NEGOCIACIÓN MULTICULTURAL | Guide exam

3 basic elements of any dispute. Interests, rights, and power.

3 main components of decisions. 1) courses of action, 2) beliefs about objective states and processes, 3) desires.

3 schools of bargaining ethics. 1) the “It’s a game” Poker School, 2) the “Do the right thing even if it hurts” Idealist School, and 3) the “What goes around, comes around” Pragmatist School.

3 tensions according to Judith Lawson. 1) the tension between creating and distributing value, 2) the tension between empathy and assertiveness, 3) the tension between principals and agents.

3 ways to resolve a dispute. 1) Reconciling the interests of the parties, 2) Determining who is right, 3) Determining who is more powerful.

5 basic types of negotiating strategies depends on. Depends on your combination of preferences for 2 basic concerns, relationship and outcome concerns.

A good alternative. An alternative or BATNA 3 (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is an option that can be pursued if the current negotiation fails. It is an outcome outside the scope of the negotiation with this other party and can be pursued if it appears more attractive than any potential outcome from this negotiation. Alternatives are good to have because they can be weighed against the value of any particular outcome from this negotiation, to decide which is most advantageous.

A well-defined bargaining range. In a competitive strategy, each side has a bargaining range, which consists of a starting point, a target, and an ending point or walkaway. Bargaining occurs because the bargaining range for each party is different. During bargaining, you attempt to bring the two ranges into overlap so that each party is satisfied.

Absence of feedback. At the end of the day, there’s plenty of room for doubt and second-guessing.

Accommodating strategy. (lose to win) Is used where the relationship is more important than the outcome of the negotiation. The person using this strategy may prefer to primarily concentrate on building or strengthening a relationship.

Affective satisfaction. Is our general level of satisfaction with the emotions experienced during an interaction. Affective satisfaction focuses on our feelings about our feelings— our “meta-emotions”.

Alternative. Also known as the “either/or close” technique, in this approach one party makes a final offer consisting of a choice for the other side.

Apparent withdrawal. The strategy is an attempt to convince the other person that you have withdrawn, when you haven’t. The hope is that the other team will scramble to keep you in the negotiations.

Association. This tactic is used when a party advises you that a group, company, association, or other party whom you know and respect well has previously done business with them. This is a powerful magnet not only in drawing attention to what is said but also in influencing others.

Assumption. With this method the negotiator assumes that the other side is ready to agree and proceed with detailed discussions of delivery dates, payment schedules, and so forth. This is a technique used frequently by sellers to rush buyers into agreement. It is a useful approach when the initiating party has more than one option to offer to the other side.

Avoidance. One party (or both) may decide to withdraw from the relationship, or at least to curtail it significantly.

Avoiding strategies. (lose- lose) Is used infrequently. Neither aspect of the negotiation is important enough for you to pursue the conflict further. You implement this strategy by withdrawing from active negotiation, or by avoiding negotiation entirely. The person employing it basically see negotiation as a waste of time.

Blanket. He or she tries to hit the other party with as many issues as possible, believing that some of them will stick and be resolved. The principle theory in blanketing is, if you cover a wide enough area, you’re bound to be successful somewhere. It’s like using a shotgun and aiming at a large area, instead of using a rifle and aiming at a much smaller target.

Bracketing. Directs you toward where it is best to concentrate. It shows you where the majority of troops and equipment are located, so to speak. In other words, it isolates where your best chances for negotiations are.

Brainstorming. This common method for generating ideas usually works best in several small groups rather than one large one, depending on the number of people involved. Write down as many ideas as possible, without judging them. It is best to write or post the ideas on a flip chart, chalkboard, or similar display device, so that everyone can see them and keep track of what has been done. The key ground rule is that ideas must not be evaluated as they are suggested.

Bridge. In bridging, the parties invent new options that meet each other’s needs. Again, both parties must be very familiar with the other party’s interests and needs.

Characteristics of the collaborative strategy. 1) Both the relationship and the outcome are important to both parties. 2) The two parties usually have long-term goals that they are willing to work for together. 3) Both parties are committed to working toward a mutually acceptable agreement that preserves or strengthens the relationship.

Choosing a Method. The closing technique should be selected during the pre-negotiation phase. Once chosen, it must be carefully prepared to ensure that it is mastered. The technique selected should fit the environment in which the discussions will take place and should match the overall objectives of the negotiations.

Claim. May arise from a perceived injury or from a need.

Collaborative strategy. (win- win) A collaborative strategy is one in which both parties consider the relationship and the outcome to be equally important. To make this strategy work, both parties to the negotiation must be willing to use the collaborative strategy. In this strategy, the parties attempt to maximize their outcomes while preserving or enhancing the relationship. This result is most likely when both parties can find a resolution that meets the needs of each.

Common procedures for reconciling. Negotiation, mediation.

Competitive strategy. (win to lose) The outcome of the negotiation is more important than the relationship. You use this strategy if you want to win at all cost, and have no concern about the future state of the relationship.

Compromising strategy. (split the difference) may be thought of as an “adequate for most occasions” approach to negotiation. In this strategy, each side will have to modify its priorities for the relationship and for the preferred outcome(s). In both cases, the parties are making a decision that compromising is preferred because, on the one hand, both parties gain something (an advantage over accommodation or competition), both parties gain something (as opposed to nothing—an advantage over avoiding), and yet compromising does not require all the intentional effort required for collaboration.

Concession. This technique is characterized by the negotiator keeping a few concessions in reserve until the end to encourage the other party to come to an agreement. It is particularly effective in situations in which concessions are expected as a sign of goodwill before final agreement is given.

Critical factors in a competitive strategy. A well-defined bargaining rage, a good alternative.

Crossroads. When someone uses this tactic, she or he introduces several matters or issues into the discussion for purposes of getting concessions on one and paving the way or gaining ground on another. Using this method, approaching the other party from several directions, actually forces that other side to see a myriad of issues and concentrate on one of them.

Cut costs. In this method one party accomplishes specific objectives and the other’s costs are minimized by going along with the agreement.

Deadlines. The most obvious sign that it is time to close discussions is this approach. It is important that this be agreed to in advance by both sides, at the initial stage of the negotiations or when setting the agenda.  This should however be flexible. They can be renegotiated to allow the discussions to proceed until agreement is reached.

Decision. Defined as “the act of making up one’s mind.”

Determining who is right. Another way to resolve disputes is to rely on some independent standard with perceived legitimacy or fairness to determine who is right.

Disassociation. This is the opposite of association. It is not only used in politics but also in business. It’s pretty straightforward: one party tries to belittle, discourage, or ruin another party by linking them with someone or something undesirable.

Dispute. Begins when one person makes a claim or demand on another who rejects it.

Effect on the relationship. The long-term effect on the parties’ relationship. The approach taken to resolve a dispute may affect the parties’ ability to work together on a day-to-day basis.

Emotional hangovers. This describes important new findings on how the effects of incidental emotion play out in negotiations.

Emotions. Are stimulated by the context surrounding us, our own actions, feelings, and thoughts, actions of another negotiator toward us.

Endowment effect. Intensifies to the extent that the value of the commodity of interest is ambiguous or subjective, or the commodity itself is unique or not easily substitutable in the marketplace.

Escalation of Commitment. Managers persist with failing projects due to personal responsibility or ego, escalating investment.

Expand the pie. If the problem is based on scarce resources, the object would be to find a way to expand or reallocate the resources so that each party could obtain their desired end. Knowing the underlying interests can help in this endeavor.

Fairness and other intangibles. These are often operating in the decisions. This is usually one of the most important intangibles.

Fait accompli. Involves offering or declining something—whatever the case may be—in the hopes that the other party will react desirably to your move. It would be wise to first appraise what the consequences might be if it should fail. This technique could also be called “taking a chance.”

Feinting. “Look to the right, go to the left.” The three elements involved in most negotiations are concealment, disclosure, and diversion. This is the diversion part, and it occurs whenever someone attempts to divert the other party’s attention toward some other issue or matter.

Final points. When a deal is about to be concluded negotiators need to ask themselves certain questions to avoid unpleasant experiences in the implementation phase. In most cases agreements that run into problems do not suddenly become difficult to implement.

Forbearance. Referred to as “waiting in haste,” requires a great amount of patience in order to work well. And age is a great teacher. It involves a patient, self-controlled with holding of reaction until further thought can be given to the situation.

Framing and Loss Aversion. Decision-makers are averse to losses prefer options framed positively.

Framing effect. To induce a negotiating opponent to concede requires that the negotiator create referents that lead the opposition to a positive frame by couching the proposal in terms of their potential gain.

Fundamental attribution error. Our tendency to overemphasize the causal importance of people and their characteristics and underemphasize the importance of situational factors.

Idealist School. (do the right thing even if it hurts) says that bargaining is an aspect of social life, not a special activity with its own unique set of rules. The same ethics that apply in the home should carry over directly into the realm of negotiation.

Impulse. This is a strong desire to do a particular behavior now, without much thought about possible consequences.

Incidental emotion. In which a negotiator’s emotional state is unrelated to the negotiation at hand.

Incremental. Another approach is for the negotiator to propose agreement on a particular issue and then proceed to settle others until accord is reached on all pending matters. This method is used when the negotiation process follows an orderly sequence of settling one issue after another.

Instrumental satisfaction. Refers to the extent to which substantive work requirements are fulfilled.

Integral emotions. Feelings triggered by the negotiation itself—affect outcomes is well documented.

Interactivity. Is the potential of the medium to sustain a seamless flow of information between two or more negotiators.

Interests. Are needs, desires, concerns, fears, the things one cares about or wants, the tangible items they say they want.

Lack of control. People negotiate in order to accomplish something that they can’t achieve unilaterally, whether it’s getting a supplier to provide goods or services at an acceptable price, colleagues to pitch in on a rush project that needs to be done yesterday, or parties to a lawsuit to drop their claims.

Linkage. Linking a requested concession to another concession in return is still a different approach. This is usually most effective when both sides have already agreed on the outstanding issues and need to settle remaining ones prior to reaching consensus.

Logroll. If there are two issues in a negotiation and each party has a different priority for them, then one may be able to be traded off for the other.

Lump it. One party decides to drop its claim or giving it into the others’ because they believe pursuing dispute is not in their interest, concludes does have power resolve her satisfaction.

Media richness. Is the capacity of any given medium to supply contextual cues: body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.

Mediation. In which a third party assists the disputants in reaching agreement.

Moods. Are low intensity affective states, background music to our thoughts and actions.

Most commonly used closing techniques. 1) Concession, 2) summarizing, 3) splitting the difference.

Negotiation checklist. Is a systematic way to make sure you are well prepared before you walk into your next negotiation. It is based on proven principles of negotiation that are taught at several of North America’s top business schools.

Negotiation via e-mail. Negotiating in this environment presents many challenges.

Negotiation. Is a common mechanism for resolving differences and allocating resources.

Negotiation. Is a decision-making process among interdependent parties who do not share identical preferences. It is through negotiation that the parties decide what each will give and take in their relationship.

Negotiation. The act of back-and-forth communication intended to reach agreement.

Nominal groups. In this method, each negotiator works with a small group— perhaps his or her constituency—and makes a list of possible solutions. These are discussed within the group, then considered, one at a time, by the group as a whole. They can be ranked in terms of preferences or likely effectiveness. The drawback of this method is that anyone not present at the session will miss offering input or helping to shape the solution.

Offer nonspecific compensation. Another method is for one party to “pay off” the other for giving in on an issue. The “payoff” may not be monetary, and it may not even be related to the negotiation.

Overconfidence. Managers overestimate their abilities and chances of success, leading to risky decisions.

Piggybacking. This technique is simply to build on someone else’s idea to produce yet another idea. It’s often done by working in a sequence order; one person starts with a brainstormed idea, then the next person has to “piggyback” until possible variations on the idea are exhausted.

Poker School of ethics. (it’s a game) sees negotiation as a “game” with certain rules. The rules are defined by the law. Conduct within the rules is ethical. Conduct outside the rules is unethical.

Power. Is the ability to coerce something he would not otherwise do.

Pragmatist School. (what goes around comes around) displays concern for the potential negative effects of deceptive conduct on present and future relationships. Thus lying and other questionable tactics are bad not so much because they are “wrong” as because they cost the user more in the long run than they gain in the short run.

Probing / testing. Perhaps the most common tactic is one in which a person attempts to acquire additional information. Questions that pose hypotheticals, pry for more details, and seek deeper clarification are the stuff that probing/testing is made of. This strategy can help you to identify the other party’s goals, areas of possible compromise, and limits.

Prompting. This is used to reach immediate agreement by making a final offer with special benefits only if accepted immediately. For example, this may consist of overcoming all objections and offering special incentives, e.g., free installation and maintenance, no price increase for next year’s deliveries, and free training, if the other party agrees to conclude the transaction on the spot.

Quick close. This is sometimes saved for when a stalemate must be managed. It is applicable to a situation that seems to be going nowhere, when something has to be done quickly. It occurs when compromising measures are necessary.

Randomizing. Involves picking a sample and assuming that it represents the whole. This is the negotiating method used by someone who is trying to sell a food product in a supermarket or on the sidewalk. The seller offers something to eat for free to those who are passing by. Then, after tasting it, the prospective buyer may be motivated to buy a bagful.

Rationality. Refers to making the decision that maximizes the negotiator’s interests.

Recurrence. The final criterion is whether a particular approach produces durable resolutions. The simplest form of recurrence is when a resolution fails to stick.

Reversal. “You can go forward by going backward.” When using this strategy, you act in opposition to what may be considered to be the popular trend or goal

Risk Seeking. Managers may take irrational risks when faced with potential losses or large payoffs.

Salami. Works exceptionally well in negotiations that involve multiple elements of cost, such as with cases concerning construction. You negotiate not only the overall cost of the project, but such things as design, materials, labor, subcontracts, and more.

Satisfaction with outcomes. Another way to evaluate different approaches to dispute resolution is by the parties’ mutual satisfaction with the result. The outcome of the strike could not have been wholly satisfactory to the miner—he did not receive new boots—but he did succeed in venting his frustration and taking his revenge.

Setting limits. It is when someone states he will negotiate only under certain conditions, in a certain location, at a certain time, or in a certain manner. It could also be when a party limits the venue of the negotiation so that they communicate only through their attorney, agent, or some other third party.

Silence. Demonstrates self-control, confidence, discipline, and calm. The negotiator has to know when to stop talking and when to start talking. He must not undermine his position with too many words, but he also must not undermine it with too much aloofness. This is especially important when he has already achieved his objective and the thought is that he can possibly get “a little bit more.”

Source Dependence. Decision-makers consider the source of uncertain events, affecting their choices.

Splitting the Difference. A useful closing technique is splitting the difference, in which both parties are close to agreement and the remaining difference is minimal. At that point, it may be preferable to split the difference rather than continuing endless discussion on minor issues that may be secondary to the overall objectives and possibly jeopardize the relationship.

Structural perspectives. On power argue that power is derived from where each person stands in the division of labor and the communication system of the organization.

Summarizing. This is a technique requiring one negotiator to summarize all the issues being discussed, emphasize the concessions made, and highlight the benefits the other side would gain by agreeing to the proposal. As the discussions near the deadline and consensus is reached on all outstanding issues, one side summarizes the points and asks the other to approve them. These should be short and reflect accurately what has been discussed. This is an approach that can be applied in any cultural environment or business situation.

Surprise. This strategy involves a sudden shift in whatever course you may have taken. It is swift, drastic, and even emotionally dramatic. However, it doesn’t have to involve a loud, high-energy shift.

Surveys. Another useful method is to distribute a questionnaire stating the problem and asking respondents to list possible solutions. In this case, each person works alone on the survey, so people miss out on the synergy of working together.

Tactics. The competitive strategy is also characterized by a number of tactics calculated to enhance the competitor’s position and place the other party at a disadvantage.

The agent of limited authority. Tactic that allows you to send someone else into the fray. It’s for a situation in which you might wish to use an agent rather than to handle it personally because that agent can play the old “I’m not at liberty to make that” approach.

To resolve a dispute. Means to turn opposed positions, the claim and its rejection, into a single outcome.

Transaction costs. All dispute resolution procedures carry transaction costs: the time, money, and emotional energy expended in disputing; the resources consumed and destroyed; and the opportunities lost.

Trial. This is a technique used to test how close the other side is to agreement. In an offer, one party makes a proposal, giving the other an opportunity to express reservations. Objections to the trial offer indicate the areas requiring further discussion. This is a useful technique to test the remaining matters to be clarified.

Ultimatum or Else. Another technique is to force the other side to make a decision on the last offer. If the other side fails to respond or accept the offer, the initiating party walks away from the negotiation. The “or else,” also known as ultimatum , is generally not recommended for negotiations in which trust and goodwill are required to execute the agreement.

Unpredictability. Anyone walking into a negotiating session faces a lot of unknowns—a significant source of stress.

ZOPA. Zone of possible agreement.

Charisma. Is perhaps the best illustration of the fit between situations and personal attributes, “endowment with the gift of divine grace.”

6 channels of persuasion. 1) interest-based persuasion, 2) authority, 3) politics, 4) rationality, 5) inspiration and emotion the vision channel, 6) relationships.

Interest-based persuasion. Takes place every time someone frames a sales pitch in terms of the other party’s self-interest. A simple example might be: “Accepting my idea will help you on your next performance evaluation.” Whenever you pitch your idea as addressing the other party’s underlying needs.

Authority. Is usually used in “top-down” situations, when someone gives an order to someone lower in a hierarchy. Whenever you appeal to your formal position or authoritative rules or policies as a means of getting others to agree with your proposal.

Politics. Whenever you acknowledge that appearances may be as important as substance in your idea-selling strategy, work through coalitions and alliances, or make use of back channels and lobbying. This channel naturally overlaps with, and cuts across, all the other channels. A given political move may incorporate interests, authority, relationships, values, and evidence-based persuasion.

Rationality. As trying to influence someone’s attitudes, beliefs, or actions by offering reasons and/or evidence to justify a proposal on its merits.

Inspiration and Emotion—The Vision Channel. Any appeal to an audience’s overriding sense of purpose, values, or beliefs as the foundation for selling your idea. Often takes the form of a special type of reason-based argument in which your justifications relate to the higher aspirations and purposes embraced by your listeners.

Relationships. Whenever you use similarity, liking, rapport, and reciprocity, or rely on your existing network of contacts and friends, to open doors as part of an idea-selling strategy.

Distributive negotiations. Aim for maximizing personal benefits opening offers, the pattern of concessions, and the use of threats and commitments.

Integrative negotiating. Strategy centers on learning about interests and needs, looking for opportunities for trades.

Shadow negotiation. Refers to the complementary and parallel dynamic that occurs as parties work on the issues that separate them. Our identities as negotiators, the legitimacy of our positions, the power and authority we claim, the import of gender and race, are always part of what is being negotiated while we are negotiating over the substantive issues.

Moves. Is not a thought or decision or expression, or anything else that goes on in the mind of a player; it is a course of action which involves real consequences. Strategic moves are actions negotiators take to position themselves (and others) in the negotiation process. In making these moves, negotiators want to position themselves as competent and legitimate in order to be credible advocates for themselves and their interests. In making their moves, negotiators try to project an image of themselves and what they want in the best possible light.

Turns. Are actions negotiators take in response to strategic moves, moves that put them in a one down or defensive position. The argument is that to accept that definition of oneself hampers the negotiator’s credibility and sense of agency, giving some advantage to the mover.

Common types of moves. 1) challenging competence or expertise, 2) demeaning ideas, 3) criticizing style, 4) making threats, 5) appealing for sympathy or flattery.

Challenging competence or expertise. Claims of experience and expertise are called into question.

Demeaning ideas. Give the proponent little 2. room to respond.

Criticizing style. To be challenged as overreacting or inconsiderate positions a negotiator as an irrational person who cannot be reasoned with.

Making threats. Force a choice on a negotiator.

Appealing for sympathy or flattery. They are counting on the move to silence you, to make it difficult for you to advocate.

Common types of turns. 1) interruption, 2) naming, 3) questioning, 4) correcting, 5) diverting.

Interruption. Interrupting the action disrupts the move.

Naming. To name a move signals recognition of what is occurring.

Questioning. Suggests something puzzling about a move. Rather than directly naming a move.

Correcting. Substitutes a different version or motivation to the one the move implied.

Diverting. Turn shifts the focus to the problem itself.

Restorative turns. Are a means to promote mutual interdependence in negotiation. Moves that serve to disempower or put a party on the defensive can be seen as an action by the mover to assert power and control in the process. These moves signal that the mover sees herself in a one-up position and hence less dependent on the outcome of the negotiation.

Participative turns. Are intended to engage the other party. Whereas restorative turns can put the other party on the defensive, these turns position the other party more as a partner. Turns are participative when they are phrased in such a way that they leave space for the other person to talk from her own legitimate, not defensive, position.

Vicious cycles. Often emerge from our tendency to magnify perceived hostility or unreasonable behavior in others. Instead of realizing our actions shaped the outcome, we mistakenly believe our initial perceptions were accurate. Several triggers fuel this destructive cycle.

Naive realism. Most people tend to assume that their view of the world reflects reality. First, when confronting a problem, we typically think that we’re reasonable and objective. Second, we assume that anyone looking at the same evidence would draw the same conclusions we do. Third, when others reach different conclusions, we suspect they’re unreasonable or driven by dubious motives.

Confirmatory bias. The tendency to seek out information that verifies our preexisting beliefs and to ignore or find flaws with disconfirming information.

Accuser bias. When someone does something that causes us harm, we tend to hold him or her excessively responsible.

Excuser bias. Describes the tendency to focus on factors beyond our control to explain away our behavior, while turning a blind eye toward factors within our control.

Negotiation. Is defined as an interactive communication process by which two or more parties who lack identical interests attempt to find a way to coordinate their behavior or allocate scarce resources in a way that will make them better off than they could be if they were to act alone.

Economic principle of comparative advantage. Dictates that there can be gains from trade when each party (whether a person, firm, or country) specializes in the production of goods and services for which that party’s opportunity cost is lower.

Basic elements of negotiation. Parties, issues, goals, and interactions.

Agency costs. Are not limited to the amount of money that a principal pays an agent as compensation for doing the job. They also include the money and time the principal spends trying to ensure that the agent does not exploit him but instead serves his interests well.

Incentive Contracts. Incentives can be built into contracts between principals and agents to better align their interests.

Faulty agents. One whose underlying incentives conflicted with the board’s best interests.

Free agents. Supposedly a negotiator who works faithfully on behalf of his principal’s real interests, a free agent has incentives and control over the process that effectively lead him to act independently.

Double agents. When their incentives are wrong enough and their control over the negotiation process is high, merely faulty agents can morph into that.

Coalition. Involves weak parties joining forces to negotiate collectively with stronger parties. The coalitions are important in various situations (divorce settlement, book sale, corporate merger). The key takeaway is that coalitions offer a strategic advantage by avoiding destructive competition among weak parties.

Cognitive intelligence. A negotiator must have it to comprehend complex ideas, to reason based on facts, to plan a course of action, to solve problems, and to make rational decisions. Some researchers have argued that cognitive intelligence can play a decisive role in complex negotiations with multiple parties that are extended over a long period of time.

Emotional intelligence. As “the extent to which a person is attuned to his or her own feelings and to the feelings of others.”

Self-awareness. Means being cognizant of your own thoughts, moods, impulses, and behavior, how they affect you, and how they may affect the people with whom you are negotiating.

Self-regulation. Is not about masking all feelings; it is about channeling emotions into behavior that is appropriate to the situation. It is about mastering emotions so that you can repress extreme anger when it is important to do so, and let it fly when it is an equally strategic move.

Self-motivation. Is the quality that enables you to pursue your goals with persistence and energy in the face of difficulties and frustrations, and to focus like a laser beam on what you want to achieve.

Patience. May be a key to maintaining self-motivation.

Empathy. Is the fifth component of emotional intelligence. It is built on self-awareness, and is about understanding the feelings of others and taking their views into account in formulating trade-offs and offers. It is the ability to read emotions through verbal messages and nonverbal cues like tone of voice, gestures, and facial expressions.

Interpersonal intelligence. Also known as social intelligence, is particularly relevant in negotiations. It involves the ability to understand other people, their motivations, and how to effectively collaborate with them.

Triple competency. You must possess cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal intelligences in order to develop the triple competency that is essential for a master negotiator. This is, in contrast to other models, a dynamic model because it includes a time dimension. The behaviors of effective negotiators and the decisions they make are always in the context of time.

Extroverted. This person is sociable, talkative, and excitable.

Agreeable. This person tends to be generous, cooperative, and flexible.

Conscientious. This person is organized, persevering, and planful.

Strategy. Encompasses broad, long-term plans providing direction and stability, while tactics are adaptable, short-term actions aimed at fulfilling strategic objectives. For instance, an integrative negotiation strategy focuses on building relationships and mutual problem-solving.

Tactics. Such as expressing interests, employing open-ended questions, and brainstorming solutions align with this strategy. Tactics are guided by strategy, serving as structured means to achieve strategic goals.

Culture. Is the distinct character of a social group. It emerges from the patterned ways that people in a group respond to the fundamental problems of social interaction.

Ideologies. The set of principles and precepts underlying institutional choices.

Cultural stereotype. The idea that everyone in a culture is the same; that there is no distribution around the mean.

Value. Is a judgment of what is important in social interaction.

Cultural value. Is a judgment shared by a group.

Belief. Is an expectation.

Norms. Are standards of appropriate and inappropriate behavior in a cultural context.

Culture. Is a set of shared and enduring meanings, values, and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic, and other groups and orient their behavior.

Culture. Is defined as the socially transmitted behavior patterns, norms, beliefs, and values of a given community.

Elements of culture. Behavior, attitudes, norms, and values.

3 types of renegotiation. 1) Postdeal renegotiation, 2) Intradeal renegotiation, 3) Extradeal renegotiation.

Postdeal renegotiation. Takes place at the expiration of a contract when the two sides, though legally free to go their own way, nonetheless try to renew their formal relationship.

Intradeal renegotiation. Occurs when the agreement itself provides that, at specified times or as the result of specified events occurring during the term of the contract, the parties may renegotiate or review certain of its provisions.

Extradeal renegotiation. The most difficult, stressful, and emotional renegotiations are those undertaken in apparent violation of the contract or at least in the absence of a specific clause authorizing a renegotiation.

Arbitration. Is the most common form of third-party dispute resolution. When an arbitrator is called into a situation, the negotiators retain control of the process, but the arbitrator takes control of shaping and determining the outcome.

Mediation. Is based on established rules and procedures. The objective is to help the parties negotiate more effectively. The mediator does not solve the problem or impose a solution.

Process consultation. Another way of getting help with a stalled negotiation. They serve as counselors who focus on the process of negotiation, as their title would suggest. They assist parties in improving communication, reducing the emotionality of the proceedings, and increasing the parties’ dispute resolution skills. Their objective is to enable parties to solve their own disputes in the future.

Be prepared. It should occur before the negotiation begins so that the time spent negotiating is more productive. Good preparation means understanding one’s own goals and interests as well as possible and being able to articulate them to the other party skillfully. It also includes being ready to understand the other party’s communication in order to find an agreement that meets the needs of both parties.

Distributive negotiations. Focused on dividing a fixed set of resources.

Integrative negotiations. Aimed at expanding the resources available to both parties.