2NG3

Money vs. relationships

A successful, win-win negotiation is not just about maximizing money or economic value.

 Win-win agreement

The true definition of a win-win agreement is one that allows negotiators to fully maximize whatever negotiators care about which can include:

* Love
* Money
* Services
* Goods
* Status
* Information

Particularism

* how much utility we derive depends on the provider

Concreteness

* the tangibility of the resource

Subjective value inventor

* assess four major concerns

Four major concerns

* Feelings about instrumental outcomes
* Feelings about themselves
* Feelings about the process
* Feelings about their relationships

Handshake

When you begin a negotiation with a handshake, you end up with a positive outcome

Subjective value - money vs. relationship

* Money is not the only value that is needed in negotiation
* Trust
* Respect
* Liking

Rapport

* Rapport refers to the feelings of closeness, understanding, and harmony among people in relationship

Verbal rapport

* The verbal rapport assessment scale assesses how negotiators build rapport and focuses on 13 verbal measures
* In negotiation, the creation of rapport is primarily influenced by the counterparty's verbal behaviour and the interaction behaviours of both negotiators

Sequential negotiations and bargaining history

* It stand to reason that negotiators' previous experience of history with another can strongly influence how they behave in the future
* In some situations, negotiators have a asymmetric history, such the one party benefits at the expense of another

Trust and temptation

* Trust is the willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another person
* The paradox is that most negotiations offers some incentive for people to behave in an untrustworthy fashion
* Trust propensity refers to a negotiators belief in other's trustworthiness and can increase information exchange and decrease distributive behaviours

Three types of trust in relationships

* Determinacy based trust
* Knowledge-based trust
* Identification-based trust

Determinacy based trust

does t make sense to break the trust?

* Expensive to develop and maintain behavioral monitoring systems
* Reactance theory: argue that people do not like their freedom taken away

Knowledge-based trust

* how well can you predict your best-friends behaviour?
* Grounded in behavioural predictability


* Increase dependence and commitment among parties

Identification-based trust

* what does the other party want?
* Grounded in complete empathy with another person's desires and intentions


* Means other people have adopted your own preferences

 Building Trust

The two routes to building trust are:

* The cognitive route
* The affective route

* The cognitive route

* based on rational and deliberate thoughts and considerations

* The affective route

* based on intuition and emotion

How does a person build trust through cognitive means of influence?

* Transform relationship conflict into task conflict
* Agree on a common goal or share division
* Capitalize on social network connections
* Find a shared problem or a common enemy
* Focus on the future

What psychological 9afective route) strategies can be used to build trust between parties?

* Similarity-attraction effect
* Mere exposure effect
* Physical proximity
* Reciprocity principle
* Schmoozing
* Flattery
* Mimicry and mirroring
* Self affirmation

What situation leads to distrust?

* Trust breaches or defections
* High need for closure
* Dispositional attributions
* Focusing on the "bad apple"

Six component of an effective apology

* Expression of regret
* Explanation
* Acknowledgement of responsibility
* Declaration of repentance
* Offer of repaid
* Request for forgiveness

Relationships in negotiation

* Relationships influence not only the process of how people negotiate, but also their choice of interaction partners
* Distributive spiral and incidental emotion from the past influence trust
* Negotiators who reach an impasse in prior negotiation are more likely to do the same or in their next negotiation or reach a low-value deal

Relationships in negotiation: negotiating with friends

Interpersonal relationships influenced negotiators expectation, and they expect more generous negotiations offers from close others

 Three patterns of negotiating with friends

* Opening up (complete, mutual honesty)
* Working together (cooperative problem solving)
* Haggling (competitive attempts to get the best deal)

Unmitigated communion

Unmitigated communion refers to the fact that people believe they should be responsive to others' needs and not asset their own

Relationship accommodation

Relationship accommodation occurs when people make economic sacrifices to preserve relationships

Communal norms

Communal norms mandate that we should take care of the people we love, respond to their needs, and not "keep track" of who has put in what

opposite of communal norms

The opposite of communal norms are exchange norms, which mandate we should keep track of who has invest in a relationship an be compensated based on their inputs

Friends VS strangers

Friends are less competitive with each other then they are with strangers

Negotiators in a relationship

Negotiators in a relationship are often unable to profitably exploit opportunities to create value

Friendship and mismanagement of agreement:

The Abilene paradox

Compromise

*  if we are finds have to negotiates, we should divide it down the middle
* Equality rule (equal shares for all parties)
* Equity rule (merit-based rule)

Negotiating in exchange relationships

In contrast to friends negotiation, business people are much more likely to use exchange norms:

* Market pricing
* We choose our friends, but not our coworkers'
* Status and rank
* Swift trust
* The myth of the one shot business situation

Multiplex relationships

When friends and family do business, the relationship is more complex and is known as an embedded relationship

Pitfalls to embedded relationship include the following:

* Emotional potential is higher and interpersonal conflict can result
* Often experience internal value conflicts
* May create myopia is people are reluctant to move beyond their own networks or sticky ties

Vantage points

Power in a negotiation can be analyzed in terms of four vantage points:

* Potential power
* Perceived power
* Power tactics
* Realized power

Potential power

* The underlying capacity of the negotiator to obtain benefits from an agreement
* Is a function of the counterpart's dependence on you

Perceived power:

A negotiator's assessment of each party's potential power, which may not align with reality

Power tactics:

* Refer to the behaviours designed to use or change the power relationship

Realized power:

The extend to which negotiators claim beenbfn its from an interaction

Power - sources of power

* Negotiators can garner power from a number of sources
* Each source of power can enhance a negotiators likelihood of attaining their ideal outcome

BATNA as power

When negotiators have a great BATNA, they have power

It is imperative that negotiators cultivate and improve their BATNAs prior to negotiating by doing the following:

* Keep your options open
* Signal your BATNA, but do not reveal it
* Research the other party's BATNA

Chapter Capstone (12)

* The place-time model of social interaction examines how the medium of communication affects negotiation
* The use of information technology affects social behaviour
* The biggest threat to effective negotiation in non-face-to-face settings is loos of rapport and less consciousness of social norms
* Intergenerational negotiations are a special challenges because negotiators have strongly differing norms of communication and behaviour
* Strategies for enhancing technology-mediated negotiations include initial face-to-face experience, a one-day videoconferencing or teleconference, schmoozing, medium management and humor

Strategies for enhancing technology - Mediated negotiations

\n

What strategies can be employees to enhance successful pie-expansion and pie-slicing? Consider the following tactics:

* Initial face-to-face experience
* One-day videoconference/teleconference
* Schmoozing
* Proactive medium management
* Humor

The five different generations currently in the U.S workforce:

\n

* Traditional
* Boomers
* Generation X
* Generation Y
* Generation Z

Information technology as its affects on intergenerational negotiation:

* People of different generation ascribe to different norms of behaviour, often unknowingly violating norms eld by members of differing generations
* As a principle, younger generations have grown up communicating with everyone using information technology; as a result, they prefer using information technology over face-to-face interaction

Information technology and its affects on mentalizing

\n

* When people interreact with computer technology there is less activation of the brain regions associated with mentalizing, or the inference of other people's mental states
* This suggest that people might think and behave differently depending upon whether they believe they are interacting with a human or a computer
* Peoples electronic messages are likely to display less social awareness, ignore social boundaries, show less concern for other, disclose too must about the self, and are too blunt

Information technology and its affects on relationships and rapport

* The greater the face-to-face contact and rapport between negotiators, the more integrative their outcomes are likely to be
* Rapport is more difficult to establish with impoverished mediums of communication
* Independent observers judged face-to-face negotiators to be more "in-sync" with each other
* The Communication Orientation model proposes that the impact of communication channels is influenced by negotiators' cooperative orientation

Information technology and its affect on risk taking:

* Framing effect - people are risk averse for gains and risk-seeking for losses
* Groups make riskier decisions than individuals, given the same choices, and risk seeking is greatly exaggerated in groups that meet face-to-face
* Paradoxically, groups that communicate electronically are risk-seeking for both gains and losses

Information technology and its affects on social networks;

\n

* In traditional face-to-face organization, social networks are determined by who talks to whom; in -e-centered organizations, social networks are determined by who communicates with who via technology
* Computerize interaction increase the resources of low-network people
* Some companies need to rely on electronic modes of communication for employees to form connections with each other on the basis of no physical contact

Status and power: the "weak get strong" effect

* Status predicts domination
* When negotiators interact via information technology, power and status difference/cues are minimized
* People who would normally not approach others in person are much more likely to initiate e-mail exchange
* E-mail acts as an equalizer because it is difficult for high-status people to dominate the discussion
* People are less likely to conform to social norms with other people when interacting electronically

Information technology and it affect on social behaviour

To be successful, negotiators must understand information technology's affect on their own behaviour:

* Trust: people who negotiate online trust each other less before beginning the negotiation and trust each other even less after the online interaction
* Deception: people are more willing to lie when communicating via email rather then by pen and paper and feel more justified in doing so
* According to the model disengagement theory, people are more likely to mispresent and deceive others when they are not face-to-face, regardless of whether they believed their lie must be discovered

Key biases that affect email negotiations:

\n

* Temporal synchrony bias
* Exit bias
* Flaming bias
* Sinister attribution bias

Different place, different time communication:

* Negotiators communicate asynchronously from different places
* The most ubiquitous types of different-time, different-place communication is e-mail

Different time, same place communication:

\n

* Negotiators interact asynchronously, but have access to the same physical document or space
* Example: shift workers who pick up the task left for them by the pervious shift worker

Key challenges of same time, different place

* Loss of information communication
* Lost opportunity
* Separation of feedback
* Instant messaging and ending concessions

Same time, different place communication:

Parties negotiate in real time, but are not physically in the same place

Why is face-to-face communication important?

* It is easier and more likely to occur than other forms of communication
* Many negotiations occur from chance encounters, which can only happen by face-to-face colocation
* People primarily rely on nonverbal signal sot help them conduct social interactions
* Important behavioural, cognitive, and emotional processes are set into motion when people meet face-to-face

Face-to-face communication (same time, same place):

* Crucial in the initiation of relationships and collaborations
* Encourages cooperation and trust in negotiators
* Fosters the development of interpersonal synchrony and rapport
* The incidence and frequency of face-to-face communication is determined by how closely people are located to one another

 

Place-time Model of Social Interaction

\n

* The place-time model of social interaction ins based on the four modes of interaction that negotiators have when doing business across different locations and times
* Richness describes the potential information-carrying capacity of communication medium
* Face-to-face communication is relatively "rich", whereas written messages are "lean"

Chapter Capstone (11)

* Negotiating across culture is a necessity for success in the business world
* Unfortunately, cross-cultural negotiations frequently result in less effective value creation that intracultural negotiations; part of the problem is a lack of understanding of cultural differences
* Hofstede's model of culture identifies individualism-collectivism, and power distance as key dimensions of cultural differences
* Negotiators shoulChad analyse cultural differences to identify values differences that could expand the pie, recognize different conception of power, avoid attribution errors, find out how to show respect, how time is perceived in other cultures, and assess options for change

Acculturation Framework

\n

Cultural awareness in one thing, decision how much one wants to adapt is another

Consider four choices the people have when interacting with someone from a different culture

* Integration: each person maintains their own culture and maintains contact with other culture
* Assimilation: person does not maintain their culture but does maintain constant with other culture
* Separation: when a person maintains their culture but does not maintain contact with the other culture
* Marginalisation: when neither maintenance of the person's own culture not contact with the other culture is attempted

Advice for cross-cultural negotiations:

\n

* Anticipate differences in strategy and tactics that may cause misunderstandings
* Cultural perspective-taking
* Recognize that the other party many not share your views of what constitutes power
* Be aware of how different cultures tend to explain someone behaviour or attribute the cause of an event (attribution errors)
* Discover and demonstrated ways to show respect in the other culture
* Learn the cultural norms about the appropriateness of anger expression in negotiation
* How does the other culture perceive time?

Cultural intelligence

\n

* Cultural intelligence (CQ) is essential for effective negotiation because most managers cannot expect to negotiate only with people of their own country or culture through their career
* Four factors including: mental (meta-cognitive and cognitive), motivational, and behavioural intelligence are associated with cultural intelligence
* Cultural CQ predicts a variety of important outcome sin global contexts, such as cultural adaptation, expatriate performance, global leadership, and multicultural teamwork

Challenges of intercultural negotiation

Negotiators face a number of challenges when negotiation across cultures, including:

* Creating value
* Claiming value
* Sacred values and taboo trade-offs
* Biased punctuation of conflict
* Ethnocentrism
* Affiliation bias
* Faculty perceptions of conciliation and coercion
* Naïve realism

 

Cultural Frameworks - Tight vs. loose

\n

* Tight-loose refers to the degree to which cultures institutions control peoples behaviors and how much variability there is in people behaviours in a given culture  includes, there is not much variability and negotiators need to follow established norms
* Because loose cultures do not have defined expectations, it is relatively easy for members of tight cultures to enter into loose cultures, however, the reverse is not true

Tripartite Model: Honor culture

\n

* Negotiators who identify with Honor cultures express their ideas and often take matters into their own hands relative to people from Face and Dignify cultures
* People form Honor cultures tend to be more emotionally expressive and might be perceived has overly argumentative
* When negotiating withing an Honor culture, the use of rational and logical arguments often hinders agreement
* Honor cultures prefer agreements that have components that promote Honor gain and reinforce a negotiators image, reputation, and strengths

Tripartite Model: Dignity culture

\n

* In negotiation situations, people for dignity cultures prefer sharing information directly, asking pointed questions, and getting answers
* Negotiators who identify with dignity cultures speak their mind and expect the counterparty to be direct 
* Dignify cultures make arguments using facts and data, linear arguments, and cost-benefit rationales
* Their tendency is to trust others, unless given a reason not to and the process of deal-making comes first

Tripartite Model: Face Culture

* Saving face and giving face are important in face culture
* Saving another person's face is associated with remaining calm, apologizing, and giving in
* People from face cultures agree with statements such as:
* "… people should be very humble to maintain good relationships"
* "… people should control their behaviour in front of others"
* Face cultures often use "facework " statements and place reasoning before a request
* In negotiation situations, people from Face cultures do not immediately trust others, rather they build trust slowly over time
* Interpersonal trust is an important element of Chinese guanxi networks, which are network of deep trust build over many years
* Communication on face cultures is highly indirect and context-depend where negotiators signal their interests subtly and make many proposals so as to help others save face

Tripartite Model

* The Tripartite model is based on three cultural prototypes: Face, Dignify and Honor
* These cultural values represent negotiators' self-vies and are highly correlated with particular geographic regions
* Face, honor, and dignify all refer to how negotiators defined and regard their self worth

Cultural frameworks - Hofstede's Model: Implications for Negotiation

\n

Four types of dispute resolution procedures characterise how different cultures resolve disputers:

* Bargaining
* Mediation
* Adverbial adjudication
* Inquisitorial justification

Symmetric vs. asymmetric

How does the balance of power between negotiators affect the processes and outcomes of negotiation?

* For symmetric, high-power dyads, value creation is associate with increased mutual accommodations
* In symmetric, lower-power dyads, value creation is associated with greater contentiousness
* Asymmetric-power dyads maximize value creation when they adopt a neutral stance

Perspective Taking

* Power propels negotiations to achieve their goals, which may be egocentrically biased, and ultimately leads to more inaudible information sharing and outcomes
* When powerful negotiators engage in perspective-taking, negotiators share more information, and negotiate better outcomes

Powerlessness

* Research supports the assertion that a person with no power can have a negotiating advantage over someone who has little power
* Negotiators without alternatives feel less powerful but make higher first offers and ultimately secure superiors outcomes compared with negotiators who have weak alternatives

Status

There are distinct difference between power and status:

* Status is the relative social position or rank given to negotiators or groups by others
* Power is the potential a negotiator holds to influence others or the course of events

Relationships and power

* In many situation, power and status are correlated, such that high-ranking people may in fact have better alternative
* Power and status have similar positive effects on how dominant we think someone is
* Power has a negative effect on how warm we think someone is but status moderates this power penalty

Cultural frameworks - Hofstede's Model: High Power Distance

\n

Aspects of a high power distance (hierarchical power) culture:

* Great difference is paid to status
* Status implies social power and is not easily permeated of changed
* Social inferiors are expected to defer to social superiors who are obligated to look out for the needs of social inferiors
* Conflict between members of the same social rank in hierarchal cultures is more likely to be handled be differences superior than by direct confrontation between social equals

Cultural frameworks - Hofstede's Model: Low Power Distance

\n

Aspects of a low power distance (egalitarian power) culture:

* Everyone expects to be treated equally
* Egalitarian power relationship is not mean that everyone is of equal status but that status differences are easily permeated
* Members are empowered to resolve conflict themselves
* In egalitarian cultures, a negotiators BATNA and informing are key sources of power

Cultural frameworks - Hofstede's Model: Power Distance

\n

A key factor influences behaviour across cultures is the means by which people influence others and use power

Two views of cultural power distance:

* Low-power distance culture (Egalitarian)
* High-power distance culture (Hierarchical)

Individualism versus collectivism

Individualism versus collectivism involves a variety of implication or the conduct of negotiations, such as:

* Concern for person outcomes versus other's outcomes
* Cooperative behaviours
* Influence versus adjustment
* In-group favoritism
* Social priming
* Accountability pressure

Aspects of a collectivists culture include

* Culture rooted in social groups and individuals are views as members of groups
* People view this in-groups as fundamental parts of themselves and give priority it in-group goals
* People are concerned about how the result of their actions affect member of their-in-group
* Resources are shared with in-group members
* Emphasise is place on the importance of adjustment, harmony, and the sacrifice of personal needs for the retaker good of the group
* Legal institutions place the greater good of collective above the rights of the individual

Cultural Frameworks - Hofstede's Model: Individualism vs. collectivism

Aspects of an individualist culture include:

* The pursuit of happiness and regard for personal welfare are paramount
* People give priority to their personal goals, even when those goals conflict with those of their group
* Individual happiness and expression are value more then collective and group needs
* People enjoy having influence and control over their world and others
* Individual accomplishment are rewards by economic and social institutions
* Legal institutions are designed to protect individual rights

Cultural frameworks - Hofstede's model

According to Hofstede, people from different cultures differ in terms of two key dismissions:

* Individualism-collectivism
* Refers to the basic human motive concerning preservation of the self versus the collective
* Small-large power distance
* Reflects the tendency to see a large distance between those in the upper part of a social organisational structure and those in the lower part

Cultural frameworks

There are several different models of culture that can be used to examine cultural norms and behaviours

* Hofstede model
* Tripartite model of culture
* Tight versus loose cultures

prototypes from stereotypes

People prefer to be considered unique individual, so it is important to distinguish cultural prototypes from stereotypes:

* A culture stereotype is a faculty belief that  from given culture is exactly alike
* A cultural prototype recognizes that substantial variation is present withing cultures
* Think of culture like an iceberg

Culture

* Culture is the unique character of a social group; the values and norms shared by its members that distinguish it from other social groups
* Culture encompasses economic, social, political, and religious institutions, as well as products produced such art, architecture, music, theater, and literature

Chapter capstone (10)

* Multiparty negotiations require all the pie-slicing and pie-expanding skills of two-party negotiations
* The key challenges of multiparty negations: development and management of coalitions; complexity of information managements; voting rules; and communication breakdowns
* There are several different levels of analysis involved in multiparty negotiation: coalition management; principle-agent relationships; team negotiation; intergroup negotiation; and dealing with constituencies

Intergroup negotiation - optimization

Because mere contact does not always lead to better integrous relationship, the following strategies are preventative and can ward off destructive competition between groups:

* Social and institutional support
* Acquaintance potential
* Equal status
* Shared goal
* Cross-goal friendships

Integroup negotiation - optimization

Consider the followign strategies for optimizing intergroup negotiaons, such as:

* Find and deveop a common identify
* Characteristiae differences as debates, not disagreements
* Cooperative communcaiiton
* Greater contact can increase cooperation
* The GRIT model strategy

Intergoup negotiation: challenges

Intergroup negotiation involves a number of challenges, includign:

* Shared versus indivdual identifty
* In-group bias
* Extremism

Team negotiation: Improvement strategies

\n

Several strategies can be used to improve team negotiations, such as:

* Goal and strategy alignment
* Preparing together for the negotiation
* Plan scheduled breaks
* Assess accountability

Team negotiation: challenges

\n

Several challenges face negotiating teams, such as:

* Teammate selection
* Number of people on the negotiating team
* Communication on the team
* Team cohesion
* Information processing (the common information bias)

Team Negotiation

\n

The presence of at least one team (versus a solo negotiator )at the bargaining table increase the incidence of integrative agreements

Advantages of a team at the negotiation table include:

* Increase size of negotiating pie
* Increase information exchange amongst negotiating parties
* Increase information exchange which leads to greater judgement accuracy about parties interests
* Integrative agreement are promoted

Improvements

* Communicate with your constituents
* Do not expect homogeneity of constituents views
* Educate your constituents on your role and limitations
* Help your constituents do horizon thinking

Challenges

Negotiators may face several challenges with constituent relationships, including:

* Behind-the-table barriers
* Accountability
* Conflicts of interest

Constituent relationships

\n

A constituent is ostensibly on the same side as the principle negotiator, but exerts an independent influence on the outcome through the principle negotiator

Principal-Agent Negotiation

The following are strategies for negotiators who want to work effectively with agents

* Shop around
* Know your BATNA before meeting your agent
* Communicate your interests to your agent without revealing your reservation price
* Capitalize on the agent's expertise
* Tap into your agents sources of information
* Use agents networks
* Discuss ratification
* Use your agent to help you save face
* Use your agent to buffer emotions

Principle-agent negotiations: disadvantages

On the reverse, there are disadvantages to using agents to represent one's interests in negotiations, such as:

* Shrinking ZOPA
* Incompatible incentive structure
* Loss of control
* Agreement at any cost