chapter 15 and 16 - negociación en europa

Individual differences

Stable characteristics that vary between people (personality traits and abilities) and may affect how they negotiate.

Personality trait (disposition)

A stable, identifiable, measurable tendency to think, feel, or behave in certain ways. It only counts as a trait if it is a marker of stable ways of thinking or acting that usefully predicts other behavior. "Dispositions" and "traits" are used interchangeably.

Dispositions vs. situations debate

One side argues personality is theoretically thin and situations predict attitudes and behavior better. The other argues dispositions are significant predictors by themselves.

•     Current view: a "false dichotomy". Traits are stable and can predict as well as situations, so both matter.

Conflict style

A person's characteristic way of dealing with conflict. It results from both strategic choices and an individual tendency to use certain styles regardless of the situation.

Thomas's two dimensions (Thomas–Kilmann model)

Assertiveness (concern for one's own preferred solutions, high to low) and cooperativeness (willingness to work with others toward mutual goals, high to low).

Compete

High assertiveness, low cooperativeness. Dominates when stakes are high and outcomes come from individual effort.

Accommodate

Low assertiveness, high cooperativeness. Lets the other reap what little is available when stakes are low.

Yield

Low assertiveness, low cooperativeness. Ignores the conflict when stakes are low.

Collaborate

High assertiveness, high cooperativeness. Does well when outcomes come from joint effort.

Compromise

Moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness. Middle-ground solutions.

Self-serving view of styles

People regard a compete style as inappropriate for others but appropriate and effective for their own use.

Social value orientation

Preferences about the kinds of outcomes one wants in social settings requiring interdependence with others.

Proself (egoistic) orientation

Primarily concerned with personal outcomes and unconcerned with the other party's outcomes. Behave distributively: tough, contentious, bargaining over positions rather than exploring interests. Negotiators can reach integrative solutions but are less likely to, especially when two proselfs sit at the same table.

Prosocial (cooperative) orientation

Prefers outcomes that benefit both self and interdependent others. Essentially a preference for a collaborating conflict style. Negotiators problem-solve and reciprocate cooperation, achieving higher joint gains. More satisfied with deals: two sources of satisfaction (self and group), and perhaps lower goals.

Exit option effect

When both parties had a good alternative, prosocials made more threats, exchanged less information, and reached lower joint outcomes, so SVO differences dissipated.

Trait vs. state

Motives from stable disposition or from situational instruction generally have the same effects. Exception: satisfaction, where only measured (trait) motives mattered.

Interpersonal trust

A generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, or oral or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon. It functions as a personality variable, not just a shifting attitude.

• Formed by experience: rewarded trust leads to high generalized trust; exploitation, deception, and dishonesty lead to low trust.

High trusters

Expect others to be trustworthy and hold themselves to higher moral standards. They are not more gullible than low trusters.

Low trusters

Expect others to break rules and feel less pressure to tell the truth themselves. Sometimes act trusting in order to exploit the other party

Self-fulfilling prophecy

High trust signals trust and elicits reciprocal trust and cooperation; suspicion elicits mistrust, low self-disclosure, and dishonesty

Self-efficacy

A judgment about one's ability to behave effectively in a given situation, beliefs in one's capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and actions needed to control events. It raises performance through higher goals and more analytic strategies.

Downside of self-efficacy

Use more deception because confidence leads them to downplay the risks

Locus of control

The extent to which people perceive they have control over events.

• Internal locus: Causes attributed to internal reasons (ability). Have higher resistance points in distributive tasks; teams of internals stalemate more often. Less influenced by the other party's first offer (less vulnerable to anchoring), reach higher joint payoffs, and do well for themselves, so they are good at both value creation and value claiming

• External locus: causes attributed to external reasons (luck).

Control perceptions

Umbrella label for self-efficacy and locus of control: self-judgments about our ability to master situations. Negotiators who perceive control have an advantage.

Risk aversion

Unwillingness to take on risk. High risk-averse individuals are more likely to avoid negotiating entirely and to yield when they do negotiate. Traits can co-exist yet work at cross purposes (e.g., high self-efficacy plus risk aversion).

Self-monitoring

The extent to which people are responsive to social cues from the social environment. Monitoring the context, reading it accurately, and adjusting can be an asset. It also interacts with the other party's behavior

•     High self-monitors: attentive to external, interpersonal information and treat it as cues for how to behave. Planned the impressions they wanted to make (e.g., appear friendly), planned to use logrolling, and considered more strategies.

•     Low self-monitors: less attentive to external cues; guided more by inner, personal feelings.

Machiavellianism

An attitude scale based on Machiavelli's analysis of human nature and political behavior.

High Machs: cynical about others' motives, unaltruistic and unsympathetic, unwilling to change convictions under social pressure, tolerant of norm violations, and supportive of deception.

Dark triad

Three "offensive yet non-pathological" personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. They go with a competitive worldview and selfish social motives, so these negotiators do better when success is defined competitively and worse when success requires cooperation

Face

The value people place on their public image or reputation

Face threat sensitivity

A stable dispositional susceptibility to reacting negatively to threats to face ("thin-skinned"). Dyads with at least one high-FTS negotiator created less value and reached fewer cooperative settlements. High-FTS negotiators perceive the other's actions as threats, feel negative, mistrust, and compete; the counterpart may see them as "high maintenance."

Epistemic motivation

The desire to develop and hold a rich and accurate understanding of the world, including the negotiation problem at hand. Acquisition of knowledge. Can be induced but is rooted largely in stable personality.

•     High: analyzes situations, weighs arguments, and thinks effortfully. Leads to higher joint outcomes, especially in integrative negotiations.

•     Low: quick impressions, snap judgments, well-learned rules and heuristics, preference for quick closure on complex problems.

Five-factor model

An attempt to unify personality research by subsuming most traits under five broad factors.

Extraversion

Being sociable, assertive, talkative

Agreeableness

Being flexible, cooperative, trusting

Conscientiousness

Being responsible, organized, achievement oriented

Emotional stability

Being secure, confident, not anxious

Openness

Being imaginative, broad-minded, curious

Matched pairs

When both negotiators are high or both low on extraversion and agreeableness, the emotional tone is more positive, agreements are reached more efficiently, and less conflict is perceived.

Misperception

Negotiators tend to interpret the other party's behavior through personality (e.g., inferring uncooperativeness) even when elements of the situation are actually responsible.

Cognitive ability

A very general mental capability involving the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. Synonymous with intelligence; matters most in novel or complex situations.

Integrative complexity

The complexity of the cognitive rules a person uses to process information.

• High: distinguishes dimensions of a problem and understands how they relate. Goes with cooperative strategies and integrative arguments.

• Low: "black and white" perception and more authoritarian characteristics. Goes with competitive conflict strategies.

Emotional intelligence (EI)

Popularized by Goleman (1995), whose claims were criticized as overstated. Now accepted as scientifically rooted and predicts job performance across setting. A set of discrete but related abilities:

•     Perceive and express emotion accurately.

•     Access emotion to facilitate thought.

•     Comprehend and analyze emotion.

•     Regulate one's own emotions and those of others.

Create a more positive experience for themselves and the other party. Better at creating value.

Claimed negotiation advantages

Better information gathering about the other's interests, more accurate risk assessment, and better management of one's own emotions plus inducing desired emotions in the other party.

Emotional tuning

Using emotions to influence the negotiation outcome

Perspective-taking ability

The cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual's viewpoint, enabling the negotiator to anticipate the other's behavior. Especially useful during planning. Predicts joint outcomes; merely thinking about perspective-taking before an integrative negotiation raises joint outcomes

Distributive perspective-taking ability

Higher-value contracts and higher concessions from the other party, less vulnerable to anchoring by an extreme offer

Integrative perspective-taking ability

Uncovers underlying interests and creative solutions, detects multiple issues of differing value and enables logrolling

Reactive egoism

Perspective-takers judge fairness less egocentrically (they say a fair share for themselves is smaller), but when actually allocating, they take more for themselves, because considering others' perspectives leads them to expect others to act selfishly.

• Remedy: explicitly highlight mutual interests and the need for cooperation.

Accuracy of perspective-taking

Is the exception, not the norm. Underestimating the other's emotional intensity produces negative evaluations from the other; overestimating does not hurt.

Lesson: assume the other is more upset than you suspect.

Factors that interfere with perspective-taking

•     Anger promotes egocentrism: angry people anchor on their own perspective and struggle to adopt another vantage point.

•     Power reduces this, participants induced to feel powerful (by writing about a time they had power) made more errors identifying emotions (happiness, fear, anger, sadness) in faces than controls (who described yesterday). The effect is at least partly nonconscious: power creates a psychological state that makes perspective-taking less likely, rather than a decision to ignore others.

Cultural intelligence (CQ)

The ability to adapt to culturally diverse situations, capturing cognitive, motivational, and behavioral tendencies in intercultural interaction. Predicts effectiveness in cross-cultural situations: more accurate cultural judgments, better intercultural task performance, and better adjustment.

Aspects/Tendencies of cultural intelligence (CQ)

•     Cognitive: how an individual acquires and uses knowledge of cross-cultural differences and similarities.

•     Motivational: energy directed at cultural adaptation.

•     Behavioral: verbal and nonverbal skills when communicating across cultures.

Rationale research approach

Analyze what successful negotiators actually do, on the premise that negotiation is a skill that can be improved, not a fixed ability.

Entity theorists

Believe negotiating ability is fixed.

Incremental theorists

Believe that negotiating ability can be changed and improved. Outperformed by a wide margin in both claiming value (distributive) and creating value (integrative)

Expert vs amateur negotiators

Market simulation in which each buyer–seller pair may make only one deal. Experts were professional negotiators with 10+ years of formal experience; amateurs were students.

• Both groups became more integrative as the market progressed, but experts were more integrative at the start and got somewhat higher average outcomes (a small difference).

Experienced vs naive negotiators

• Experienced: Made more accurate judgments about the other party’s priorities as they gained experience and that the likelihood of negotiating favorable agreements increased with experience

• Naive: Those whose first negotiation ended in impasse (no deal) were more likely to reach another impasse in their next negotiation. Those who reached an impasse the first time but reached a deal the second time arrived at agreements of lower quality compared to those who successfully reached a deal the first time.

High-profile negotiators

Generated first-hand accounts from professionals in business, law, politics, and diplomacy about the key techniques and strategies that made them successful

Master negotiator

A blend of cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, self-intelligence, self-motivation, patience, pragmatism, perspective-taking, creativity and strategic vision. This overlaps with the traits and abilities studied empirically.

International negotiation

Negotiation across national borders. Its frequency has increased rapidly in the past 20 years, and for many people and organizations it is now the norm rather than an exotic activity.

Culture

The shared values, beliefs, and behaviors of a group of people. Countries can have more than one culture, and cultures can span national borders.

Art and science of international negotiation

• Science = research evidence for broad trends that often, but not always, occur.

• Art = deciding which strategy to apply when and which models or perspectives to use.

• Complexity is significantly greater than in within-culture negotiation

Cultural attribution error

The tendency to overlook situational factors in favor of cultural explanations of behavior. Negotiators should guard against assigning too much responsibility to cultural differences.

Environmental context

Includes forces that neither negotiator controls that influence the negotiation

Immediate context

Factors over which negotiators appear to have some control

Political and legal pluralism

•     Differences in taxes, labor codes and standards, contract law, and enforcement

•     Political climate changes over time

• Trade agreements can be used for geopolitical influence

International economics

Exchange values of currencies fluctuate. Currency changes can turn a mutually valuable deal into a windfall for one party and a large loss for the other. Many countries control currency flows; purchases may require hard currency brought by foreigners, and domestic firms may be unable to pay in foreign currency.

Foreign governments and bureaucracies

Countries differ in how much government regulates industries and organizations.

• U.S. firms are relatively free from intervention, U.S. deals generally need no government approval.

• Many developing and (former) communist countries closely supervise imports and joint ventures, and a government agency may hold a monopoly on dealing with foreign organizations.

• Political considerations (effect on the treasury and economy) may outweigh what developed-country businesses consider legitimate business reasons.

Instability

North American businesses are used to stability that is absent in many regions.

•     Forms: lack of expected resources (paper, electricity, computers), shortages (food, transportation, potable water), and political instability (coups, sudden policy shifts, major currency revaluations).

•     Challenge: anticipate changes accurately with enough lead time to adjust.

•     Salacuse's advice: include contract clauses allowing easy cancellation or neutral arbitration, and consider insurance to guarantee provisions. This presumes contracts will be honored and that such clauses are culturally acceptable.

Ideology

Americans generally share an ideology of individualism and capitalism: individual rights, superiority of private investment, and the importance of profit

•     Negotiators from some countries (e.g., China, France) may stress group rights and public investment, and have different prescriptions for earning and sharing profit.

•     This clashes worsen communication because parties may disagree at the most fundamental level about what is being negotiated.

Culture

• People from different cultures negotiate differently and may interpret the fundamental process differently (what is negotiable, what the purpose is).

•     Deductive cultures move from the general to the specific; inductive cultures settle a series of specific issues that become the area of general agreement

•     In some cultures parties negotiate substance and treat the relationship as incidental; in others the relationship is the main focus and the deal itself is incidental

External stakeholders

The various people and organizations that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the negotiations (business associations, labor unions, embassies, industry associations).

•     A union might oppose talks with foreign firms for fear of job losses.

• Negotiators can receive promotion and guidance from their government (embassy trade section) and from professional associations

Relative bargaining power

Heavily studied in joint ventures, where power is often operationalized as the equity each side invests; the presumption is that more equity means more power and influence.

Power appears to come from management control of the project, which is heavily influenced by negotiating. Special access to markets, distribution systems, management of government relations, and the perceived value of one’s BATNA.

Levels of conflict

Level and type of interdependence influence process and outcome.

•     High-conflict situations (based on ethnicity, identity, or geography) are harder to resolve

•     Civil wars concluded through a comprehensive, institutionalized agreement that prohibits coercive power and promotes fair distribution of resources and political power have led to more stable settlements

•     Framing varies across cultures, as do responses to conflict. Middle East conflicts were hard to handle because parties conceptualized the dispute differently (security, sovereignty, historical rights).

•     Secret back-channel negotiations may help in high-conflict situations, but success is not guaranteed.

Relationship between negotiators

Developed before the talks affect process and outcome. Negotiations are part of a larger relationship: history shapes how the current negotiation is framed, and the current negotiation becomes part of future ones

Desired outcome

Tangible and intangible factors shape outcomes. Countries use negotiation to pursue domestic and international political goals.

Immediate stakeholders

Negotiators plus the people they directly represent (managers, employers, boards of directors).

Conceptualization of culture

(1) It is a group-level phenomenon (a defined group shares beliefs, values, and behavioral expectations).

(2) These are learned and passed on to new members. Large differences exist between cultures, but also within them

Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions

• Individualism/collectivism

• Power distance

• Masculinity/femininity

• Uncertainty avoidance

Individualism/collectivism

The extent to which society is organized around individuals or the group. Individualistic societies encourage independence; collectivistic societies integrate individuals into cohesive groups responsible for each member's welfare.

–     Collectivists depend on cultivating long-term relationships; talks with the same party can last years, and changing a negotiator changes the relationship, which is slow to rebuild.

–     Individualists treat negotiators as interchangeable and choose on competence and short-term criteria.

Power distance

The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally

• High power distance concentrates decisions at the top; negotiators need approval more often and for more issues, so the process is slower.

• Low power distance spreads decision making and allows leaders' decisions to be questioned.

Masculinity/Femininity

• Masculine cultures value acquisition of money and things and not caring for others or quality of life

• Feminine cultures value relationships and nurturing. More empathetic and compromise-seeking.

Masculine-culture negotiators meeting feminine-culture negotiators increases competitiveness

Uncertainity avoidance

How comfortable or uncomfortable a culture makes its members in unstructured situations (rapid change, new situations).

–    High uncertainty avoidance means discomfort with ambiguity and a search for stable rules and procedures.

–     Low uncertainty avoidance means quick adaptation and comfort with shifting or ambiguous rules.

Hall’s model of culture values

•     Communication context. Low-context cultures communicate directly, with meaning explicit in the words. High-context cultures communicate less directly, with meaning inferred from the surrounding context.

•     Time and space. Monochronic cultures organize and schedule things sequentially. Polychronic cultures have many activities occurring simultaneously. Negotiators with different time expectations get frustrated unless they understand the other's traditions.

Cultural syndrome

A pattern of shared attitudes, beliefs, categorizations, self-definitions, norms, role definitions, and values organized around a theme and identifiable by a group at a specific place and time. Much broader than simple values or behaviors; it guides how people should behave. It includes norms (appropriate behavior) and values (what is important).

Cultural logics

Extends syndromes to individuals: syndromes create clusters of behavior according to their own logic. Societies differ in ideas about morality, exchange, reciprocity, punishment, and the inalienable vs. socially conferred worth of the individual. The three logics do not describe all cultures

Dignity cultures

Everyone is born with inherent value and worth that others cannot take away. People follow their conscience whether or not others watch. Self-interest, autonomy, and personal goals are cornerstones; positive reciprocity is both moral and rational. Typically associated with Western democracies.

Face cultures

Self-worth is conferred by others, who judge a person's performance and worth. Typical in stable hierarchies where people give and receive face according to their position. Worth can be given and taken away; people focus on not losing face and on giving face to others, with less freedom to act independently and more responsibilities in hierarchies (e.g., families). Typically associated with East Asia.

Honor cultures

Self-worth is defined both internally and through others; a person who doesn't receive honor from others doesn't have it. Develop in unstable environments without strong rule of law. Reputation is critical (keep your word, pay debts), and insults, real or perceived, are met quickly and forcefully so that no stronger attempt follows. Typically associated with the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia.

Cultural tightness-looseness

Looks at how strong or weak cultural norms are, not at their content.

• Tight cultures have much stricter social norms, more rules, and stricter punishment. More ordered and resistant to change.

• Loose cultures are more permissive with lax rules. Less organized and open to change.

Culture as learned behavior

A pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts approach that catalogues the systematic negotiation behavior of people in different cultures and what foreign negotiators should expect. It doesn't explain why members of a culture behave as they do. Many popular books use it, giving lists of dos and don'ts.

Cultural complexity theory

Cultural values have a direct effect when strong across many contexts and a moderated effect when they have different contextual instigators.

Low-power negotiators from a vertical-collectivistic culture (Hong Kong) were less cooperative when the high-power counterpart was vertical-individualistic (Israel), and more cooperative when the counterpart was horizontal-collectivist (Germany)

Selection of negotiators based on culture

Criteria differ: subject knowledge, seniority, family connections, gender, age, experience, status. In China, relationship connections are established early, and choosing the right negotiators helps

Protocol

The importance of formality in relations between the parties. American culture is among the least formal (first names, titles ignored). Many European countries (France, Germany, England) are very formal; omitting proper titles (Mr., Dr., Professor, Lord) can insult. In many Pacific Rim countries (China, Japan) business cards are essential for introductions; forgetting them or writing on them breaches protocol. Cards are passed with two hands in Asia; using one hand is rude. Business cards, handshakes, and dress codes can ground attributions about a person's background and personality.

Time sensitivity

Americans respect appointed hours, avoid wasting others' time, and equate "faster" with productivity.

Traditional societies, especially in hot climates, move more slowly. Arab-speaking Islamic cultures focus on event-time ("events schedule people") rather than clock-time ("people schedule events by the clock". In China and Latin America the focus is on the task regardless of time taken.

Intracultural negotiation

A negotiation where both parties come from the same culture (e.g., two Japanese negotiators). Used by researchers to test whether different cultures reach different outcomes on the same simulated task.

Cross-cultural negotiation

A negotiation between parties from different cultures (e.g., a Japanese negotiator and an American negotiator). Compared against intracultural outcomes to see whether crossing cultures changes results.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

A core cultural dimension. Individualist cultures prioritize personal goals and self-interest; collectivist cultures prioritize group harmony and shared goals. Collectivist negotiators are generally more likely to reach integrative (joint-gain) outcomes than individualist negotiators.

Representational strategies

Tactics aimed at gathering information about the other side's interests and priorities (as opposed to directly claiming value).

Direct information sharing

Openly stating one's own preferences, priorities, and rationale during negotiation (associated with U.S. negotiators).