negotiation, these tools were considered in two broad categories: influence that occurs through the central route to persuasion, and influence that occurs through the peripheral route to persuasion.
Our discussion of peripheral routes to influence will consider three sets of strategies: message aspects, attributes of the persuader, and elements of the influence context.
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
We consider how the receiver—the target of influence—either can shape and direct what the sender is communicating, or can intellectually resist the persuasive effects of the message. Effective negotiators are skilled not only at crafting persuasive messages, but also at playing the role of skilled “consumers” of the messages that others direct their way.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
Chapters 5 Summary --Essentials of Negotiation
CHAPTER 5 PERCEPTION, COGNITION, AND COMMUNICATION
Perception, cognition, and communication are fundamental processes that governs how individuals construct and interpret the interaction that takes place in a negotiation. Reduced to its essence, negotiation is a form of interpersonal communication, which itself is a subject of the broader category of human perception and communication.
PERCEPTION AND NEGOTIATION
The Role of Perception
Negotiators approach each negotiation guided by their perceptions of past situations and current attitudes and bahaviors. Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. The process of ascribing meaning to messages received is strongly influenced by the receiver's current state of mind, role, and understanding or comprehension of earlier communications.
Perceptual Distortion in Negotiation
In any given negotiation, the perceiver's own needs, desires, motivations, and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. Such predispositions are most problematic when they lead to biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication. There are four major perceptual errors: stereotyping, halo effects, selective perception, and projections. Stereotyping and halo effects are examples of perceptual distortion by generalization: small amounts of perceptual information are used to draw large conclusions about individuals. Selective perception and projection are, in contrast, examples of perceptual distortion by the anticipation of encountering certain attributes and qualities in another person. In each case, the perceiver filters and distorts information to arrive at a consistent view.
Framing
A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsuquent actions. Framing is about focusing, shaping, and organizing the world around us--making sense of complex realities and defining it in ways that are meaningful to us.
An important aspect of framing is the cognitive heuristics approach, which examines the ways in which negotiators make systematic errors in judgment when they process information.
The cognitive heuristic approach to framing focuses on how a party perceives and shapes the outcome (particularly with regard to risk), and how the party's frame tends to persist regardless of the events and information that follow it.
Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
Negotiators have a tendency to make systematic errors when they process information. These errors, collectively labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performace: they include (1) the irrational escalation of commitment, (2) the mythical belief that the issues under negotiation are all fixd-pie, (3) the process of anchoring and adjustment in decision making, (4) issue and problem framing, (5) the availibility of information, (6) the winner's curse, (7)negotiator overconfidence, (8) the law of small numbers, (9) self-serving biases, (10) the endowment effect, (11) the tendency to ignore others' cognitions, and (12) the process of reactive devaluation.
MANAGING MISPERCEPTIONS AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN NEGOTIATION
Misperceptions and cognitive biases arise automatically and out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information. The best advice that negotiators can follow is simply to be aware of the negative aspects of these effects, and to discuss them in a structured manner within their team and with their counterparts.
Reframing
Negotiators may apply several different frames to the same negotiation. When different negotiators apply different, or mismatched, frames, they will find the bargaining process ambigous and frustrating. In such situations, it may become necessary to reframe the negotiation systematically, to assist the other party in reframing the negotiation, or to establish a common frame or set of frames within which the negotiation may be conducted more productively.
WHAT IS COMMUNICATED DURING NEGOTIATION?
Most of the communication during negotiation is not about negotiator preferences. The blend of integrative versus distributive content varies as a function of the issues being discussed, but it also clear that the content of communication is only partly responsible for negotiation outcomes. For example, one party may choose not communicate certain things (e.g, the reason she chose a different supplier), so her counterpart (e.g., the supplier not chosen) may be unaware why some outcomes occur. There are five categories of communication that take place during negotiations:
1. Offers and Counteroffers
2. Information about Alternatives (BATNA)
3. Information about Outcomes
4. Social Accounts
5. Communications about Process
HOW PEOPLE COMMUNICATE IN NEGOTIATION
While it may seem obvious that how negotiators communicate is as important as what they have to say, research has examined different aspects of how people communicate in negotiation. There are two aspects related to the "how" of communication: the characteristics of language that communicators use, and the selection of a communication channel for sending and receiving messages.
HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION IN NEGOTIATION
Failure and distortions in perception, cognition, and communication are the most dominant contributors to breakdowns and failures in negotiation. Research consistenly demonstrates that even those parties whose actual goals are compatible or integrative may either fail to reach agreement or reach suboptimal agreements because of the isperceptions of the other party or becuase of breakdowns in the communication in negotiation: the use of questions, listening, and role reversal.
MOOD, EMOTION, AND NEGOTIATION
The role of mood and emotion in negotiation has been the subject of an increasing body of recent theory and research during the last decade. The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three characteristics: specificity, intensity, and duration. Mood states are more diffuse, less intense and directed at more specific targets. There are amny new and exciting developments in the study of mood, emotion, and negotiation, and we can present only a limited overview here. The following are some selected findings.
1. Negotiations create both positive and negative emotions
2. Positive emotions generally have positive consequences for negotiations
-Positive feelings are more likely to lead the parties towards integrative
-Positive feelings promote persistence
-Positive feelings result from fair procedures during negotiation
3. Negative Emotions Generally Have Negative Consequences for Negotiations.
4. Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation tactics.
SPECIAL COMMUNICATION CONSIDERATIONS AT THE CLOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS
As negotiation come to a close, negotiators must attend to two key aspects of communication and negotiation simultaneously: the avoidance of fatal mistakes, and the achievment of satisfactory closure in constructive manner.
Perception, cognition, and communication are fundamental processes that governs how individuals construct and interpret the interaction that takes place in a negotiation. Reduced to its essence, negotiation is a form of interpersonal communication, which itself is a subject of the broader category of human perception and communication.
PERCEPTION AND NEGOTIATION
The Role of Perception
Negotiators approach each negotiation guided by their perceptions of past situations and current attitudes and bahaviors. Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. The process of ascribing meaning to messages received is strongly influenced by the receiver's current state of mind, role, and understanding or comprehension of earlier communications.
Perceptual Distortion in Negotiation
In any given negotiation, the perceiver's own needs, desires, motivations, and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. Such predispositions are most problematic when they lead to biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication. There are four major perceptual errors: stereotyping, halo effects, selective perception, and projections. Stereotyping and halo effects are examples of perceptual distortion by generalization: small amounts of perceptual information are used to draw large conclusions about individuals. Selective perception and projection are, in contrast, examples of perceptual distortion by the anticipation of encountering certain attributes and qualities in another person. In each case, the perceiver filters and distorts information to arrive at a consistent view.
Framing
A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsuquent actions. Framing is about focusing, shaping, and organizing the world around us--making sense of complex realities and defining it in ways that are meaningful to us.
An important aspect of framing is the cognitive heuristics approach, which examines the ways in which negotiators make systematic errors in judgment when they process information.
The cognitive heuristic approach to framing focuses on how a party perceives and shapes the outcome (particularly with regard to risk), and how the party's frame tends to persist regardless of the events and information that follow it.
Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
Negotiators have a tendency to make systematic errors when they process information. These errors, collectively labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performace: they include (1) the irrational escalation of commitment, (2) the mythical belief that the issues under negotiation are all fixd-pie, (3) the process of anchoring and adjustment in decision making, (4) issue and problem framing, (5) the availibility of information, (6) the winner's curse, (7)negotiator overconfidence, (8) the law of small numbers, (9) self-serving biases, (10) the endowment effect, (11) the tendency to ignore others' cognitions, and (12) the process of reactive devaluation.
MANAGING MISPERCEPTIONS AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN NEGOTIATION
Misperceptions and cognitive biases arise automatically and out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information. The best advice that negotiators can follow is simply to be aware of the negative aspects of these effects, and to discuss them in a structured manner within their team and with their counterparts.
Reframing
Negotiators may apply several different frames to the same negotiation. When different negotiators apply different, or mismatched, frames, they will find the bargaining process ambigous and frustrating. In such situations, it may become necessary to reframe the negotiation systematically, to assist the other party in reframing the negotiation, or to establish a common frame or set of frames within which the negotiation may be conducted more productively.
WHAT IS COMMUNICATED DURING NEGOTIATION?
Most of the communication during negotiation is not about negotiator preferences. The blend of integrative versus distributive content varies as a function of the issues being discussed, but it also clear that the content of communication is only partly responsible for negotiation outcomes. For example, one party may choose not communicate certain things (e.g, the reason she chose a different supplier), so her counterpart (e.g., the supplier not chosen) may be unaware why some outcomes occur. There are five categories of communication that take place during negotiations:
1. Offers and Counteroffers
2. Information about Alternatives (BATNA)
3. Information about Outcomes
4. Social Accounts
5. Communications about Process
HOW PEOPLE COMMUNICATE IN NEGOTIATION
While it may seem obvious that how negotiators communicate is as important as what they have to say, research has examined different aspects of how people communicate in negotiation. There are two aspects related to the "how" of communication: the characteristics of language that communicators use, and the selection of a communication channel for sending and receiving messages.
HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION IN NEGOTIATION
Failure and distortions in perception, cognition, and communication are the most dominant contributors to breakdowns and failures in negotiation. Research consistenly demonstrates that even those parties whose actual goals are compatible or integrative may either fail to reach agreement or reach suboptimal agreements because of the isperceptions of the other party or becuase of breakdowns in the communication in negotiation: the use of questions, listening, and role reversal.
MOOD, EMOTION, AND NEGOTIATION
The role of mood and emotion in negotiation has been the subject of an increasing body of recent theory and research during the last decade. The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three characteristics: specificity, intensity, and duration. Mood states are more diffuse, less intense and directed at more specific targets. There are amny new and exciting developments in the study of mood, emotion, and negotiation, and we can present only a limited overview here. The following are some selected findings.
1. Negotiations create both positive and negative emotions
2. Positive emotions generally have positive consequences for negotiations
-Positive feelings are more likely to lead the parties towards integrative
-Positive feelings promote persistence
-Positive feelings result from fair procedures during negotiation
3. Negative Emotions Generally Have Negative Consequences for Negotiations.
4. Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation tactics.
SPECIAL COMMUNICATION CONSIDERATIONS AT THE CLOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS
As negotiation come to a close, negotiators must attend to two key aspects of communication and negotiation simultaneously: the avoidance of fatal mistakes, and the achievment of satisfactory closure in constructive manner.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
ESSENTIALS OF NEGOTATION CHAPTERS 3 & 4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3 Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining
Distributive bargaining begins with setting your own opening, target, and resistance points. You soon learn the other party's starting points and find out his or her target points and find out his or her target points directly or through inference. Usually you won't know the resistance points, the points beyond which a party will not go, until late in negotiation because the other party often carefully concelas them. All points are important, but the resistance points are the most critical. The spread between them the parties' resistance points defines the bargaining range. If positive, it defines the area of negotiation within which a settlement is likely to occur, with each other party working to obtain as much of the bargaining range as possible.
It is rare that a negotiation includes only one item; more typically, there is a set of items, referred to as a bargaining mix. Each item in a bargaining mix can have opening, target, and resistance points. The bargaining mix may provide opportunities for handling inssues together, trading off across issues, or displaying mutually concessionary behavior.
Examining the structure of distributive bargaining reveals many options for a negotiator to achieve a successful resolution, most of which fall within two broad efforts: to influence the other party's belief about what is possible and to learn as much as possible about the other party's position, particularly about the resistance points. The negotiator's basic goal is to reach a final settlement as close to the other party's resistance point as possible. To achieve this goal, negotiators work to gather information about the opposition and its positions; to convince members of the other party to change their minds about their ability to achieve their own goals; and to promote their own objectives as desirable, necessary, or even inevitable.
Distributive bargaining is basically a conflict situation, wherein parties seek their own advantage--in part through concealing information, attempting to mislead, or using manipulative actions. All those tactics can easily escalate interaction from calm discussion to bitter hostility. Yet negotiation is the attempt to resolve a conflict without force, without fighting. Further, to be successful, both parties to the negotiation must feel at the end that the outcome was the best that they could achieve and that it is worth accepting and supporting. Hence, effective distributive bargaining is a process that requires careful planning, strong execution, and constant monitoring of the other party's reactions.
CHAPTER 4 Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
The fundamental structure of integrative negotiation is one within which the parties are able to define goals and engaging in a set of procedures that permit both sides to maximize their objectives.
A high level of concern for both sides achieving their ow objectives propels a collaborative, problem-solving approach. Negotiators frequently fail at integrative negotiation because they fail to perceive the integrative potential of the negotiating problem. However, breakdowns also occur due the distributive assumptions about the negotiating problem, the mixed-motive nature of the issues, or the negotiator's previous relationship with each other. Succesful integrative negotiation requires several processes. First, the parties must understand each other's true needs and objectives. Second, they must create a free flow of information and an open exchange of ideas. Third, they must focus on their similarities, emphasizing their commonalities rather than their differences. Finally, they must engage in a search for solutions that meet the goals for both sides.
The four steps in the integrative negotiations are indentifying and definining the problem, indentifying interests and needs, generating alternative solutions, and evaluating and selecting alternatives. For each of these steps, we proposed techniques and tactics to make the process successful.
We then discussed various factors that facilitate successful integrative negotiation. First, the process will be greatly facilitated by some form of common goal or objective. This goal may be one that the parties both want to achieve, one they want to share, or one they could not possibly attain unless they worked together. Second, they must a motivation and commitment to work together, to make their relationship a productive one. Third, the parties must be willing to believe that the other's needs are valid. Fourth, they must be able to trust each other and to work hard to establish and maintain that trust. Finally, there must be clear and accurate communication about each one wants and an effort to understand the other's needs.
Distributive bargaining begins with setting your own opening, target, and resistance points. You soon learn the other party's starting points and find out his or her target points and find out his or her target points directly or through inference. Usually you won't know the resistance points, the points beyond which a party will not go, until late in negotiation because the other party often carefully concelas them. All points are important, but the resistance points are the most critical. The spread between them the parties' resistance points defines the bargaining range. If positive, it defines the area of negotiation within which a settlement is likely to occur, with each other party working to obtain as much of the bargaining range as possible.
It is rare that a negotiation includes only one item; more typically, there is a set of items, referred to as a bargaining mix. Each item in a bargaining mix can have opening, target, and resistance points. The bargaining mix may provide opportunities for handling inssues together, trading off across issues, or displaying mutually concessionary behavior.
Examining the structure of distributive bargaining reveals many options for a negotiator to achieve a successful resolution, most of which fall within two broad efforts: to influence the other party's belief about what is possible and to learn as much as possible about the other party's position, particularly about the resistance points. The negotiator's basic goal is to reach a final settlement as close to the other party's resistance point as possible. To achieve this goal, negotiators work to gather information about the opposition and its positions; to convince members of the other party to change their minds about their ability to achieve their own goals; and to promote their own objectives as desirable, necessary, or even inevitable.
Distributive bargaining is basically a conflict situation, wherein parties seek their own advantage--in part through concealing information, attempting to mislead, or using manipulative actions. All those tactics can easily escalate interaction from calm discussion to bitter hostility. Yet negotiation is the attempt to resolve a conflict without force, without fighting. Further, to be successful, both parties to the negotiation must feel at the end that the outcome was the best that they could achieve and that it is worth accepting and supporting. Hence, effective distributive bargaining is a process that requires careful planning, strong execution, and constant monitoring of the other party's reactions.
CHAPTER 4 Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
The fundamental structure of integrative negotiation is one within which the parties are able to define goals and engaging in a set of procedures that permit both sides to maximize their objectives.
A high level of concern for both sides achieving their ow objectives propels a collaborative, problem-solving approach. Negotiators frequently fail at integrative negotiation because they fail to perceive the integrative potential of the negotiating problem. However, breakdowns also occur due the distributive assumptions about the negotiating problem, the mixed-motive nature of the issues, or the negotiator's previous relationship with each other. Succesful integrative negotiation requires several processes. First, the parties must understand each other's true needs and objectives. Second, they must create a free flow of information and an open exchange of ideas. Third, they must focus on their similarities, emphasizing their commonalities rather than their differences. Finally, they must engage in a search for solutions that meet the goals for both sides.
The four steps in the integrative negotiations are indentifying and definining the problem, indentifying interests and needs, generating alternative solutions, and evaluating and selecting alternatives. For each of these steps, we proposed techniques and tactics to make the process successful.
We then discussed various factors that facilitate successful integrative negotiation. First, the process will be greatly facilitated by some form of common goal or objective. This goal may be one that the parties both want to achieve, one they want to share, or one they could not possibly attain unless they worked together. Second, they must a motivation and commitment to work together, to make their relationship a productive one. Third, the parties must be willing to believe that the other's needs are valid. Fourth, they must be able to trust each other and to work hard to establish and maintain that trust. Finally, there must be clear and accurate communication about each one wants and an effort to understand the other's needs.
Short Summary for Chapter 1 & 2
CHAPTER 1 Essentials of Negotiation
Negotiations occur for one of two reasons: (1) to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own, or (2) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.
There are several characteristics common to all negotiation situations:
1. There are two or more parties—that is, two or more individuals, groups, or organizations.
2. There is a conflict of interest between two or more parties—that is, what one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants—and the parties must search for a way to resolve the conflict.
3. The parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal that way than by simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have.
4. The parties, at least for the moment, prefer to search for agreement rather than to fight openly, have one side capitulate, permanently break off contact, or take their dispute to a higher authority to resolve it.
5. When we negotiate we expect to give and take.
6. Successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles as well as the resolving of tangibles.
In negotiation, both parties need each other. A buyer cannot buy unless someone else sells, and vice versa. This situation of mutual dependency is called interdependence. Interdependent relations are complex and have their own special challenge.
Interdependent relationships are characterized by interlocking goals—the parties need each other in order to accomplish their goals.
Two potential consequences of interdependent relationships are (1) value creations and (2) conflict. Negotiation skills and sub-processes are useful in situations where one wants to create value or needs to manage conflict. There is no simple recipe, however, their guarantees positive outcomes in either situation. Negotiation is a craft that blends art and science, and positive outcomes are a consequence of knowledge, experience, careful planning, and some luck. In the next section we discuss aspects of value creation, and in the following section we examine the extensive literature on conflict management.
The other potential consequence of interdependent relationships is conflict. Conflict can be due to the highly divergent needs of the two parties, a misunderstanding that occurs between two people, or some other, intangible factor. Conflict can occur when the two parties are working toward the same goal and generally want the same outcome, or when both parties want a very different settlement
One of the most popular areas of conflict management research and practice has been to define the different ways that the parties themselves can manage conflict.
There are five major strategies for conflict management have commonly identified:
1. Contending (also called competing or dominating)
2. Yielding (also called accommodating or obliging)
3. Inaction (also called avoiding)
4. Problem solving (also called collaborating or integrating)
5. Compromising
CHAPTER 2 Negotiation: Strategizing, Framing, and Planning
Negotiators differ in the goals they select. Goals can be specific (to achieve a particular outcome), or they can be more general (to pursue a broader set of interests). They can also be tangible, such as a particular rate or price or financial outcome; or they can be tangible, such as winning, beating the other, or defending a principle. Goals can shape the frames we adopt, or frames can change the goals we pursue.
There are several major strategies that can be used in a negotiation. Select the strategy that is most likely to achieve one's objectives, and also take into considerations the long term relationship with the other party. Two of these major strategies--competition and collaboration.
Negotiators differ in how they "frame" the problem, issue, or conflict. Frames may be perspectives on outcomes on the related rewards or penalties that go with those outcomes, or they be ways to define "the problem" in a negotiation. What is important is that how one or both parties frame the problem will lead to select some conflict management strategies and ignore others. Therefore, a negotiator needs to attend to the way he or she is defining the problem and specifically be aware that:
- There may be other ways to define it that may make the problem more or less amenable to negotiation and resolution.
- The other party may not be defining it in the same way, which may be contribute to the case or difficulty with which the parties can communicate about the problem with each other.
Negotiations tend to evolve over time according to certain predictable sequences. These sequences comprise the different stages or phrases of a negotiation. The models indicate that negotiation is not a random process but has some predictable elements to it over time.
Goals, strategies, frames, and predictable stages set the background for an effective planning process. There are a number of different planning templates, which tend to emphasize different elements in slightly different sequences. Neverthless, we have tried to present the most important steps in the planning process. Effectively attending to each of these steps should allow a negotiator to be very well prepared for the challenges that he or she is going to face in playing out strategy and meeting to the other party.
Negotiations occur for one of two reasons: (1) to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own, or (2) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.
There are several characteristics common to all negotiation situations:
1. There are two or more parties—that is, two or more individuals, groups, or organizations.
2. There is a conflict of interest between two or more parties—that is, what one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants—and the parties must search for a way to resolve the conflict.
3. The parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal that way than by simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have.
4. The parties, at least for the moment, prefer to search for agreement rather than to fight openly, have one side capitulate, permanently break off contact, or take their dispute to a higher authority to resolve it.
5. When we negotiate we expect to give and take.
6. Successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles as well as the resolving of tangibles.
In negotiation, both parties need each other. A buyer cannot buy unless someone else sells, and vice versa. This situation of mutual dependency is called interdependence. Interdependent relations are complex and have their own special challenge.
Interdependent relationships are characterized by interlocking goals—the parties need each other in order to accomplish their goals.
Two potential consequences of interdependent relationships are (1) value creations and (2) conflict. Negotiation skills and sub-processes are useful in situations where one wants to create value or needs to manage conflict. There is no simple recipe, however, their guarantees positive outcomes in either situation. Negotiation is a craft that blends art and science, and positive outcomes are a consequence of knowledge, experience, careful planning, and some luck. In the next section we discuss aspects of value creation, and in the following section we examine the extensive literature on conflict management.
The other potential consequence of interdependent relationships is conflict. Conflict can be due to the highly divergent needs of the two parties, a misunderstanding that occurs between two people, or some other, intangible factor. Conflict can occur when the two parties are working toward the same goal and generally want the same outcome, or when both parties want a very different settlement
One of the most popular areas of conflict management research and practice has been to define the different ways that the parties themselves can manage conflict.
There are five major strategies for conflict management have commonly identified:
1. Contending (also called competing or dominating)
2. Yielding (also called accommodating or obliging)
3. Inaction (also called avoiding)
4. Problem solving (also called collaborating or integrating)
5. Compromising
CHAPTER 2 Negotiation: Strategizing, Framing, and Planning
Negotiators differ in the goals they select. Goals can be specific (to achieve a particular outcome), or they can be more general (to pursue a broader set of interests). They can also be tangible, such as a particular rate or price or financial outcome; or they can be tangible, such as winning, beating the other, or defending a principle. Goals can shape the frames we adopt, or frames can change the goals we pursue.
There are several major strategies that can be used in a negotiation. Select the strategy that is most likely to achieve one's objectives, and also take into considerations the long term relationship with the other party. Two of these major strategies--competition and collaboration.
Negotiators differ in how they "frame" the problem, issue, or conflict. Frames may be perspectives on outcomes on the related rewards or penalties that go with those outcomes, or they be ways to define "the problem" in a negotiation. What is important is that how one or both parties frame the problem will lead to select some conflict management strategies and ignore others. Therefore, a negotiator needs to attend to the way he or she is defining the problem and specifically be aware that:
- There may be other ways to define it that may make the problem more or less amenable to negotiation and resolution.
- The other party may not be defining it in the same way, which may be contribute to the case or difficulty with which the parties can communicate about the problem with each other.
Negotiations tend to evolve over time according to certain predictable sequences. These sequences comprise the different stages or phrases of a negotiation. The models indicate that negotiation is not a random process but has some predictable elements to it over time.
Goals, strategies, frames, and predictable stages set the background for an effective planning process. There are a number of different planning templates, which tend to emphasize different elements in slightly different sequences. Neverthless, we have tried to present the most important steps in the planning process. Effectively attending to each of these steps should allow a negotiator to be very well prepared for the challenges that he or she is going to face in playing out strategy and meeting to the other party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)