Negotiation Chapter 9 and Terms – Flashcards

the outcome is more important than relationships.

Current negotiation theory is based on transactional research (between individuals). Only recently have researchers begun to examine negotiations in a relationship context: Negotiating within relationships takes place over time Negotiation is often not a way to discuss an issue, but a way to learn more about the other party and increase interdependence Resolution of simple distributive issues has implications for the future Example: Married couple deciding which parents to spend holidays with will always occur. Ongoing negotiations in a relationship. Parties that seek information about the other party can establish an integrative negotiation and have the chance to reach a satisfactory outcome. How one issue is settled may set a precedent for future decisions. If you have to have to fight to get something, it will affect how you solve things in the future. What is the relationship between individuals and how does that affect the negotiation? Ex: When the lawyers know each other, it makes it easier to collaborate.

If one party feels very strongly about an issue a distributive negotiation by occur, this might prohibit them from spending time on the relationship. Anticipating future issues—two people who start a business venture have no idea how their relationship will evolve over time and what issues they might strongly disagree on. Never go away—two roommates, one is clean the other is messy, this probably won't be resolved

Roommate who is messy is the problem Accommodating strategy

Are more cooperative and empathetic Craft better quality agreements Perform better on both decision making and motor tasks Focus their attention on the other party's outcomes as well as their own (because you're already in a relationship so you know the value of that) Focus attention on the norms that develop about the way that they work together I.e. Fraternity Projection

Are more likely to share information with the other and less likely to use coercive tactics Are more likely to use indirect communication about conflict issues, and develop a unique conflict structure May be more likely to use compromise or problem solving strategies for resolving conflicts, Data does not support the fact that parties in close relationships produce better solutions. Why - both parties are too willing to give in, which can hinder the outcome at the end. Studies found that parties who did not have a close relationship produced better integrative solutions. Parties in a relationship may not push hard for a preferred solution to try to minimize the conflict level in the relationship.

Reputation Trust Justice

Perceptual and highly subjective in nature An individual can have a number of different, even conflicting, reputations Shaped by past behavior Influenced by an individual's personal characteristics and accomplishments. Develops over time; once developed, is hard to change. Negative reputations are difficult to "repair"

direct reputations (what we perceive) may be different than hearsay reputations (what others say). The hearsay reputation may have been totally different circumstances, you heard it from somebody else or it's just a perception and you don't actually know.

this is especially true if the reputation is help by many people Lance Armstrong

"An individual's belief in and willingness to act on the words, actions and decisions of another" Three things that contribute to trust Individual's chronic disposition toward trust Situation factors History of the relationship between the parties

You can miss out on opportunities. Or you can get taken advantage of. You have to know your instincts. When something is really important, you may be more skeptical Establishing trust - credibility over time. Trust takes time.

Many people approach a new relationship with an unknown other party with remarkably high levels of trust (Start at zero and most people want to believe they can trust the other party and usually do until something happens to prove them wrong. It's like a default. ) Trust tends to cue cooperative behavior (As trust strengthens so does the willingness to have an integrative negotiation) Individual motives also shape trust and expectations of the other's behavior(People who are more cooperatively motivated report more initial higher trust of the other party) Trustors, and those trusted, may focus on different things as trust is being built (Focus can be on risk initially and move toward the benefits that can be gained later.) The nature of the negotiation task can shape how parties judge the trust (Little trust may be expected in an distributive negotiation where much trust might be expected in a integrative negotiation.)

Greater expectations of trust between negotiators leads to greater information sharing(similarly, greater expectation of mistrust leads to minimal information sharing) Greater information sharing enhances effectiveness in achieving a good negotiation outcome (This might not be because of trust) Distributive processes lead negotiators to see the negotiation dialogue, and critical events in the dialogue, as largely about the nature of the negotiation task (Focusing only on task can reduce trust)

Trust increases the likelihood that negotiation will proceed on a favorable course over the life of a negotiation (When mistrust occurs the frame of the negotiation can change quickly) Face-to-face negotiation encourages greater trust development than negotiation online - why? You can see emotions. No planning. Seeing somebody solidifies a relationship. (Negotiating face to face forces a personal relationship) Negotiators who are representing other's interests, rather than their own interests, tend to behave in a less trusting way. They say they're just representing their clients. (They do not perceive that they are personally involved in a relationship and can rationalize that they are merely looking out for their client.) Ex. Dealing with agents

The more severe the breach of trust, the more difficult it is to repair trust If the parties had a good past relationship, it was easier to repair trust The sooner an apology occurs the more effective the apology is likely to be The more sincere the apology is, the more effective it is in repairing trust - Clinton

Apologies where the party took personal responsibility for creating the breach were more effective than apologies that blamed external causes Apologies were more effective when the trust breach was an isolated incident rather than habitual and repetitive. "I did it but it wasn't really my fault" Story: Mr. Garner admitted that the late delivery was his fault and the customer was ok with it. His District Manager lies about it and the customer was very upset with him.

Can take several forms: Distributive justice Procedural justice Interactional justice Systemic justice

The distribution of outcomes, we need to take everything and divide it up equally. - If you took all the money and divided it up equally, in 5 years or 10-15 years (according to Garner) it would end up exactly where it is before the divide. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome.

The process of determining outcomes, Is the process fair? Rich people involved in the legal system, they're more likely to succeed?

How parties treat each other in one-to-one relationships

How organizations appear to treat groups of individuals

Diagnostic steps in beginning to work on improving a relationship: What might be causing any present misunderstanding, and what can I do to understand it better? What might be causing a lack of trust, and what can I do to begin to repair trust that might have been broken? What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced, and what can I do to put the focus on persuasion rather than coercion? What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected, and what can I do to demonstrate acceptance and respect? What might be causing one or both of us to get upset, and what can I do to balance emotion and reason?

Time allotted for buyer or seller to accept the changes that occur during a negotiation.

Creating issues, some real some made of straw, designed to reduce the sellers aspiration level, provide themselves with trading room, assure others in their own organization that they are hard bargainers, make it easier for the salesperson to take a lower package back to their own people.

Complementing the seller on the product but setting a limit on the amount the buyer can spend.

Value of service rendered is greater before it is rendered than after

changing tactics throughout the negotiation process to refrain from telegraphing your motivations or desire to close

Bringing in a new negotiator after the negotiation has begun.

optimizing tactic where the buyer gets multiple bids then compares each individual line item against the competitors

dissuading an opponent from taking action by directing their attention to an area that is less threatening or better protected.

pass the approval level higher so that your opponent is forced to literally renegotiate or repeat arguments at each level.

Changing the terms after an agreement has been reached

Tactic where one person begins the negotiation with very tough demands, then later another person takes over with a nicer demeanor .