tmx0pWRG

1Chapter 1
2
3The Nature of Negotiations
4
5Overview
6
7Hello and welcome to our fall class in Negotiation. You will find that friends, children, business, police, nations and almost everyone else negotiates almost daily. I am sure that you will be surprised at your own interactions as a result of you taking this class.
8
9Negotiations occur for two reasons: (1) to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own, or (2) to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties. Perspectives used to understand different aspects of negotiations include theory, research from economics, psychology, political science, communications, labor relations, law, sociology, and anthropology.
10
111. Let us take a look at a typical negation situation
12
13A.  Characteristics common to all negotiation situations.
14
151. There are two or more parties, individuals, groups or organizations.
16
172. There is a conflict of needs and objectives between two or more parties, and the parties must search for a way to resolve the conflict. This is also true when both parties are working towards the same goal and generally want the same outcome.
18
193. Parties negotiate because they think they can get a better deal by negotiating than by simply accepting what the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have.
20
214. When negotiating, a give-and-take is expected. To reach an agreement, both sides will modify their opening statement to find a middle ground: They are willing to compromise.
22
235. The parties prefer to negotiate and search for agreement rather than to fight openly, have one side dominate and the other capitulate, permanently break off contact, or take the dispute to a higher authority to resolve it.
24
256. Successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles and also the resolution of intangibles.
26
27a) There are Tangible Factors such as the price of an item or the terms of an agreement.
28
29b) There are Intangible Factors which as the underlying psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties during a negotiation. Or the need to defend an important principle or precedent in an negotiation.
30
31(1) the need to appear "fair" or "honorable" or to protect one's reputation; and          
32
33(2) the need to maintain a good relationship.
34
35II Interdependence
36
37A. Most relationships between parties may be characterized in one of three ways: independent dependent, or interdependent..
38
391. When the parties depend on each other to achieve their own preferred outcome they are interdependent; they are characterized  by interlocking goals.
40
412. Independent parties are able to meet their own needs without the help and assistance of others.
42
433. Dependent parties must rely on others for what they need; the dependent party must accept and accommodate to that provider's whims and idiosyncrasies
44
45B. Types of interdependence affects outcomes.
46
47The interdependence of people's goals, and the structure of the situation in which they are going to negotiate, strongly shapes negotiation processes and outcomes.
48
491) Zero-sum distributive :competitive situation where there is only one winner.
50
512) Non-zero-sum integrative: Goals are linked to achieve a mutual gain.
52
53C. Here is a term that will become very familiar during this course.
54
55      BATNA:  The Best alternative  to a negotiated agreement. We will do a lot of talking about the parties' BATNA.
56
57III mUTUAL ADJUSTMENT
58
59Independent parties have an influence on the others' outcomes and decisions. As parties act to influence each other in a negotiation, they engage in a mutual adjustment.
60
611. It is important to recognize that negotiation is a process that transforms over time, and mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation.
62
632. The effective   negotiator needs to  understand how people will adjust and readjust, and how the negotiations might twist and turn, based on one's own moves and the others'  responses.
64
653. The best strategy for successful mutual adjustment to the other is grounded in the assumption that the more information one has about the person, the better.
66
67IV Value of Claiming and Value Creation
68
69Distributive bargaining.
70
71One of the primary new concepts we will learn in this class is the concept of distributive bargaining. The purpose of this type of negotiation is to claim value- to do whatever is necessary to claim the reward or gain the largest piece possible. In a very real sense, this type of bargaining is the an thesis  of the next concept with which you will need to be acquainted.
72
73Integrative bargaining.
74
75The purpose of this approach to negotiation is to create value, or find a way for all parties to meet their goals and share the reward.
76
77Most negotiations are a combination of claiming and creating value. There are significant implications to this. Negotiator perceptions of situations tend to be biased towards seeing problems as more (distributive/competitive) than they really are.
78
79Successful coordination of interdependence has the potential to lead to synergy, which is the notion that " the whole is  greater than the sum of its parts."
80
81Negotiators need to be aware of the potential differences between them can serve as barriers  to reaching an agreement .Exploring common and different interests to create value can set the foundation for a lasting agreement.
82
83V Conflict
84
85Definitions of conflict may be a sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests, ideas,  and includes the perceived divergence of interest or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously.  
86
87Levels of conflict:
88
89Intrapersonal or intrapsychic conflict occurs within an individual. Sources of conflict can include ideas, thoughts, emotions, values, predispositions, or drives that are in conflict with each other.
90
91Interpersonal conflict can occur between bosses and subordinates, spouses, siblings, or roommates.
92
93Intra-group conflict occurs within a small group - among team and committee members and within families, classes, fraternities and sororities and work groups. Such conflict can affect the ability of the group to resolve their differences and achieve their goals.
94
95Intergroup conflict occurs between unions and management, warring nations, feuding families or community actions groups and government authorities.
96
97Some of the items that create conflict between the sides of any negotiation can include: the competitive nature of  the parties, the want to win and not lose, or have misconceptions about the other, and can be subject to emotion.
98
99Some of the functions and benefits of conflict include making members more aware and able to cope with problems. Also conflict can be stimulating and fun....
100
101EFFECTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
102
103We need to be aware of the two-dimensional framework of negotiations which  are represented by as the duel concerns model.  The model postulates that individuals in conflict have two independent levels of concern:
104
1051. Concern about their own outcomes.
106
1072. Concern about the other's outcomes.
108
109We will learn that there are five major strategies for conflict management which have been identified as the duel concerns model:
110
1111. Contending (also called competing or dominating) In this strategy, a party wants to strongly attain his or her goals.
112
1132. Yielding ( also called accommodating or obliging.) In this trategy, a party may have little concern for whether they achieve their objectives but will be quite interested in whether the other party achieves their objectives.
114
1153. Inaction ( Also called avoiding.) Doing little or nothing to achieve his or her or their goals.
116
1174. Problem Solving ( also called collaborating or integrating.) Working together to achieve a common goal.
118
1195. Compromising ( a middle strategy) Here the parties hope to meet half way between the two sides.           
120
121-------------------
122
123Chapter 2
124
125Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining
126
127Overview
128
129This chapter will discuss the specific details of the Strategy and Tactics of Distributive Bargaining.  As I mentioned in the outline for week one, the basic elements of a distributive bargaining situation, the goals of one party are usually in fundamental and direct conflict with the goals of the other side.
130
131
132There are two reasons that every negotiator should be familiar with distributive bargaining.  First, some interdependent situations that negotiators face are distributive, and to do well in them negotiators need to understand how they work.  Second, because many people use distributive bargaining strategies and tactics almost exclusively all negotiators will find it important to know how to counter their effects.
133
134 Some of the tactics discussed in the chapter will also generate ethical concerns.  Some tactics are ethically accepted behavior whereas other tactics are generally considered unacceptable.
135
136The Distributive Bargaining Situation
137
138 
139
140     Distributive bargaining strategies and tactics are useful when a negotiator wants to maximize the value obtained in a single deal, when the relationship with the other party is not important, and when they are at the claiming value stage of negotiations.  There are five main points to mention here.
141
142      The target point is a negotiator’s optimal goal, or the point at which she/he would like to conclude negotiations.  The optimal goal is also referred to as resistance.
143
144     The resistance point is a negotiator’s bottom line—the point beyond which a person will not go.  This is not known to the other party and should be kept secret.  The resistance point is a high price for the buyer and a low price for the seller.
145
146    The asking price is the initial price set by the seller, or the first number quoted by the seller.
147
148     Both parties to a negotiation should establish their starting, target, and resistance points before beginning a negotiation.
149
150     The spreads between the resistance points, called the bargaining range, settlement range, or zone of potential agreement are very important.  It is the area where actual bargaining takes place.  When the buyer’s resistance point is above the seller’s he is minimally willing to pay more than she is minimally willing to sell for, there is a positive bargaining range.
151
152 Keep in mind that there are other strategies to consider in resolving any conflict.
153
154      The role of alternatives to a negotiated agreement.
155     Alternatives are important because they give negotiators the power to walk away from any negotiation when the emerging deal is not very good.
156        The role of alternatives are twofold:
157
158  i.     Reach a deal with the other party.
159
160ii.     No settlement at all.
161
162     Settlement point
163         For agreement to occur, both parties must believe that the settlement is the best that they can get (within a positive bargaining range).
164
165D.  Bargaining mix.
166
167          1.  The agreement necessary on several issues: the price, the closing date of the sale.
168
169    E.  Discovering the other party’s resistance point.
170
171           1.  Learning about the other party’s resistance point, target, motives, feelings of confidence, and so on, the more likely you will be able to have a favorable settlement.  You do not want the other party to know your resistance point.  Because each party wants to know the other’s resistance point, communication can become complex.
172
173     F.  Influencing the other party’s resistance point.
174
175         1.  The following factors are important in attempting to influence the other party’s resistance point:
176
177 a. The higher the other party’s estimate of your cost of delay or impasse, the stronger the other party’s resistance point will be.     
178
179      b. The higher the other party’s estimate of his/her own cost of delay or impasse, the weaker the other party’s resistance point will be.
180
181      c. The less the other party values an issue the lower the resistance point will be.
182
183      d. The more the other party believes that you value an issue the lower their resistance point will be.
184
185Tactical Tasks
186
187There are 3 important tactical tasks for a negotiator in a distributive situation to consider.
188
189         1.  Assess the other party’s target, resistance point, and cost of terminating negotiations.
190
191         2.  Manage the other party’s impression of the negotiator’s target, resistance point, and cost of terminating negotiations, while also guiding him/her to form a preferred impression of them.
192
193         3.  Modify the other party’s perception of his/her own target, resistance point, and cost of terminating negotiation.
194
195 Positions taken during negotiation
196
197Opening offers:
198
199         1.  Making the first offer is advantageous to the negotiator making the offer because he/she can anchor a negotiation.  Exaggerating an opening offer is advantageous because it gives the negotiator room for movement and allows the negotiator to learn more about the other parties’ priorities.
200
201         2.  Two disadvantages to exaggerating an offer include:
202
203       a. Potential rejection by the other party
204
205       b. The perception of a “tough” attitude that can harm a long-term relationship
206
207An opening stance is the attitude the negotiator will adopt during a negotiation (competitive, belligerent, moderate, etc.).   To communicate effectively a negotiator should try and send a consistent message through both the opening and stance.
208
209Usually met with counteroffer, initial concessions define the initial bargaining range; they communicate to the other party how you intend to negotiate.
210
211Role of concession - Negotiations would not exist without them.  There is ample date to show that parties feel better about a settlement when the negotiation involved a progression of concessions than when it did not.
212
213The pattern of concessions made during a negotiation contains valuable information, though not always easy to interpret.
214
215Final offers – A negotiator wants to convey the message that there is no further room for movement.  One way to accomplish this is to make the last concession more substantial.  Remember that a large majority of agreements are reached when the deadline for reaching agreement is near.
216
217 Hardball Tactics
218
219Dealing with typical hardball tactics – there are several choices how to respond.
220
221     1.  You can discuss hardball tactics.
222
223     2.  You can ignore them.  Sometimes these tactics can cause negotiations to ignore what the parties may have in common.
224
225     3.  Respond to such tactics with hardball tactics of your own.
226
227          Typical hardball tactics include something called “Good cop/bad cop” and “lowball/highball.”  Another tactic is called “bogey.”  In this tactic the negotiator using this tactic pretends that an issue is of little importance when it actually is quite important.
228
229          Another tactic is “playing chicken.”  When this is tried, the party combines a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to give in.
230
231          Some other forms of hardball tactics include being intimidating, being aggressive, and doing a snow job.  In this final method, the negotiator overwhelms the other party with so much information that the second party has difficulty determining which facts are important and which are distractions.
232
233          Remember that the negotiator’s basic goal is to reach final settlement as close to the other party’s resistance point as possible.  Negotiators need to work to gather information about the opposition and its positions.
234
235           Commitment
236
237          Commitment is the taking of a bargaining position with some explicit or implicit pledge regarding the future course of action.
238
239          Tactical considerations in using commitments:  Remember that commitments exchange flexibility for some certainty of action but they create difficulties if one wants to move to a new position.  One might also decide to make a threat which would challenge the negotiations.  Sometimes the use of a threat can put a negotiator in a stronger position than those do not use threats.
240
241          1.  Contingency plans should be made.
242
2432.  Commitments exchange flexibility for certainty of action, but they create difficulties if  one wants to move to a new position.
244
2453.  The use of threats can put a negotiator in a stronger position than those who do not use  such threats.
246
247 Establishing a commitment
248
2491.   Remember that a commitment t statement has three properties:  a high degree of finality, a high degree of specificity and a clear statement of consequences.
250
2512.  You can make commitments by public pronouncement, by linking to an outside base, making your demands more prominent.
252
253 Finding ways to abandon a committed position.
254
255There are four avenues to use in abandoning a commitment:
256
2571.  You can plan a way out
258
2592.  Let it die silently
260
2613.  Restate the commitment
262
2634   Minimize any damage which might have occurred because you made the commitment.
264
265 One last idea might be to make a joke about the commitment.
266
267 Closing the Deal
268
269           Provide alternatives – rather than making a single final offer, provide two or three alternative packages for the other party that are roughly equal in value.
270
271 Assume the close – having a general discussion about the needs and positions of the buyer, then act as if the decision to purchase something has already been made.
272
273Split the difference – the most popular tactic used; used when an agreement is close, suggesting that the parties split the difference.
274
275Exploding offers – An offer that contains an extremely tight deadline in order to pressure the other party to agree quickly.
276
277Chapter 3
278
279Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation
280
281Overview
282
283Chapter 3 introduces the strategy and tactics of Integrative Negotiations, This is to be compared with the concepts of Distributive Bargaining covered in Chapter 2.  In Integrative negotiations the goals of the parties are not mutually exclusive. If one side achieves its goals, the other is not necessarily precluded from achieving its goals.  One party's gain is not necessarily at the other party's expense. The fundamental structure of an integrative negotiation situation is such that it allows both sides to achieve their objectives. A description of the efforts and tactics by which negotiators discover these alternatives accounts for the major part of this chapter.
284
285WHAT MAKES INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION DIFFERENT?
286
287For a negotiation to be characterized as integrative, negotiators must also practice these requisite behaviors and perspectives:
288
289- Focus on commonalities rather than differences
290
291-Attempt to address needs and interests, not positions
292
293-Commit to meeting the needs of all involved parties
294
295-Exchange information and ideas.
296
297-Invent options for mutual gain.
298
299-Use objective criteria for standards of performance.
300
301I.  An Overview of Integrative Negotiation Process
302
303A. Creating and choosing a free flow of information promotes the development of good integrative solutions.
304
3051.  Negotiators must be willing to  reveal their true objectives and to listen to each other carefully.
306
3072. Willingness to share information is not a characteristic of distributive bargaining situations, in which the parties distrust one another, conceal and manipulate information, and attempt to learn about the other for their own competitive advantage.
308
3093. Research shows that negotiators who did not reveal the availability of a good alternative received some benefits for themselves, but those who did share information about their alternatives received additional benefits.
310
311B. Attempting to understand the other negotiator's real needs and objectives.
312
3131. Understanding the other's needs, realizing the other party's priorities are not the same as your own, can stimulate more exchange of information, have a better understanding of the nature of the negotiation, and achieve higher joint benefits.
314
315C. Emphasizing the commonalities between the parties and minimizing the differences.
316
3171. To sustain a free flow of information and an effort to understand the other's needs and objectives, negotiators may require a different outlook or frame of reference.
318
3192. Individual goals may need to be refined through collaborative efforts directed toward a collective goal. At times the collective goal is clear and obvious, and other times it is not clear or easy to keep in sight.
320
321D. Searching for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.
322
3231. The success of integrative negotiation depends on the search for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.
324
3252. In this process, negotiators must be firm but flexible.
326
3273. A low level of concern for the other's objectives may drive one of two forms of behavior.
328
329a. Making sure that what the other obtains does not take away from one's own accomplishments.
330
331b. Attempting to block the other from obtaining his or her objectives because of a strong desire to win or to "defeat the opponent."
332
333II Key Steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process
334
335There are four major steps in the negotiation process:
336
337A. Step 1: Identify and define the problem.
338
3391. This is a critical step for integrative negotiation because it sets broad parameters regarding what the negotiation is "about" and provides an initial framework for approaching the discussion.
340
3412. Should be comprehensive enought to capture complexities of the situation.
342
343a). Define  the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides.
344
345b) State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness.
346
347c) State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to obtaining this goal.
348
349d) Depersonalize the problem.
350
351e) Separate the problem definition from the search for solutions.
352
353B. Step 2: Understand the problem and surface interests and needs.
354
3551. Types of interests:
356
357a) Substantive interests -relate to the focal issues under negotiation- economic and financial issues.
358
359b)Process interests - related to the way a dispute is settled. They can be both intrinsic and instrumental.
360
361c) Relationship interest- One or both parties value their relationship with each other and do not want to take actions that will damage it.
362
3631) Intrinsic relationship - Parties value their relationship both for its existence and for the pleasure or fulfillment that sustaining it creates.
364
3652) Instrumental relationship - parties derive substantive benefits from the relationship and do not wish to endanger future benefits by souring it.
366
367d) Interests in principle - principles deeply held by the parties and serve as the dominant guides to their actions. 
368
3691) Some principles include: concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable , and what is ethical.
370
3712. Some observations on interests.
372
373a) there is almost always more than one type of interest underlying a negotiation.
374
375b) Parties can have different types of interests at stake.
376
377c) Interests often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values
378
379d) Interests can changes.
380
381e) Surfacing interests
382
383f) surfacing interests is not always easy or to one's advantage.
384
385g) Focusing on interests can be harmful to a group of negotiators whose consensus on a particular issue is built around a unified position rather than a more generalized set of interests.
386
387C. Step 3: Generate alternative solutions to the problem.
388
3891. Inventing options: generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem or problem set.
390
391a) Expand and modify the resource pie - add resources in such a way that both sides can achieve their objectives.
392
393b) Logroll - successful logrolling requires that the parties establish or find more than one issue in conflict; the parties then agree to trade off among these issues so that one party achieves a highly preferred outcome on the first issue and the other party achieves a highly preferred outcome on the second issue.
394
395c) Use non specific compensation - allow one party to obtain his objectives and pay off the other person for accommodating his interests.
396
397d) Cut the costs for compliance - one party achieves his objectives and the other's costs are minimized if he agrees to go along.
398
399e) Find a bridge solution - when the parties are able to invent new options that meet all their respective needs they have created a bridge solution. Successful bridging requires a fundamental reformation of the problem so that the parties are not discussing their positions but disclosing information that will satisfy needs.
400
4012. Generating alternative solutions to the problem as given.
402
403a)      Brain storming - generating as may solutions to the problem as possible. The following rules should be observed when engaging in brainstorming.
404
4051) Avoid judging or evaluating solutions.
406
4072) Separate the people from the problem
408
4093) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process.
410
4114) Ask outsides
412
413b) Surveys - asking a large number of people to list all possible solutions they can imagine.
414
415c) Electronic brainstorming - A facilitator uses a series of questions to guide imput from participants, who type their anonymous responses into a computer.
416
417D. Step 4: Evaluate those alternatives and select from among them.
418
4191) Narrow the range of solution options -focus on those that one or more negotiators strongly support.
420
4212) Evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, standards, and acceptability - how good are the solutions? How acceptable are they to those who have to implement them?
422
4233) Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options - This can be helpful in narrowing or selecting options.
424
4254) Be willing to justify personal preferences.
426
4275)Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selection options - It is good practice to help the other party identify intangibles and make them public as part of the evaluation process.
428
4296) Use subgroups to evaluate complex options.
430
4317) Take time out to cool off.
432
433III. Factors that Facilitate Successful Integrative Negotiation
434
435A. Factors which facilitate successful Integrative negotiation include having a common goal, which benefits both parties equally or share a goal where both parties work towards a common goal but share the benefits differently.
436
437B. Trust. Generating trust is a complex, uncertain process that depends in part on how the parties behave and in part on the parties' personal characteristics.
438
4391. To develop trust effectively, each negotiator must believe that both he/she and the other party choose to behave in a cooperative manner.
440
441IV. Why Integrative Negotiation is Difficult to Achieve
442
443A. There may be a history between the parties which was not positiveand there may be  distrust.
444
445B. The mixed-motive nature of most negotiation situations - Most situations contain some elements that require distributive bargaining processes and other that require integrative negotiation
446-------
447
448Chapter 4
449Negotiation:  Strategy and Planning
450
451 Now that we have been exposed to the two main types of negotiating strategies that we deal with in this class, it is time to focus on the Goals that we need to establish for a particular negotiation and then set a strategy in place to accomplish these goals.
452
453    I.      Goals – The Focus That Drives a Negotiation Strategy
454
455    Direct effects of goals on choice of strategy.
456
457     There are four important aspects to understand about how goals affect negotiations.
458
459a)   Wishes are not goals, especially in negotiation.
460
461b)   Goals are often linked to the other party’s goals.
462
463c)   There are boundaries or limits to what goals can be.
464
465d)   Effective goals must be concrete, specific and measurable.  If they are not, then it will be hard to:
466
467(1)  Communicate to the other party what we want;
468
469(2)  Understand what the other party wants;
470
471(3)  Determine whether an offer on the table satisfies our goals.
472
473     Goals can be tangible or procedural.
474    The criteria used to determine goals depend on your specific objectives and your priorities among multiple objectives.
475
476    II.    Strategy – The Overall Plan to Achieve One’s Goals
477
478    Strategy versus Tactics: Keep in mid that both are clear designed to accomplish the ultimate goal of the negotiations.
479 
480   A major difference between strategy and tactics is that of scale, perspective or immediacy.
481
482    Tactics are short-term, adaptive moves designed to enact or pursue broad strategies, which in turn provide stability, continuity, and direction for tactical behaviors.
483
484     Tactics are subordinate to strategy: they are structured, directed, and driven by strategic considerations.
485
486     Unilateral versus bilateral approaches to strategy.
487
488    A unilateral choice is made without the active involvement of the other party.
489
490    Unilaterally pursued strategies can be wholly one-sided and intentionally ignorant of any information about the other negotiator.
491
492    Unilateral strategies should evolve into ones that fully consider the impact of the other’s strategy on one’s own.
493
494     The dual concerns model as a vehicle for describing negotiation strategies.  This model proposes that individuals have two levels of related concerns: a concern for their own outcomes, and a level of concern for the other’s outcomes.
495
496    Alternative situational strategies.
497
498a)   There are at least four different types of strategies when assessing the relative importance and priority of the negotiator’s substantive outcome versus the relational outcome: competitive, collaboration, accommodation, and avoidance.
499
500    The nonengagement strategy: Avoidance.
501
502a)   There are many reasons why negotiators may choose not to negotiate:
503
504(1)  If one is able to meet one’s needs without negotiating at all, it may make sense to use an avoidance strategy;
505
506(2)  It simply may not be worth the time and effort to negotiate (although there are sometimes reasons to negotiate in such situations;
507
508(3)  The decision to negotiate is closely related to the desirability of available alternatives – the outcomes that can be achieved if negotiations don’t work out.
509
510(4)  the outcomes can be achieved  even though negotiations don't work out.
511
512    There are three active-engagement strategies: Accommodation, competition, and collaboration.
513
514a)   The Accommodation  strategy may be appropriate when the negotiator wants to let the other side win since the relationship might be the most important consideration.
515
516b)   A competition strategy shows a strong intent in achieving only substantive outcomes
517
518c)   Collaboration is integrative or win-win negotiation.
519
520     III.   Understanding the Flow of Negotiations: Stages and Phases
521
522 A.  The typical steps or flow in a negotiation can be found in the phase models of negotiation which includes the Initiation stage, the problem solving stage, and the resolution stage.
523
524 B.  There are 7  key steps  to an ideal negotiation process:
525
526 1.   Preparation: deciding what is important, defining goals, thinking ahead how to work together with the other party.
527     
5282.   Relationship building: getting to know the other party, understanding how you and the other are similar and different, and building commitment toward achieving a mutually beneficial set of outcomes.
529
5303.   Information gathering: learning what you need to know about the issues, about the other party and their needs, about the feasibility of possible settlements, and about what might happen if you fail to reach agreement with the other side.
531
5324.   Information using: at this stage, negotiators assemble the case they want to make for their preferred outcomes and settlement, one that will maximize the negotiator’s own needs.
533  
5345.   Bidding: the process of making moves from one’s initial, ideal position to the actual outcome.
535  
5366.   Closing the deal: the objective here is to build commitment to the agreement achieved in the previous phase.
537
5387.   Implementing the agreement: determining who needs to do what once hands are shaken and the documents signed.
539
540    IV.   Getting Ready to Implement the Strategy: The Planning Process
541
542 Effective strategizing and  planning requires hard work in considering the ten key steps for success.
543
544 A.  Defining the issues or negotiation goal.
545
546     Usually begins with an analysis of what is to be discussed in the negotiation.
547
548    How any issues are to be discussed.
549
550    Defining the major issue related to achieving the goal.
551
5521.   Single issue negotiations tend to dictate distributive negotiations since the only real issue is the price. Multiple issue negotiations tend more to be integrative in anture.
553
554 C.  Assembling the issues and defining the bargaining mix.
555
556    There are two steps a negotiator can use to prioritize the issues on an agenda:
557
558a)     Determine which issues are most important and which are less important.
559
560b)     Determine whether the issues are linked together or are separate.
561
562D.  Defining the interests.
563
564 1.   Interests may be:
565
566a)   Substantive, that is, directly related to the focal issues under negotiation.
567
568b)   Process-based, that is, related to how the negotiators behave as they negotiate.
569
570c)     Relationship-based, that is, tied to the current or desired future relationship between the parties.
571
5722.   Interests may also be based on intangibles of negotiation.
573
574E.   Knowing your alternatives, Here is where the (BATNAs).come into play.
575
576 1.   Alternatives (i.e., best alternatives to this negotiated agreement, or BATNAs) are other agreements negotiators could achieve and still meet their needs. Alternatives are very important in both distributive and integrative processes because they define whether the current outcome is better than another possibility (with a different negotiating partner).
577
578F.   Knowing your limits, including a resistance point.
579
5802.   Good preparation requires that you establish two clear points:
581
582d)     Resistance point – the place where you decide that you should absolutely stop the negotiation rather than continue. 
583
584e)     Alternatives – other agreements negotiators could achieve and still meet their needs.  Alternatives define whether the current outcome is better than another possibility.
585
586G.  Analyze and understand the other party.
587
5881.   Knowing what the other's issues is as important as determining one's own issues.
589
5902.   What information does one party need about the other party in order to prepare effectively? Several key pieces of background information will be of great importance, including their:
591
592a)   Broad, overall goals and objectives.
593
594b)   Issues and the likely bargaining mix.
595
596c)   Interests and needs.
597
598d)   Resistance point and alternative(s).
599
600e)   What might be their resistance points and their alternative.
601
602 H.  Setting one's own targets and opening bids.
603
604 After negotiators have defined the issues, assembled a tentative agenda, and consulted others as appropriate and necessary, the next step is to define two other key points: the specific target point, where one realistically expects to achieve a settlement, and the opening bid, representing the best deal one can hope to achieve.
605
606 1.  Setting a target. Remember that targets should be specific, difficult to achieve and be verifiable.
607
608 2.  Think about setting an opening bid.
609
610I.    Assessing the social context of a negotiation.
611
6121.   When people negotiate in a professional context, there may be more than two parties.
613
614a)   There may be more than two negotiators at the table.  Multiple parties often lead to the formation of coalitions. We will deal with coalitions later in our class.
615
616J.    . Presenting issues to the other party.
617
618 1.   Use as many positive supporting facts as possible. Develop them in as convincing manner as possible
619
620`     2.         When planning the process and structuring the context a negotiator should consider a number of elements of protocol and process.
621
6221.   Set up the agenda for the negotiation
623
6242.   consider the location of negotiation.
625
6263.   How much time is necessary to complete the  negotiation.
627
6284.   What might be done if negotiation fails?
629
6305.   How will we keep track of what is agreed to?
631
6326.   How can we modify the deal if necessary?
633
634 Remember that the negotiations require the parties to define the issues, the bargaining  limits, their own interests, and any alternatives that  may be available
635-------
636
637Chapter 5
638
639Ethics in Negotiation
640
641Overview
642
643This week, we need to look at the question as to what ethical standards we apply to behavior in negotiations. This chapter is devoted to the ethical issues that arise during negotiations. I hope that this chapter will give you a good idea of your own behavior in your own negotiations in the future. We want to ask the question as to why one would use deceptive tactics at all as part of a negotiation? And what would be the motives and consequences of such actions?
644
645I. What do we mean by “ Ethics” and why do they matter in negotiations?
646
647A. Ethics defined.
648
6491. Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for settling those standards.
650
6512. Ethics grow out of particular philosophies, which purport to  (a) define the nature of the world in which we live, and (b) prescribe rules for living together.
652
6533. There are four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics in business and negotiations.
654
655a) Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve.
656
657b) Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules  and principles.
658
659c)  Choose a course of action on the basis of norms, values, and strategy of my organization or community.
660
661d) Chose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions.
662
6634. There are four different approaches to ethical reasoning: End-result ethics, duty ethics, social contract ethics, and personalistic ethics.
664
665II. Four approaches to Ethical Reasoning 
666
667A. End result ethics.
668
6691. Defined: The rightness of an action is determined by evaluating the pros and cons of its consequences
670
6712. Utilitarianism – The highest moral conduct is to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number.
672
673B. Duty Ethics
674
675           1. Defined: The rightness of an action is determined by one’s obligation to adhere to consistent principles, laws and social standards that define what is right or wrong and where the line is.
676
677           2. Deontology: Kant argued a fundamental principle of deontology was that one should choose to act in ways that one would want everyone else to act, were they faced with the same situation and circumstances.
678
679C. Social Contract Ethics
680
681           1. Defined: the rightness of an action is based on the customs and norms of a particular community.
682
683           2. As applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe which behaviors are appropriate in a negotiation context in terms of what people owe one another.
684
685D. Personalistic ethics.          
686
687           1. Defined: the rightness of an action is based upon one’s own conscience and moral standards.
688
689           2. As applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right based upon their own conscience.
690
691III. What Questions of Ethical Conduct Arise in Negotiation
692
693      1. What ethically ambiguous tactics are there?
694
695          a) traditional competitive bargaining
696
697          b) emotional manipulation,
698
699          c) misrepresentation,
700
701          d) misrepresentation to  opponent’s network
702
703          e) inappropriate information collection,
704
705          f) bluffing
706
707      Of these six, the first two are likely to be used, even though they are mildly inappropriate. The last four are considered inappropriate and unethical behavior in negotiations.
708
709      My recommendation is that when you see this type of unethical behavior, you should make a “no-nonsense” accusation of this type of behavior. Do not let it go unannounced.
710
711      2. Does tolerance for ethically ambiguous tactics lead to their actual use?
712
713          a) The studies completed on this subject indicate that there are tacitly agreed-upon rules of the game in negotiation. Under there rules, some minor forms of untruths- misrepresentation of one’s position to the other party, bluffs, and emotional manipulations- may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules.
714
715          b) Deception by omission versus communication.
716
717          1. McCormack and Levine (1990) found that victims of deception had a stronger emotional reaction to deception when lying was seen as an unacceptable type of behavior for that relationship.
718
719IV Why Use Deception Tactic? Motives and Consequences
720
721          A.) The Power Motive
722
723       1.Parties want to win! Tactics such as bluffing, falsification, misrepresentation, deception, and selective disclosure puts the lair in an advantageous position.
724
725       2. The parties are competitive. The research has shown that negotiators are more likely to use marginally unethical tactics if they see the other party ass being competitive rather than cooperative.
726
727          B.) The  consequences of unethical conduct.
728
729       1. Whether the unethical conduct was effective or not, will be judged on whether the negotiator got what he wanted as a result of the use of such tactics. A negotiator who employs such unethical tactics will experience positive or negative consequences.
730
731       2.  The  consequences are based on whether the tactic was effective, and how the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic. And how the negotiator evaluates the tactic by the following criteria.
732
733       a) Effectiveness.  Whether the tactic worked out or not. That is, whether the negotiator got what he or she wanted as a result of the use of such tactics.        
734
735       b) Whether there was a loss of trust between the parties.  Where there is trust between the parties, there is a clear opportunity for one side to manipulate the facts which would allow the other side to be deceived by their  dishonesty.
736
737          C.) Explanations and Justifications
738
739       1. Research shows that those that use unethical tactics have explanations and justifications for their use. These include the following:
740
741       a) The tactic was unavoidable because the negotiator was not in full control of the facts and should not be held responsible.
742
743       b) The tactic was harmless
744
745       c) The tactic will help to avoid a lot of negative consequences.
746
747       d) The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated.
748
749       e) “They had it coming.” Or “They deserve it.” or “ I’m getting my due.”
750
751       f) “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first.”
752
753       G) “HE STARTED IT.”
754
755       H)   The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation.
756
757   V. What factors shape a Negotiators ‘s predisposition to use unethical tactics?
758
759      A. Sexual differences
760
761      Demographic factors play a role in how negotiators will act. We can relate ethical conduct or the lack of such, by differences in individual’s background, religion, orientation, age, gender, nationality, and their levels of education.
762
763       a) Sexual differences: Studies have shown that women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than men.. A study by Schminke, Ambrose and Miles (2003) concluded that female actors were perceived to be formalistic in their decision making, where as male actors were perceived to be more utilitarian.
764
765       b) Age and Experience.  Studies have shown that older parties tend to be bigger bluffers which is more acceptable to older parties than younger parties.
766
767       c) Professional Orientation.  All groups indicated that traditional competitive bargaining and misrepresentation were ethically acceptable, but clergy were the most ethically conservative in their ratings.
768
769       d) Nationality and Culture.  Cultural difference in attitudes toward ethically  ambiguous tactics in negations are apparent. For example, Americans and Asians were significantly more likely to use bluffing and eastern Europeans were less likely to do so.
770
771      B. Personality differences.
772
773a) Research has found that students who rated themselves as aggressive were significantly more likely to use bluffing, misrepresentation and a variety of other dishonest tactics than students who related themselves as cooperative.
774
775b) Other research has found that pro-social  individuals were more honest with a cooperative partner than were selfish individuals who used more deceptive tactics when dealing with a competitive partner.
776
777c) Negotiators who feel empathy for the other side, have been found to reject the use of lying and misrepresentation in negotiations.
778
779         C.  Moral Development and personal values.
780
781a) Researchers have proposed that an individual’s moral and ethical developments are a consequence of achieving a particular development level or stage of moral growth. The higher the stage of development, and the more complex their reasoning, tends to make such persons more ethical in their decision making.
782
783b) Researchers have shown that higher levels of moral development are associated with more resistance to authority figures who might attempt to justify unethical behavior.
784
785         D. Contextual influence on unethical conduct.
786
787a) past experiences. There is no question that the negotiator’s past experiences, and notable failures, can affect the likelihood of using unethical behavior.
788
789b) Where a negotiator has many incentives to be successful, there is a greater likelihood of the use of unethical behavior.
790
791c) Where one side sees the other as vulnerable, there is a greater likelihood  of the unethical behavior.
792
793d) The past relationships of the parties, if positive, can reduce the possibility of unethical behavior. The converse is also true if their past relationships were negative.
794
795e) The lower power negotiators feel that they have, the more likely will be the use of unethical behavior.
796
797f) There seems to be a greater likelihood of deception where negotiators are physically removed from each other.
798
799VI. How Can Negotiators Deal With the Other Party’s Use of Deception.
800
801a) If you think the other party is using deceptive tactics, in general you can do the following:
802
803ask probing questions, phrase questions in different ways, force the other party to lie or back off, test the other party, “call” the tactic. Ignore the tactic, or respond in kind. Of course, this is the least preferable method of response.
804
805VII. Where to Draw the Line between Ethical and Unethical Behavior.  It is clear that people can disagree as to where to draw the line between ethical and unethical behavior
806
807Chapter 6
808
809Perception, Cognition, and Emotion
810
811This chapter examines how psychological perception is related to the process of negotiation can cause problems for negotiators.  Sometimes these perceptions result from social encounters with fellow negotiators and sometimes they come in actual negotiations.  Such encounters are more than just occasions for perception and cognition.  We experience and express emotion when we interact with others and negotiations is certainly no exception.  Later in the chapter we will cover the role of moods and emotions in negotiation.
812
813I.  Perception
814
815     A.  First of all, we should define perception.
816
817           1.  It is the process by which individuals connect to their environment, by ascribing  meaning to message and events.  This process is strongly influenced by the perceiver’s       current state of mind, role and comprehension of earlier communications.
818
819           2.  Perception is a complex physical and psychological process of screening, selecting and  interpreting stimuli so that they have meaning to the individual.
820
821           3.  Perception is a “sense-making” process where people interpret their environment so they can respond appropriately.
822
823           4.  There are four stages to Perception:  Stimulus, Attention, Recognition, and finally Translation, which lead to certain behavior.
824
825     B.  Now that we have defined the term, we need to be aware that we will experience certain  distortions in perception.  Our own needs, desires and motivations can create feeling  about the other party.
826
827           1.  This can lead to stereotyping when one assigns attributes to another solely on the basis  of the other party’s membership in a certain social or demographic group.
828
829           2.  This distortion in perception can also lead to Halo effects.  This occurs when people  generalize about a variety of attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an  individual.
830
831           3.  Projection can occur when you assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they   themselves possess.
832
833 II.  Framing
834
835A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.
836
837      A.  There are at least seven types of frames.
838
839           1.  Substantive:  what the conflict is about.  Parties taking a substantive frame have a particular disposition about the key issue or concern in the conflict.
840
841           2.  Outcome:  a party’s predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the  negotiation.  Parties with a strong outcome frame are more likely to engage in distributive types of negotiations which are generally (win-lose) or (lose-lose) types of distributive negotiations rather than other types.
842
843           3.  Aspiration:  A predisposition toward satisfying a broader set of interests or needs in negotiation.
844
845           4.  Process:  how the parties will go about resolving their dispute.
846
847           5.  Identity:  how the parties define “who they are.”
848
849           6.  Characterization:  how the parties define the other parties.
850
851           7.  Loss-gain:  how the parties define the risk or reward associated with particular  outcomes.
852
853     B.  How frames work in negotiation.
854
855           1.  It is difficult to know what frame a party is using unless the party tells you.
856
857           2.  Frames of those who hear or interpret communication may create biases of their own.
858
859           3.  Remember that issue frames change as the negotiation evolves
860
861 III.  Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
862
863     A.  Irrational biases
864
865           1.  Sometimes, we see an irrational escalation of a commitment on the part of one party to  a negotiation.  This happens when one side makes decisions that stick to a failing course of action.
866
867           2.  Sometimes their biases are based upon mythical fixed-pie beliefs.  Those negotiators  who believe in the mythical fixed pie assume there is no possibility for integrative  settlements and mutually beneficial trade-offs, and they suppress efforts to search for them.
868
869           3.  Cognitive biases in anchoring and adjustment are related to the effect of the standard  (or anchor) against which subsequent adjustments are made during negotiations.  Once an anchor is created, parties tend to treat it as a real benchmark even if it is not really a  benchmark.
870
871           4.  Once the anchor is defined, parties tend to treat it as a real, valid benchmark by which to adjust other judgments, such as the size of one side’s’ opening offer.
872
873     B.  Issue framing and risk
874
875           1.  A frame is a perspective or point of view that people use when they gather information   and solve problems.   
876
877           2.  The way an issue is frame influences how negotiators perceive risk and behave in  relation to it.
878
879           3.  The tendency to either seek or avoid risk may be based on the reference point against  which offers and concessions are judged.
880
881           4.  Two things to keep in mind about the effect of frames and risk in negotiation are:      
882
883  a)  negotiators are not usually indifferent to risk,    b)  they should not necessarily trust their intuition regarding it.     
884
885     C.  The winner’s curse
886
887           1.  The winner’s curse refers to the tendency of negotiators, particularly in an auction setting, to settle quickly on an item and then subsequently feel discomfort about a  negotiation win that comes too easily.
888
889           2.  Recent research suggests that the winner’s curse stems, in part, from counterfactual thought processes that involve entertaining the possibility of “what might have been” if   the offer had not been accepted.
890
891     D.  Overconfidence           
892
893           1.  Overconfidence is the tendency of negotiators to believe that their ability to be correct    or accurate is greater than is actually true.
894
895           2.  Overconfidence has a double edged effect:        
896
897a)  It can solidify the degree to which negotiators support positions or options that are   incorrect or inappropriate and
898
899b)  It can lead negotiators to discount the worth or validity of the judgments of others,   in effect shutting down other parties as sources of information, interests, and  options necessary for a successful integrative negotiation.
900
901     E.  The law of small numbers
902
903           1.  The law of small numbers refers to the tendency of people to draw conclusions from  small sample sizes.  The use of this law leads to a self- fulfilling prophesy in which  people who expect to be treated in a distributive manner will be more likely to  perceive the other party’s behaviors as distributive and tend to treat the other party in a  similar manner.
904
905     F.  Endowment effect
906
907           1.  The endowment effect is the tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you   possess.
908
909           2.  The endowment effect can lead to inflated estimations of value that interfere with   reaching a good deal.
910
911     G.  Reactive devaluation
912
913           1.  Reactive devaluation is the process of devaluing the other party’s concessions simply   because the other party made them.  Reactive devaluation leads negotiators to minimize   the magnitude of a concession made by a disliked other, and reduces their willingness   to make concessions and demand more from the other even after concessions have been made.     
914
915IV.  Managing misconceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation
916
917     A.  Misconceptions and cognitive biases typically arrive out of conscious awareness as  negotiators gather and process information.   
918
919     B.  You can manage the negative consequences of misconception by being aware that they  occur and discuss such perceptual or cognitive bias with your team and with the other   party’s counterparts
920------------------
921
922Chapter 7
923Communication
924
925 Now that we have dealt with this issues raised about perceptions and other visual issues in negotiations, we can now turn to the issues of communication.. By this I mean the process by which you as negotiator communicate your  own interests, positions and goals in any negotiation in which you might participate and also make sense of  those of the other party too.
926
927    Communication as an activity that occurs between two people: a sender and a receiver.
928
929    A sender has a thought or meaning in mind. The sender encodes this meaning into a message that is to be transmitted to a receiver.
930
931     Once encoded, the message is then transmitted through a channel or medium to the receiver. The receiver’s receptors—eyes and ears—receive the transmission and then the brain decodes and interprets it, giving meaning and understanding to the receiver.
932
933     We are all subject to distortions in this communication process. These distortions can be caused by:
934
935     Individual Communicators (senders and receivers).
936
937a)     The more diverse the goal, the greater the likelihood that distortions and errors will occur.
938
939b)     Individual characteristics of the sender and receiver contribute to a different way of viewing the world.
940
941     Messages.
942
943a)     The symbolic forms by which information is communicated.
944
945b)     Using symbols can distort communication.
946
947    Encoding.
948
949a)     The process by which messages are put into symbolic form.
950
951b)     The encoding process will be affected by varying degrees of skill in encoding (e.g., fluency in language, skill at written and oral expression). 
952
953     Channels and media.
954
955a)     The conduits by which messages are transmitted  from one party to another.
956
957b)     Messages are subject to distortion from channel noise, a broad term used to describe various forms of interference in the communication process.
958
959     Reception.
960
961a)     The process of translating messages from their symbolic form into a form that makes sense.
962
963     Interpretations/Meanings.
964
965a)     The facts, ideas, feelings, reactions, or thoughts that exist within individuals and act as a set of filters for interpreting the decoded messages.
966
967b)     Meanings will vary depending on other aspects of the communication sequence and the relationship between the parties.
968
969     Feedback.
970
971a)     The process by which the receiver reacts to the sender’s message.
972
973b)     Feedback is useful to inform the sender that the message was received, encoded, and ascribed with the meaning the sender intended.
974
975c)     The absence of feedback can contribute to significant distortions in communication.
976
977     We need to be conscious of any offers, or counteroffers and the  motives behind such communications.
978
979    A negotiator’s preferences are communicated during a negotiation – they can have a powerful influence on the actions of the other party and on outcomes.
980
981     A communicative framework for negotiation is based on the assumptions that:
982
983a)     The communication of offers is a dynamic process;
984
985b)     The offer process is interactive;
986
987c)     Various internal and external factors drive the interaction and motivate a bargainer to change his or her offer.
988
989     Information about alternatives.
990
991     The existence of a BATNA changes several things in a negotiation:
992
993a)     Compared to negotiators without attractive BATNAs, negotiators with attractive BATNAs set higher reservation prices for themselves than their counterparts did;
994
995b)     Negotiators whose counterparts had attractive BATNAs set lower reservation points for themselves; and
996
997c)     When both parties were aware of the attractive BATNA that one of the negotiators had, that negotiator received a more positive negotiation outcome.
998
999     Information about outcomes.
1000
1001    Negotiators should be cautious about sharing their outcomes or even their positive reactions to outcomes with the other party, especially if they are going to negotiate with that party again in the future.
1002
1003     Social Accounts.
1004
1005     The method used by negotiators to explain things to the other party, especially when negotiators need to justify bad news.
1006    Sitkin and Bies (1993) suggests that three types of explanations are important:
1007
1008a)     Explanations of mitigating circumstances, where negotiators suggest that they had no choice in taking the positions they did;
1009
1010b)     Explanations of exonerating circumstances, where negotiators explain their positions from a broader perspective, suggesting that while their current position may appear negative, it derives from positive motives;
1011
1012c)     Reframing explanations, where outcomes can be explained by changing the context.
1013
1014 We  need to ask 3 key questions about  what is communicated during negotiations.
1015
1016           
1017    Are negotiators consistent or adaptive in their approach?
1018
10192.   Does it matter what is said early in the negotiation?  Generally, what is said during the first 5 minutes has no effect on the ability of the parties to achieve good results.  But some research shows that what is said in the first half of the negotiation, has a significant impact on their ability to achieve integrative solutions.
1020
1021 Negotiators will use language to communicate back and forth.
1022          
1023A.  What are the characteristics of language with which we should be most interested.
1024
1025 1     Language operates at two levels: the logical level (for proposals or offers) and the  pragmatic level (semantics, syntax, and style).  The statements can be a combination of a logical, surface statement and one or more pragmatic messages.
1026
1027    The researchers Gibbons, Bradac, and Busch suggest that threats can be made more credible and more compelling by negatively polarized descriptions of the other party and his or her position.
1028
1029    No matter the intent, how parties communicate in negotiation would seem to depend on the ability of the speaker to encode thoughts properly, as well as on the ability of the listener to understand and decode the intended message(s).
1030
1031B.  Be aware of the use of  nonverbal communication such as attending behaviors.
1032
10331. Attending behaviors let the other know that you are listening and prepare the other party to receive your message.  There are three important attending behaviors:
1034
1035a)     Make eye contact.
1036
1037b)   Adjust body position.
1038
1039c)   Nonverbally encourage or discourage what the other says.
1040
1041 G.  The question is how can we improve our communications in negotiations?
1042
1043 1. The first way is by the use of questions. These clarify communication and eliminate noise and distortion.
1044
10452. Questions enable negotiators to secure information about the other side's position, supporting arguments and needs.
1046
10473. Nierenberg (1976) proposed that  questions could be divided  into two basic categories: Manageable and  unmanageable questions
1048
1049Manageable questions cause attention or prepare the other person's thinking for further questions.  For example " May I ask you a question?"
1050
1051 Unmanageable questions cause difficulty, give information and have the effect of bringing the discussion to a false conclusion. For example " Don't you think that we have talked about that enough?"
1052
1053 H.    .Finally we get to the final topic that I want to cover about this chapter.. It is important and is about listening.  We need to understand passive listening which   involves receiving a message and getting no feedback to the sender about the message.
1054
1055Active listening  occurs when receivers  are actively listening to a message. They can restate or  rephrase the message in their own language or words. It is a type of reflective responding.
1056
1057Remember that communication can be improved by a means of role reversal. Trying to look at the position of the other from his or her position may be a useful tool for improving communication.
1058
1059     Remember in your negotiations, to avoiding making fatal mistakes, like saying too much and not knowing when to shut up.
1060
1061----------
1062
1063CHAPTER 8
1064
1065FINDING AND USING NEGOTIATION POWER
1066
1067 Now that we have covered such topics as Perception, and Communication, we can look at power in negotiations.  By power, I mean the capability that you, as a negotiator, have to create an advantage in your negotiations or, as the least to increase your probability of achieving your goal or objectives. The tactics of distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation are leverage tactics—tactics used to exert influence over the other party in the service of achieving the best deal for one or both parties. 
1068
1069A.   Seeking power in negotiation usually arises from one of two perceptions: 
1070
10711.     The negotiator believes he or she currently has less power than the other party. 
1072
10732.     The negotiator believes he or she needs more power than the other party to increase the probability of securing a desired outcome.
1074
1075 B.    Embedded in these two beliefs are significant questions of tactics and motives.
1076
1077 1.     Tactics may be designed to enhance the negotiator’s own power or to diminish the other’s power, and to create a state of either power equalization or power difference. 
1078
10792.     The motive questions relate to why the negotiator is using the tactics.
1080
1081C.    Negotiators employ tactics designed to create power equalization or minimize the other party’s ability to dominate the relationship. 
1082
1083Now that we are introduced to the power issues in this chapter, we might ask how power is to be used. 
1084
1085 1.     Power used to dominate and control the other:   Such power might make  the other party feel inferior.
1086
1087 2.     Power can also be used to work together with the other. When used this way, the receiver would experience this power as empowering. 
1088
1089The next question to ask is about the sources of power by negotiators   In general there are about five major types of power.  Expert power, Reward power, Coercive Power, Legitimate Power and Referent Power.
1090
1091D.   The major sources of these powers are embedded into five different  groupings: 
1092
10931.     Informational sources of power. The ability to assemble and organize facts in support of his or her position. 
1094
10952.     Power based on personality and individual differences.
1096
1097a) The negotiator's moral orientations to a given situation can guide behavior.
1098
1099b)  Cognitive orientation –  Our text suggests that there are three  ideological frames, shaping expectations about what one should pay attention to, how events will evolve, and how one should engage situations of power:
1100
1101(1)  The unitary frame:  Characterized by beliefs that society is an integrated whole and that the interest of individuals and society are one.
1102
1103(2)  The radical frame:  Characterized by beliefs that society is in a continual clash of social, political and class interests.
1104
1105(3)  The pluralist frame: characterized by beliefs that power is distributed relatively equally across various groups which compete and bargain for a share of the power.
1106
11073.     Power based on position in an organization (structural power).
1108
1109a)  Legitimate power.
1110
1111(1)  Derived from occupying a particular job, office, or position in an organizational hierarchy.
1112
1113(2)  Legitimate power is at the foundation of our social structure.
1114
1115(3)  People can acquire legitimate power in several ways.
1116
1117(a)  It may be acquired at birth.
1118
1119(b)  It may be acquired by election to a designated office
1120
1121   (c) It may is derived simply by appointment or promotion to some organizational position some legitimate authority comes to an individual who occupies a position for which other people simply show respect
1122
1123(4)  The effectiveness of formal authority is derived from the willingness of followers to acknowledge the legitimacy of the organizational structure and the system of rules and regulations that empowers its leaders.
1124
1125(5)  It is also possible to apply the notion of legitimacy to certain social norms or conventions that exert strong control over people:
1126
1127(a)  The legitimate power of reciprocity
1128
1129(b)  The legitimate power of equity
1130
1131(c)  The legitimate power of responsibility or dependence
1132
1133b)  Resource power control 
1134
1135(1)   People who control resources have the capacity to give them to someone who will do what they want and withhold them (or take them away) from someone who doesn’t do what they want. 
1136
1137(2)   Important organizational resources include:
1138
1139(a)  Money, in its various forms.
1140
1141(b)  Supplies.
1142
1143(c)  Human capital.
1144
1145(d)  Time.
1146
1147(e)  Equipment.
1148
1149(f)  Critical services.
1150
1151(g)  Interpersonal support.
1152
1153(3)   The ability to control and dispense resources is a major power source in organizations. But remember, that creating stress for workers, in imposing deadlines and increasing workloads is not resource of organizational context.
1154
1155(4)   Power also comes from creating a resource stockpile in an environment where resources appear to be scarce.
1156
1157(5)   Resources are generally deployed in one of two principal ways: as rewards and as punishments. 
1158
1159(6)  To use resources as a basis for power, negotiators must develop or maintain control over some desirable reward that the other party wants or control over some punishment the other seeks to avoid.
1160
11614.     Power based on location in a network.
1162
1163a)  Another major type of structural power comes from location in an organizational structure, but not necessarily a hierarchical one. In this case, power is derived from critical resources that flow through a particular location.
1164
1165b)  Networks – comes from location in an organizational structure, but not necessarily a hierarchical structure.
1166
1167(1)  Power is derived from whatever flows through that particular location in the structure individuals can become powerful because of the way that their actions and responsibilities are embedded in the flows of information, goods and services, or contacts.
1168
1169(2)  Through information and resources as the primary focus of transactions, personal relationships, referent power, and “pressure” may also be negotiated across network lines.
1170
1171(3)  Several key aspects of networks shape power:
1172
1173(a) Tie strength – An indication of the strength or quality of relationships with others.
1174
1175(b) Tie content – Content is the resource that passes along the tie with the other person.  The more the content, the stronger the relationship, and the more trust and respect created for each other.
1176
1177(c) Network structure – the overall set of relationships within a social system.
1178
1179(i)   Centrality
1180
1181(ii)  Criticality and relevance
1182
1183(iii) Flexibility
1184
1185(iv) Visibility
1186
1187(v)  Membership in a coalition.
1188
11895.     Power based on relationships.
1190
1191a)    Goal interdependence – How the parties view their goals—and how much achievement of their goal depends on the behavior of the other party—has a strong impact on how likely parties will be to constructively use power.
1192
1193b)   Referent power – Referent power is often based on an appeal to common experiences, common past, common fate, or membership in the same groups.  It is made salient when one party identifies the dimension of commonality in an effort to increase their power (usually persuasiveness) over the other. 
1194
11956.     Contextual sources of power.
1196
1197a)    Power based in the context, situation, or environment in which negotiations take place.
1198
1199(1)  BATNAs.
1200
1201(a) The availability of a BATNA offers a negotiator significant power because she now has a choice between accepting the other party’s proposal or the alternative deal.
1202
1203(2)  Culture.
1204
1205(a) Culture is a system of basic assumptions, norms, and/or common values that individuals in a group or organization share about how to interact with each other, work together, deal with the external environment, and move the organization into the future.
1206
1207(b)   Culture often shapes what kinds of power are seen as legitimate and illegitimate or how people use influence and react to influence.
1208
1209(c) National cultures also differ in the degree to which these “power over” or “power with” orientations are supported or encouraged.
1210
1211(d)   Culture—both organizational and national—often translates   into deeply embedded structural inequalities in a society.
1212
1213(3)  Agents, constituencies and external audiences.
1214
1215(a) Negotiations become significantly more complex when negotiators are representing others’ views.
1216
1217 What happens when unequal power is exerted?
1218
1219 1.   Differences in power and in level of interdependence between the parties can lead to significantly different conflict orientations and behaviors.
1220
1221 2.   Parties with equal power are more likely to engage in cooperative behavior, while parties with unequal power are more likely to behave contentiously, using threats, punishments, and exploitative behavior.
1222
1223 3.   The more powerful party in the relationship has the capacity to determine the negotiation outcome (regardless of source of power), but does not necessarily use that power. Powerful parties may actually decide to withhold the use of that power, knowing that if they use it, the low power party will be less involved in creating the outcome, less satisfied with their role in shaping it, and less committed to implementing and enforcing it without constant oversight and monitoring.
1224
1225 What you should do in a situation where the other has more power? 
1226
12271.   Never do an all-or-nothing deal. 
1228
12292.   Try to reduce the power of the other party or make him smaller. 
1230
1231 3.   Attempt to make yourself bigger in any way that you can. 
1232
1233 4.   Build momentum by making small deals in the early stages of negotiations. 
1234
1235 5.    Use the power of competition to leverage power.  If you have several parties, attempt to get an agreement from one or more parties.
1236
1237  6.   Seek as much information as possible to strengthen you case. 
1238
1239  7.    Ask many questions to gain more information.
1240
1241 E.    Do what you can to manage the process. Try to suggest the agenda or other procedural steps in the negotiation.
1242
1243-------------------------
1244
1245Chapter 9
1246
1247Influence
1248
1249  Now that we have discussed the use of power in negotiations, we can look at how negotiations can be affected by influence.  During negotiations, actors frequently need to convince the other party that (1) they have offered something of value;  (2) their offer is reasonable;  and (3) they cannot offer more.  Negotiators may also want to alter the other party’s beliefs about the importance of his own objectives and convince him/her that his concessions are not as valuable as he first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently.  All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the other party’s positions, perceptions, and opinions. We will classify all these tactics as influence.
1250
1251 I.      Paths to increase your influence 
1252
12531.  First route:  Consciously integrating the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures.
1254
12552.  Second route:  Persuasion, which we call the peripheral route, is characterized by subtle cues and context, with less cognitive processing of the message. Such messages are likely to last a shorter time than by central route persuasion.
1256
1257 II.    The Central Route to influence:  How to make the Message more acceptable
1258
12591.     Make the offer attractive to the other party.
1260
12612.     Frame the message so the other party will say “yes.”
1262
12633.     Make the message normative.
1264
12654.     Suggest an “agreement in principle.”
1266
12675.     Keep in mind that there are one and two-sided messages.
1268
1269a)   One-sided – Dealing with a problem by ignoring arguments and opinions that might support the other party’s position.
1270
1271b)   Two-sided – An approach to ignoring the competition by mentioning and describing the opposing point of view, and then show how and why it is less desirable than the presenter’s point of view.
1272
12736.     Message components.  Keep in mind that you can break up your arguments into smaller understandable pieces to make them more acceptable.
1274
12757.     Repetition - keep repeating the message
1276
1277 III.   How Best to pitch your message
1278
1279         1.     Encourage active participation.
1280
1281 a)  People are more likely to change their attitudes and beliefs for the long term when they are actively involved in the process of learning new material.
1282
1283 2.     Use vivid language and metaphors.  Using metaphors and analogies are a particularly useful way to elevate the vividness of a message.
1284
1285 3.     Use threats to incite fear in the other party.
1286
1287 4.     Violate the receiver’s expectations by arguing a position thought to be counter to their own self-interest. This could be more persuasive to the other party.
1288
1289 IV.   The Peripheral  Routes to Influence
1290
1291 1.     Message order:  Remember that the first item on a long list of items is most likely to be remembered.  The same is true of the last item.
1292
1293 2.     Format:  Remember to format your presentation in a way that can be easily remembered.
1294
1295 3.     Distractions. Think about using distractions to counter the other party 's  ability to develop counterarguments.   In oral argument, have some charts and graphs which can be handed to the other party which can occupy their thinking and  reduce their ability to develop counter arguments.
1296
12974.  Keep in mind some source characteristics that foster peripheral influence.
1298
1299 a)  Source credibility can be influenced, by their age, their occupation, how they are perceived by the other party and also by their educational background.  Other influences include their expertise in the subject, their reputation for integrity.
1300
1301b)  Persistence and tenacity can be useful in creating influence.  Using persistence doesn't mean pursing your goals blindly and rigidly but by displaying new methods to pursue your objective.
1302
1303c)   Source/Personal attractiveness.
1304
1305(1)  People are less likely to feel that attractive negotiators will be dishonest or attempt to coerce them; more likely to accept their influence, believe them, and trust them.
1306
1307(2)  The following tactics are some of the many ways that an individual can enhance his or her personal attractiveness to a target of influence or a negotiating opponent.
1308
1309d)   Authority.
1310
1311(1)  People with authority have more influence than those without authority.
1312
1313(2)  The principle of authority can be used in many ways.
1314
1315(i)  The use of a title, such as doctor or professor, gives the user more authority and thus more influence.
1316
1317(ii) Authority is more than position; it can further lead to attributions of expertise.
1318
1319(3)  Researchers have distinguished between two broad uses of authority in influence-seeking.
1320
1321(i)  Authority based on one’s personal expertise or credibility.
1322
1323(ii) Authority based on a person’s legitimate position an existing social hierarchy.
1324
1325 V.    Aspects of context that foster peripheral influence.
1326
1327 1.     Reciprocity.
1328
1329a)     The norm of reciprocity suggests that when you receive something from another person, you should respond in the future with a favor in return.
1330
1331b)    The norm of reciprocity plays an important role in negotiations. Negotiators give concessions and expect concessions in return.
1332
1333c)     A negotiator can counter the effects of the norm of reciprocity by refusing all favors in a negotiation setting, though it may cause more problems than it resolves.
1334
13352.     Commitment.
1336
1337a)    Commitment relies heavily on the common need that people have to appear consistent, both to themselves and to others.  Commitment in a negotiation is usually incremental.  Agreement to innocuous statements early in the negotiation may be used as a foundation for further and further concessions.
1338
1339 3.     Social proof.
1340
1341a)     The principle of social proof suggests that people look to others to determine the correct response in many situations. This principle suggests that people often behave in certain ways because everyone else is doing so.
1342
13434.     Scarcity.
1344
1345a)     The principle of scarcity suggests that when things are less available, they will have more influence.
1346
1347b)    In negotiation situations, the scarcity influence strategy may be operating whenever there appears to be a great demand for a product.
1348
1349         5.    Use of reward and punishment.   
1350
1351a)  These resources can be used in at least two major ways:
1352
1353(1)  Negotiators can use exchange—the process of offering resources or favors (promises and assistance) to secure the other’s compliance and cooperation.
1354
1355(2)  Negotiators can use this power by applying pressure—that is, by the threat to withdraw resources from the other party.
1356
1357 V.     The Role of Receivers – Targets of Influence
1358
1359         A.   Understanding the other’s perspective.
1360
13611.  Exploring or ignoring the other’s position.
1362
1363a)     It is very much to your advantage to understand what the other party really wants, how things look to him, and how he developed his position. This can lead to a greater understanding as to why the other party is trying to persuade you to think or act in a certain manner.
1364
13652.  Selective paraphrase – paraphrasing ensures that both parties have understood each other accurately. If you haven’t understood the other party, then he/she has the opportunity to correct you. 
1366
1367 3.   Reinforce points you like in the other party’s proposal by acknowledging and supporting points that they make in their presentation.
1368
1369B.    Resisting the other’s influence.
1370
13711.  Have a BATNA and know how to use it – To use a BATNA effectively, a negotiator must assess the other party’s awareness that it exists and, if necessary, share that fact.  BATNAs should be improved before and during a negotiation to enhance leverage.  When was a Real Estate Broker, I encouraged  my clients to have a back-up home in mind, in case the offer that we were making was not accepted.  This way, I could let the seller know that if the offer was not accepted as presented, the buyers' would go elsewhere.
1372
1373 2. Make a public commitment – One of the most effective ways to get someone to stand firm on a position is to have him make a public commitment to that position.
1374
13753.   Inoculate yourself against the other party’s arguments.
1376
1377a)  There are three approaches for inoculating against the arguments of other parties:
1378
1379(1)    Prepare supporting arguments for your position only.
1380
1381(2)  Develop arguments against your position only and then develop counterarguments.
1382
1383(3) Develop arguments both for your original position and against your position, and then develop counterarguments to refute both (this is a combination approach)
1384
1385----------------------
1386
1387Chapter 10
1388
1389Relationships in Negotiation
1390
1391  Now that we have covered issues such as perception, communications and influence as they pertain to negotiations, we can focus on past and future relationships as they impact possible future negotiations.  Then we will look at how reputations, trust and justice affect how we conduct future negotiations.   In this chapter we will focus on how these past and future relationships impact
1392
1393I.      Forms of Relationships
1394
1395A.    There are four fundamental relationship forms 
1396
13971.     Communal sharing is a relation of unity, community, collective identity, and         kindness, typically enacted among close kin.  In this form, the parties are more cooperative and empathetic.
1398
13992.     Authority ranking is a relationship of asymmetric differences, commonly exhibited in a hierarchical ordering of status and precedence, often accompanied   by the exercise of command and complementary displays of deference and          respect.
1400
1401 3.     Equality matching is a one-to-one correspondence relationship in which people are distinct but equal, as manifested in balanced reciprocity (or tit-for-tat       revenge), equal share distributions or identical contributions, in-kind replacement         compensation, and turn-taking.
1402
1403 4.     Market pricing is based on an (intermodal) metric of value by which people       compare different commodities and calculate exchange and cost/benefit ratios.”
1404
1405 II.      How reputation, trust and justice plays a role in Managing Negotiations
1406
1407A.    Research has identified several important aspects of reputation.
1408
1409 1.   Reputation is a based upon demonstrated behaviors and intended images           preserved over time, as observed directly or as reported from secondary sources.
1410
1411B.    Trust
1412
1413 1.  Calculus-based trust is concerned with assuring consistent behavior.  It holds     that individuals will do what they say because:
1414
1415a)    they are rewarded for keeping their word and preserving the relationship with others, or
1416
1417b)    they fear the consequences of not doing what they say.
1418
14192. Identification-based trust:  trust exists because the parties effectively      understand and appreciate each other’s wants; this mutual understanding is     developed to the point that each can effectively act for the other.
1420
1421 3. Trust is different from distrust  ̶  If trust is considered to be confident positive expectations of another’s conduct, distrust is defined as confident negative expectations of another’s conduct.
1422
1423 4.  Trust repair.
1424
1425a)     Since trust and positive negotiation processes and outcomes appear to be so       critical, we should comment on ways that broken trust can be repaired in    order to return negotiations toward a more productive direction.
1426
1427b)     Recent research has shown that there are three major strategies that a trust         violator can use to repair trust.
1428
1429(1)  Verbal accounts – use of words or emotional expressions in an effort     to repair the violation.
1430
1431(2)  Reparations – payment of compensation to the victims for the    consequences suffered from the violator.
1432
1433  (3) Structural solutions – make the effort to create rules, regulations, and        procedures to minimize the likelihood of violation in the future.
1434
1435  C.    Justice.
1436
14371.     Justice can take several forms:
1438
1439a)     Distributive justice is about the distribution of outcomes.
1440
1441b)     Procedural justice is about the process of determining outcomes.
1442
1443c)     Interactional justice is about how parties treat each other in one-to-one  relationships.
1444
1445d)     Systemic justice is about how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the norms that develop for how they should be treated.
1446
1447 2.     The issue of fairness is beginning to receive some systematic investigation in        negotiation dynamics.  Being involved in the process and establishing an     "objective standard" for fairness will have a positive effect on negotiations and    will result in greater satisfaction with the outcome of negotiations.
1448
1449 3.     Justice issues are also raised when individuals negotiate inside their        organizations, such as to create a unique or specialized set of job duties and responsibilities.
1450
1451 4.     Rather than making things more fair, negotiated exchanges may serve toemphasize the conflict between actors who are blind to their own biases and          inclined to see the other party’s motives and characteristics in an unfavorable      light. Although we have identified these forms of justice as separate entities, theyare often intertwined.
1452
1453D.    Relationships among reputation, trust and justice.
1454
14551.   Trust, justice, and reputation are all central to relationship negotiations and feed  each other.
1456
1457 E.     Repairing a relationship.
1458
14591.    Consider the following diagnostic steps in beginning to work on improving          relationships:
1460
1461a)   What might be causing any present misunderstanding, and what can I do to       understand it better?
1462
1463b)   What might be causing a lack of trust, and what can I do to begin to repair trust that might have been broken?
1464
1465c)    What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced, and what can I do to put the focus on persuasion rather than coercion?
1466
1467d)     What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected, and what can I do to demonstrate acceptance and respect?
1468
1469e) What might be causing one or both of us to get upset, and what can I do to balance emotion and reason
1470-------------------
1471
1472Chapter 11
1473
1474Agents, Constituencies, Audiences
1475
1476 Now that we covered the basic concepts involved in the negotiation process, we can move beyond simple one-to-one negotiations and add other parties to the process.  If we are acting or negotiating on behalf of another party, we become agents in the process. So we are not necessarily presenting our own issues and interests, but may be representing the views of others who may or may not be at the table. This situation is called an agency relationship.
1477
1478 We examine the ways that negotiations change when negotiators are representing the interests of others rather than arguing for their own interests. Within this larger context, individuals and groups attempt to exert both direct and indirect pressures on negotiators to advocate their interests. A second dimension of complexity, therefore, is the type of influence strategies that negotiators use, and the different types of influence attempts that occur as the number of parties increases.
1479
1480I.      The Number of Parties in a Negotiation
1481
1482A.    Dyad.
1483
1484 1.     The simplest negotiation form is a negotiating dyad. This structure occurs when two isolated individuals—negotiators—negotiate for their own needs and interests.
1485
1486 B.    Intra-team.
1487
1488 1.     Negotiation can also occur within or between teams of negotiators.  A team is two or more parties on the same side who are collectively advocating the same positions and interests.
1489
1490 C.    Agents and constituencies.
1491
1492 1.     Agents act not only for themselves but also for others. We will describe the negotiator as an agent (also called a principal) and the individuals he or she is representing as a constituent.
1493
14942.     A constituent is one or more parties who have designated someone else (the agent) to represent their positions and interests in a negotiation.
1495
1496 D.    Bystanders, audiences, and third parties.
1497
14981.     Bystanders are those who may have some stake in a negotiation and who care about the substantive issues or the process by which a resolution is reached, but are not formally represented at the table.
1499
1500 2.     An audience is any individual or group of people who are not directly involved in or affected by a negotiation, but who have a chance to observe and react to the ongoing events and who may at times offer input, advice or criticism.
1501
1502 3.     Third parties may be drawn into the negotiation specifically for the purpose of helping to resolve it.
1503
1504II.     How Agents, Constituents, and Audiences Change Negotiations
1505
1506 A.    Audiences: Team members, constituents, bystanders and others.
1507
15081.     Types of Audiences.
1509
1510a)     One form of audience is the additional team members who are present with the negotiator at the deliberations.
1511
1512b)     Another type of audience is a constituency – one or more parties whose interests, demands, or priorities are being represented by the focal negotiator at the table.
1513
1514c)     A third type of audience is composed of external bystanders and observers.
1515
1516 2.     Characteristics of audiences.
1517
1518a)     Audiences vary according to whether they are physically present at or absent from the negotiation. They may or may not be dependent on the negotiators for the desired result. They can be directly involved in the negotiations and can give feedback to the negotiators.
1519
15203.     Audiences make negotiators “try harder.”
1521
1522a)    Remember that the presence of an audience increases negotiator aspirations—that is, the negotiators “try harder” when they know they are being watched.
1523
1524 4.     Negotiators seek a positive reaction from an audience.
1525
1526a)     An audience increases aspirations because negotiators try to impress them in order to receive a beneficial evaluation. When audiences become directly involved in the negotiation, the complexity of the negotiation increases.
1527
1528 5.     Pressures from audiences can push negotiators into “irrational” behavior.
1529
1530a)   This has several important implications for understanding the power of an audience over a negotiator.
1531
1532(1) First, the subjects did not know the specific identity of anyone in the  audience.
1533
1534(2) A second finding was that some students retaliated against the other party even when there was no audience present. This suggests that the opposing negotiator may act as an audience as well.
1535
1536(b)  Face-saving dynamics can also occur when audiences are only indirectly involved.
1537
1538         6.     Audiences hold the negotiator accountable.
1539
1540a)     Audiences maintain control over negotiators by holding them accountable for their performance and by administering rewards or punishments based on that performance. This accountability occurs under two dominant conditions:
1541
1542(1)  when a negotiator’s performance is visible to the audience and the
1543
1544B.    Tactical implications of social structure dynamics:  The negotiator’s dilemma.
1545
1546 1.     The presence of an audience creates a paradox for negotiators because of two sets of pressures.
1547
1548  a)     One set comes from the constituency and team, leading the agent to be tough, firm, unyielding, and supportive of the constituency’s demands.
1549
1550    b)     The other set comes from the opposing negotiator and calls upon the negotiator to be flexible, conciliatory, and willing to engage in give-and-take.
1551
15522.     The basic dilemma, then, is to determine how negotiators can satisfy both the constituency’s demands for firmness and the other party’s demand for concessions. The answer is that negotiators must build relationships with both the constituency and the other party.
1553
1554 III.   Advice to Agents on Managing Constituencies and Audiences
1555
1556 A.    Clarify the role expectations and performance contract – Agent roles can be complex and they can function as a bargainer, an advocate, a mediator, or a fact-finder.
1557
1558B.    Clarify authority to make agreements – Agents should also clarify how much authority they have to accept the opposing negotiator’s offer without consulting the constituents.
1559
1560 C.    Manage constituency visibility – Negotiators can control both the visibility of their behavior and the communication process by employing tactics that appear to enhance their commitment to their bargaining position.
1561
1562 1.     Limit one’s own concessions by making negotiations visible to the     constituency.
1563
1564 2.     Use the constituency to show militancy.
1565
1566 3.     Use the constituency to limit one’s own authority.
1567
1568 4.     Use great caution in exceeding one’s authority.
1569
1570 5.     Increase the possibility of concession to the other negotiator by          reducing visibility to constituencies.
1571
1572a)     Establish “privacy” prior to the beginning of negotiation.
1573
1574b)     Screen visibility during negotiations.
1575
1576c)     Be aware of time pressure.
1577
1578 6.     Establish a reputation for cooperation. Remember that words used  to express a common fate are often referred to as " harmony-and-light speech"
1579
1580 D.    Communicate indirectly with audiences and constituents
1581
1582 1.     Communicate through superiors.
1583
1584 2.     Communicate through intermediaries. This communication can be used when negotiations are in an impasse situation.
1585
1586E.     Communicate directly to the other party’s constituency.
1587
15881.     One agent seeks to bypass the other party and communicate directly with his or her constituency to persuade those involved to change their position or the instructions they are giving their representative.
1589
1590 2.     The agent attempts to eliminate the intermediary and communicate directly with the other’s constituency.  This could be viewed as an inflammatory tactic.
1591
1592F.     Communicate directly to bystanders.
1593
1594 1.     Communication through bystanders may occur.
1595
15962.     Communication through audiences—particularly the media—is extremely common in major inter-organizational negotiations such as intergovernmental, international, or labor–management relations.
1597
1598 3.     Communication through the media can also be used to reach one’s own constituency to let them know the exact elements of one’s negotiating posture.
1599
1600 4.     Communication may also be designed to activate and win over interested audiences who will communicate directly with the other party.
1601
1602  G.    Build relationships with audiences, constituents, and other agents.
1603
1604 1.   Negotiators should try to develop personal relationships with the other party. The assumption is that it is easier to work with and persuade a friendly counterpart than an unfriendly one.
1605
16062.   The better the relationship between an agent and other agents, the more the final agreement will represent long-term interests rather than short-term gains.
1607
1608 3.    Informal meetings between negotiators can have several benefits.
1609
1610IV.   When to Use an Agent
1611
1612 A.    You can see the Table 11.1 on page 300 to determine the conditions under which you can employ an agent, and when to negotiate on your own.
1613
1614 V.    Managing Agents
1615
1616 A.   Here are some principles managing agents to follow in managing agents, , particularly those attempting to achieve an integrative outcome:
1617
1618 1.     Check out the agent’s credentials and qualifications.  Interview them, find out their experience, check references, and decide whether you and the agent are compatible.  Obviously, you would not use an agent when you have a damaged relationship.
1619
1620 2.     Spend time getting to know the agent.  Make sure that your “contract” with the agent and your expectations are clear.
1621
1622 3.     At the outset, the agent should have no authority to make a binding commitment any substantive issues
1623 
1624 ----------------------
1625 
1626 Chapter 12
1627
1628Coalitions
1629
1630Now that we have covered the possible involvement of agents, constituencies and audiences in the negotiation process, we can begin to look at three situations that involve multiple parties. For this chapter and the next we need to focus on situations where multiple (more than two) parties are negotiating with one another, with each party striving to achieve their own individual objectives
1631
1632 I.      What is a Coalition? 
1633
1634A.    Coalition possess the following attributes:
1635
1636  1.     Are interacting groups of individuals.
1637
16382.     Are deliberately constructed and issue orientated.
1639
1640 3.     Exist independent of formal structure.
1641
1642 4.     Lack formal structure.
1643
1644 5.     Focus on a goal(s) external to the coalition.
1645
1646 6.     Require concerted member action.
1647
1648B.    Types of Coalitions – Cobb (1986) points out that there are several different types of coalitions:
1649
1650 1.     A potential coalition is an emergent interest group.
1651
1652a)     Latent coalitions are emergent interest groups that have not yet formed into operation coalition.
1653
1654b)     Dormant coalitions are interest groups that previously formed but are currently inactive.
1655
1656 2.     An operating coalition is one that is currently operating, active, and in place.
1657
1658a)     Established coalitions are relatively stable, active, and ongoing across an indefinite time span.
1659
1660b)     Temporary coalition operates for a short time and is usually focused on a single issue or problem.
1661
16623.     Recurring coalitions are ones that may have started as temporary but then determine that the issue or problem does not remain resolved; hence the members need to remobilize themselves every time the presenting issue requires collective attention in the future.
1663
1664II.     How and Why Coalitions Form and Develop
1665
1666 A.    When do coalitions form?
1667
1668 1.     Coalitions form all the time.
1669
1670 2.     Coalition formation can be analyzed in different ways.
1671
1672a)     Coalitions have been studied within a variety of social science disciplines, including economics, sociology, psychology, and political science (among others).
1673
1674B.    How do coalitions develop?
1675
1676 1.     Coalitions start with a founder who initiates the coalition.  There are two key propositions that affect the founder’s ability to build a coalition. Having extensive networks and setting up early coalitions that are likely to be small.
1677
16782.     Coalitions build by adding one member at a time.
1679
16803.     Coalitions need opportunities to form and grow.
1681
1682 4.     Coalitions need to achieve critical mass.
1683
1684a)     Coalitions continue to grow through pairwise discussions and matching processes. At some point, they reach a "joining threshold" a level in which a minimum number of people are on board.
1685
16865.     Coalitions exclude members – not just add them.
1687
16886.     Weak ties can be strong.
1689
1690 7.     Many successful coalitions form quietly and disband quickly.
1691
1692III.   Standards for Coalition Decision Making
1693
1694 A.    Coalition decision rules.
1695
1696 1.     Coalition decision rules emphasize the criteria that parties will use to determine who receives what from the results of the coalition’s efforts. Decision rules tend to parallel three standards of fairness: equity, equality, and need.
1697
1698 2.     Those advocating an equity standard argue that anyone who contributed more should receive more, in proportion to the magnitude of the contribution.
1699
1700 3.     Those advocating an equality standard argue that everyone should receive the same, and those advocating a need standard argue that parties should receive more in proportion to some demonstrated need for the resource.
1701
1702B.    Power and leverage in coalitions.
1703
1704 1.     How is power related to coalition formation?
1705
1706a)     Strategic power depends on the availability of alternative coalition partners.
1707
1708b)     Normative power has no strategic function.
1709
1710c)     Relationship-based power is shaped by the compatibility of preferences between two or more parties.
1711
1712C.    How to build coalitions: Some practical advice.
1713
1714 1.     Think about a strategy of empowerment and positive politics in organizations.
1715
1716 2.     Enlightened self-interest occurs when people:
1717
1718a)     Pursue activities that have meaning to themselves and to others.
1719
1720b)     Are needed.
1721
1722c)     Genuinely contribute to the organization and its purpose.
1723
1724d)     Act with integrity and tell the truth about what they see happening.
1725
1726e)     Treat others well and have a positive impact on them.
1727
1728f)      Strive to be as good and productive as they can at what they do.
1729
1730 3.     Parties who pursue enlightened self-interest are likely to use authentic tactics with others. Authentic tactics require parties to do the following:
1731
1732a)     Say no when they mean no.
1733
1734b)     Share as much information as possible.
1735
1736c)     Use language that describes reality.
1737
1738d)     Avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance.
1739
17404.  Parties can think about other prospective coalition members in five possible roles:
1741
1742a)     Allies are parties who are in agreement with a negotiator’s goals and vision, and whom the negotiator trusts.
1743
1744b)     Opponents are people with whom a negotiator has conflicting goals and objectives, but who can be trusted to be principled and candid in their opposition.
1745
1746c)     Bedfellows are parties with whom a negotiator has high agreement on the vision or objectives, but low to moderate levels of trust.
1747
1748d)     Fence sitters are parties who will not take a stand one way or the other on a given issue.
1749
1750e)     The last group is adversaries; with an adversary, negotiators are low in agreement and low in trust
1751 
1752 -----------------------
1753
1754Chapter 13
1755
1756Multiple Parties, Groups, and Teams in Negotiation
1757
1758As we did in Chapter 12, we continue to analyze various situations that involve multiple parties. We will look at multiple parties who are negotiating with one another and attempting to achieve a collective or group consensus and with team or group decision making as a process of multiparty negotiation.  So in some cases, we are looking at negotiations involving teams on one side working against teams on the other side.  In other words, no individual negotiations are involved.
1759
1760 I.      The Nature of Multiparty Negotiations
1761
1762Multiparty negotiation is defined as one where more than two parties are working together to achieve a collective objective.  We have multiparty negotiations going on at the table.  There can be more issues, and more perspectives on issues and more total information that may be introduced.
1763
1764 1.     There is social complexity in these situations.  The dynamics of small group interaction can play a role.  There may be social pressures for the group to act cohesively, but the members of the group may be in conflict with each other which prevents cohesive action. When leaders push member to agree when they do not want to express their real feelings, this hesitancy can lead to an illusion of consensus in which each party believes that he is the only dissenting member of the group.
1765
17662.     There can be procedural complexity in that the process that they have to follow is more complicated.
1767
17683.     There can be logistical complexity if there is physical distance between the  members of the group, and how much trust the parties have with each other.
1769
1770 a)   There can be strategic complexity in that the negotiator must consider the strategies of all the other parties at the table and decide whether to deal with each of them separately or as a group.
1771
17724.  The question then is what constitutes an effective group?  Research shows that effective groups and their members do some of the following procedures:  They test assumptions and inferences; they share information; they focus on interests and not positions that they have taken;   and most importantly, they explain their reasons behind one's statements, their questions, and the answers they provide.  Schwartz (1994) suggests that effective groups and their embers do the following things:
1773
1774 a.  They must agree on what important words mean. They must disagree openly with any members of the group, figure out jointly ways to test disagreements and solutions.  Finally they must conduct a self-critique of the ongoing discussions.
1775
1776 II.    Managing Multiparty Negotiations
1777
1778 1.    The pre-negotiation stage.  This state is characterized by a lot of informal contact among the parties.
1779
1780 a.     Participants – the parties must agree on who is going to be invited to the talks.
1781
1782 2.     Coalitions exist before negotiations begin or for coalitions to organized in anticipation of the meeting of all the parties.
1783
1784 3.     Defining group member roles – Group members can play a number of different roles in a group.  Three types of roles that members can play—
1785
1786a)     Task roles, which move the group along toward a decision or conclusion;
1787
1788b)     Relationship roles, which manage and sustain good relationships between group members; and
1789
1790c)     Self-oriented roles, which serve to bring attention to the individual group member, often at the expense of group effectiveness.
1791
1792 4.     Understanding the costs and consequences of no agreement.
1793
1794a)     In multiparty negotiations, the perceptual biases that negotiators are prone to, are likely to affect negotiators by inflating their sense of power and ability to win—leading them to believe that the no-agreement alternative is much better than it really is.
1795
1796 5.     Learning the issues and constructing an agenda.
1797
1798a)     There are many reasons why an agenda can be an effective decision aid:
1799
1800(1)  It establishes the issues that will be discussed.
1801
1802(2)  Depending on how the issues are worded, it can also define how each issue is discussed.
1803
1804(3)  It can define the order in which issues are discussed.
1805
1806(4)  It can be used to introduce process issues as well as substantive issues, simply by including them.
1807
1808(5)  It can assign time limits to various items, thereby indicating the importance of the different issues.
1809
1810 6.    The formal negotiation stage – managing the group process and outcome.
1811
1812 a.     Appoint an appropriate chair.  Be sure that you are  familiar with the Connect Model and the Requirements for building a relationship  in Table 13.2 on page 418
1813
1814 b.     Use and restructure the agenda.
1815
1816c.     Ensure a diversity of information and perspectives.
1817
18181)     This will take effective management of the process of sharing diverse views to achieve an effective sharing of a diversity of views. Researchers have suggested that there are four group-member roles that may be useful during this information management phase: scouts, ambassadors, coordinators, and guards.
1819
1820 d.     You need to ensure consideration of all the available information to the members of the group.  But group norms can undermine an effective discussion, especially if there is unwillingness to tolerate conflicts points of view.
1821
1822 e.     There are several group decision-making and brainstorming techniques that are frequently used to achieve this objective.
1823
18241)     The Delphi technique – a moderator structures an initial questionnaire and sends it out to all parties, asking for input.
1825
18262)     Brainstorming – parties are instructed to define a problem and then to generate as many solutions as possible without criticizing any of them.
1827
18283)     Nominal group technique – typically follows brainstorming. 
1829
18307.     To manage conflict effectively the group must generate many ideas and approaches to a problem which may create conflict. But the leader must not allow such potential conflict to either disrupt the information flow or create personal animosity.
1831
1832 8.   The leaders must strive for a first agreement. Attempt to get consensus or the best quality solution. But negotiators should not try to active consensus all at once.
1833
1834 9.   To manage problem team members you can use some of the following tactics for dealing with problem team members:
1835
1836a)   Be specific about the problem behavior—offer clear, specific examples.
1837
1838b)   Phrase the problem as one that is affecting the entire team, rather than just you.
1839
1840c)     Focus on behaviors the other can control.
1841
1842d)    Wait to give constructive criticism until the individual can truly hear and accept it.
1843
1844e)     Keep feedback professional. Use a civil tone and describe the offending behavior and its impact specifically.
1845
1846f)      Make sure the other has heard and understood your comments.
1847
1848 III.    The agreement phase.
1849
1850 1.    During the agreement stage, the parties must select among the alternatives on the table.
1851
1852 2.   Researchers have suggested that there are four key problem solving steps that might occur during the agreement phase.
1853
1854a)     Select the best solution.
1855
1856b)     Develop an action plan.
1857
1858c)     Implement the action plan.
1859
1860d)     Evaluate outcomes and the process.
1861
1862 3.   What you can do if you are the chair to help achieve a consensus.
1863
1864a)     Move the group toward selecting one or more of the options.
1865
1866b)     Shape and draft the tentative agreement.
1867
1868c)     Discuss whatever implementation and follow-up or next steps need to occur.
1869
1870d)     Thank the group for their participation, their hard work, and their efforts.
1871
1872e)     Organize and facilitate the postmortem.
1873
1874IV.   Interteam Negotiations
1875
1876 1.    Only a small number of research studies have investigated inter-team negotiations issues.  We summarize the findings in five broad areas.
1877
1878 a. Intergroup negotiations produce better outcomes than negotiations between individuals.
1879
1880 b. At the same time, team-on-team negotiations are sometimes more competitive and better at claiming-valuing dynamics.
1881
1882 c.   Accountability pressures are different for negotiators representing teams compared to individuals.
1883
1884 d.   When negotiating as a team, negotiators must also manage within-team dynamics.
1885
1886 e.  The relationship and attitude among team members affects negotiation process and outcomes.
1887
1888 
1889Chapter 14
1890
1891Individual Differences I:
1892
1893Gender and Negotiation
1894
1895Now that we have completed our discussions of negotiations involving multiple parties, it is now time to focus on some of the individual differences that has received more attention from negotiation researchers than any other: gender differences.  Our examination of gender differences, which some might prefer to call sex differences, will begin by distinguishing between the terms sex and gender. We will then examine research on gender differences in negotiation. This will involve, first, a review of theoretical perspectives on why one might expect differences. We then look at the empirical research evidence. There have been some exciting new research developments in this area in the last few years, giving us a clearer picture of the underlying psychology of gender in negotiation.
1896
1897 I.      Defining Sex and Gender
1898
1899 A.    Sex refers to the biological categories of male and female.
1900
1901 B.    Gender refers to cultural and psychological markers of the sexes—the aspects of role or identity (rather than biology) that differentiate men from women in a given culture or society.
1902
1903 C.    Most of the empirical research on male/female differences in negotiation has examined sex differences, but has posited theoretical aspects of gender to account for differences found.
1904
1905 D.    The trend seems to be for negotiation researchers to rely predominantly on the term gender.
1906
1907II.    Research on Gender Differences in Negotiation
1908
1909 A.    Male and female negotiators: Theoretical perspectives.
1910
1911 1.   Scholars writing on this subject have argued that several important factors affect how women and men approach negotiations.
1912
1913a)     Relational View of Others – Women are more aware of the complete relationship among the parties who are negotiating and are more likely to perceive negotiation as part of the larger context within which it takes place than to focus only on the content of the issues being discussed
1914
1915b)     Embedded View of Agency – Other researchers have argued that women tend not to draw strict boundaries between negotiating and other aspects of their relationships with other people but instead see negotiation as a behavior that occurs within relationships without large divisions marking when it begins and ends.
1916
1917c)     Beliefs about Ability and Worth – One possible explanation for gender differences in salary negotiation outcomes is that women are more likely to see their worth as determined by what the employer will pay
1918
1919d)     Control through Empowerment – Women and men perceive and use power in different ways.
1920
1921e)     Problem Solving through Dialogue – Women and men use dialogue in different ways. Women “seek to engage the other in a joint exploration of ideas whereby understanding is progressively clarified through interaction”; they also alternatively listen and contribute, and this results in “the weaving of collective narratives that reflect newly-emerging understanding”
1922
1923f)      Perceptions and Stereotypes – Negative stereotypes about female bargainers shape expectations and behaviors by both men and women at the negotiating table.
1924
1925B.    Empirical findings on gender differences in negotiation.
1926
1927 1.     Men and women conceive of negotiations in different ways.
1928
1929a)     How conflict is framed:  Relationship versus task orientation – Women were more likely to perceive conflict episodes in relationship terms, whereas males were more likely to perceive the task characteristics of conflict episodes.
1930
1931b)     Some researchers contend that women learn, quite early, that competing and inning against a man can threaten his socially defined masculinity.
1932
1933c)     Is the situation perceived as a negotiation opportunity?  Research evidence suggests that there are significant differences between men and women in their propensity to negotiate.
1934
1935d)     Outcome expectations.  Evidence suggests that women expect lower outcomes from a negotiation.
1936
1937 2.     Men and women communicate differently in negotiation.
1938
1939a)     Research examined how men and women perceive communication behaviors that occur during negotiations, and found that women perceived male behavior as more assertive than men did. The important implication here is that the same behavior may elicit significantly different perceptions and reactions depending on the gender of the other party who is the target/ perceiver of the behavior.
1940
1941b)     Differences in perceptions of communication may translate into differences in behavioral style and strategy when negotiating.
1942
19433.     Men and women are treated differently in negotiation.
1944
1945a)     Automobile negotiations.
1946
1947(1)  Men and women are treated differently  during car negotiations. 
1948
1949(2)  Research has found that offers for cars that negotiators received from the car dealers differed significantly depending on the negotiators’ gender and race.
1950
1951b)   Salary negotiations.
1952
1953(1)Research has found that males received a higher monetary payoff for negotiating their salary than did females, even though men and women were equally likely to negotiate.
1954
1955 4.     Similar tactics have different effects when used by men versus women.
1956
1957a)     Exchange tactics – Research has found that women using the same negotiation tactic that men used were less successful than men.
1958
1959b)     Aggressive tactics – Other researchers have found that both male and female job candidates were less likely to be hired when they bargained aggressively.  However, females were 3.5 times less likely to be hired when aggressive.
1960
1961 5.     Gender stereotypes affect negotiator performance.
1962
1963a)     Stereotypes undermine the performance of female negotiators – When stereotype threat is activated—by telling negotiators that the bargaining task is diagnostic of one’s ability as a negotiator—women do worse because of the negative stereotypes that are active, and men do better because of the positive stereotypes in play.
1964
1965b)     The negative effect of stereotypes about gender differences can be overcome.
1966
1967c)     The activated stereotype may matter more than the actual gender of the negotiator—Some researchers have found that more powerful negotiators obtained higher outcomes when a masculine stereotype—one that stressed that aggressiveness and self-interest were important for negotiator success—was explicitly activated.
1968
1969C.    Overcoming the disadvantage of gender differences.
1970
1971  1.     Motivational interventions.
1972
1973a)     Female negotiators may have to work to juggle impression management motivations along with outcome motivations, and they may therefore accept lower outcomes than males.
1974
1975
1976b)     Explicitly connecting gender stereotypes to negotiation outcome has been shown to erase gender differences in performance and in some cases, even led women to outperform men.
1977
1978 2.     Cognitive interventions.
1979
1980 a)     Research shows that such mindsets make a difference in behavior: power becomes action.
1981
1982b)     This is include focusing on things that negotiators have in common that transcend gender.
1983
1984   3.    Situational interventions.
1985
1986a)     Power differences may well be responsible for many of the differences observed between male and female negotiators.
1987
1988b)     Overcoming gender differences may require diluting structural imbalances of power in negotiation situations.
1989
1990
1991Chapter 15
1992-----------------------------
1993
1994Individual Differences II:
1995
1996Personality and Abilities
1997
1998This week we will continue to focus on individual differences that have an effect on negotiations.   We will concentrate on two major categories of individual differences: (1) dimensions of personality that appear to have an influence on negotiation, and (2) the role of native abilities in negotiation, including cognitive ability and the relatively new domain of emotional intelligence.
1999
2000I.      Personality and Negotiation 
2001
2002A.    Conflict management style.
2003
2004 1.     Researchers have proposed that personality dimensions can represent these two levels of concern:
2005
2006a)     The degree of assertiveness that a party maintains for his or her own preferred solutions or outcomes.
2007
2008b)     The degree of cooperativeness a party shows toward working with the other party to achieve their mutual goals.
2009
2010 2.     Research has identified five major conflict management styles.
2011
2012a)     Competing style—high on assertiveness and low on cooperativeness.
2013
2014b)     Accommodating style—low on assertiveness and high on cooperativeness.
2015
2016c)     Avoiding style—low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
2017
2018d)     Collaborating style—high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
2019
2020e)     Compromising style—moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
2021
20223.   Other Research has supported the premise that conflict management styles in a given situation result both from the strategic choices an individual makes and from individual tendencies to use certain styles regardless of the situation.
2023
2024 4.   Conflict style tendencies might lead to particular behaviors, given certain kinds of conflict situations.
2025
2026 B.    Social value orientation.
2027
2028 1.     Social value are preferences that people have regarding the kinds of outcomes  they prefer in social settings where interdependence with others is present.
2029
2030a)     Some people have a pro-self or egoistic orientation – they are primarily concerned with personal outcomes and unconcerned with outcomes obtained by the other party.
2031
2032b)     Others have a prosocial or cooperative orientation – a preference for outcomes that benefit both self and others with whom they are interdependent.
2033
2034 2.     Negotiation is clearly an example of the kind of social interdependence where these social value orientations can play a role.  Prosocial negotiators achieve more integrative outcomes (higher joint gain) than pro-self negotiators.
2035
2036 3.     Prosocial versus egoistic motives in negotiation can be rooted either in stable individual differences (a reliable tendency to act that way) or in elements of a particular situation.
2037
2038C.    Interpersonal trust.
2039
2040 1.     One of the fundamental dilemmas in negotiation is the degree to which negotiators should trust the other party.
2041
2042 2.     The trustworthiness of the other party may change over time.
2043
2044 3.     One researcher has defined interpersonal trust as “a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, oral, or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon.”
2045
2046 4.     Interpersonal trust is determined by the experiences that people have in dealing with others.
2047
20485.     The implications for negotiation of a dispositional tendency to trust others are significant.
2049
2050 6.     There is a “self-fulfilling prophecy” aspect to dispositional trust. Someone with high interpersonal trust is likely to approach the other person, in attitude and style, in a way that communicates trust.
2051
2052 D.    Self-efficacy and locus of control.
2053
2054 1.     Self-efficacy is considered to be a critical aspect of mastering complex interpersonal skills, such as those involved in negotiation.
2055
2056 2.     Locus of control is defined as the extent to which people perceive that they have control over events that occur.
2057
2058a)     Those who attribute the cause of events to external reasons have a high external locus of control.
2059
2060b)     Those who attribute the cause of events to internal reasons have a high internal locus of control.
2061
2062 E.     Self-monitoring.
2063
2064 1.     Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which people are aware of and responsive to the social cues that come from one’s social environment
2065
2066a)     High self-monitors are attentive to external, interpersonal information that arises in social settings and are more inclined to treat this information as cues to how they should behave.
2067
2068b)     Low self-monitors are less attentive to external information that may cue behavior and are guided more in their behavioral choices by inner, personal feelings.
2069
2070 2.     Empirical findings indicate that self-monitoring is an important individual difference that influences negotiation.
2071
2072 F.     Machiavellianism.
2073
2074 1.     Those scoring high in Machiavellianism (high Machs) tend to be cynical about others’ motives, and are more likely to behave unaltruistically and unsympathetically toward others, and less willing to change their convictions under social pressure.
2075
2076 2.     Research has found that low Machs change their negotiation style as a function of the Machiavellianism of the other negotiator.
2077
2078 G.    Face threat sensitivity.
2079
2080 1.     The concept of “face” refers to the value people place on their public image or reputation.
2081
2082 2.     Some of us are by disposition more susceptible to reacting in a negative way to threats to face.
2083
2084 3.     Researchers have explored how face threat sensitivity (FTS) might work as an element of the personality of negotiators. Face is important in negotiation, they argue, because threats to one’s image will make a negotiator competitive in a situation that might otherwise benefit from cooperative behavior.
2085
2086 H.    Epistemic Motivation.
2087
2088 1.  Psychologists use the term epistemic motivation to describe an individual’s “desire to develop and hold a rich and accurate understanding of the world, including the negotiation problem at hand.
2089
2090 2.  Epistemic motivation matters in negotiation because the situation can be complex, and people don’t always have all of the information they need about the other party .
2091
2092 3.  Personality traits that catalyze epistemic motivation—a willingness to seek out and process novel information—are generally quite helpful to negotiators facing complex situations with integrative potential.
2093
2094  I.    The “Big Five” personality factors include :
2095
2096 1.     Extraversion – being sociable, assertive, talkative.
2097
2098 2.     Agreeableness – being flexible, cooperative, trusting.
2099
2100 3.     Conscientiousness – being responsible, organized, achievement oriented.
2101
2102 4.     Emotional stability – being secure, confident, not anxious.
2103
2104 5.     Openness – being imaginative, broad-minded, curious.
2105
2106II.   Abilities in Negotiation
2107
2108 A.    Cognitive ability.
2109
21101.     Cognitive ability refers to “a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.”
2111
21122.    Cognitive ability has been shown to influence reasoning processes, decision-making, information processing capacity, learning, and adaptability to change, particularly in novel or complex situations.
2113
2114 B.    Emotional intelligence.
2115
2116 1.     Emotional intelligence is defined as encompassing a set of discrete but related abilities:
2117
2118a)     the ability to perceive and express emotion accurately.
2119
2120b)     the ability to access emotion in facilitating thought.
2121
2122c)     the ability to comprehend and analyze emotion, and
2123
2124d)     the ability to regulate appropriately one’s own emotions and those of others
2125
2126 2.     Negotiators high in EI may be better able to use emotions to influence the negotiation outcome—part of a process that is  referred to as emotional tuning.
2127
2128 C.    Perspective-taking ability.
2129
2130 1.     The ability to take the other person’s perspective should enable negotiators to prepare and respond to the other party’s argument.  Such ability to understand the other party’s point of view during a negotiation and thereby predict the other party’s strategies and tactics, is especially important during integrative negotiation.
2131
2132 2.     Distributive negotiators who better understand the resistance point of the other party will have a strategic advantage during negotiations.
2133
2134 3.     Negotiators who understand the other party’s perspective will be more likely to form arguments that convince the other party and should also be more likely to find an agreement that satisfies the other party.
2135
2136 D.    Cultural ability.
2137
21381.  One thing researchers have learned is that people differ in their ability to adapt to culturally diverse situations. This is called “cultural intelligence” (CQ), which captures cognitive, motivational, and behavioral tendencies which play out in intercultural interactions. For instance, the cognitive aspect of CQ refers to how an individual acquires and uses knowledge of cross-cultural differences (and similarities).
2139
2140 2.  The impact of CQ on intercultural negotiation was investigated by a pair of researchers in 2010..
2141
2142a)   The survey revealed that people high in CQ were more likely to be cooperatively oriented (a prosocial orientation) and to have a desire to accurately understand their surroundings (high epistemic motivation).
2143
2144b)   In their second study, the researchers paired American and East Asian students in a negotiation simulation with integrative potential showing that CQ is a “key predictor of intercultural negotiation effectiveness.”
2145
2146III.   An Alternative Approach:  Studying successful negotiators
2147
2148A.    Multiple approaches have been used to study the behavior of successful negotiators, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses.
2149
2150 1.     Comparing superior and average negotiators in actual negotiations.
2151
21522.     Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in simulated negotiations.
2153
21543.     Comparing experienced and naïve negotiators in simulated negotiations.
2155
21564.     Studying high-profile negotiators who offer an alternative to social sciences.
2157
2158 B.    In the most comprehensive study comparing superior and average negotiators in actual negotiations they studied labor relations negotiators in 102 actual negotiation sessions.  They found important differences between superior and average negotiators during pre-negotiation planning, face-to-face negotiations, and post-negotiation review.
2159
2160 C.    There is no ideal method for studying expert negotiators.  The most appropriate approach may be a combination of laboratory studies and fieldwork, be it the same study or across experiments.
2161 
2162 ------------------------
2163 Chapter 16
2164International and Cross-Cultural Negotiation
2165
2166Now that we have covered most of the aspects of individual and group dynamics which are involved in negotiations, we can now turn our attention to international negotiations. We need to      discuss environmental factors which we can call (macropolitical  factors.) and the immediate context (micro strategic factors )
2167
2168
2169In this chapter, we first discuss some of the factors that make international negotiation different, including both the environmental context (macropolitical factors) and the immediate context (microstrategic factors).
2170
2171 I.      International negotiation:  Art and Science
2172
2173 International negotiations are much more complex than domestic negotiations but challenge the negotiators to understand the science of negotiation while developing their artistry.
2174
2175 1.     The science of negotiation provides research evidence to support broad trends that often, but not always, occur during negotiation.
2176
2177 2.     The art of negotiation  is deciding which strategy to apply when and choosing which models and perspectives to apply to increase cross-cultural understanding.
2178
2179 II.    What Makes International Negotiations Different?
2180
2181 A.    Environmental context.
2182
2183 1.     Political and legal pluralism.
2184
2185a)     Implications for the taxes that an organization pays, the labor codes or standards that it must meet, and the different codes of contract law and standards of enforcement.
2186
2187b)     Political considerations may enhance or detract from the conduct of business negotiation in various countries at different times.
2188
2189 2.     International economics.
2190
2191a)     We need to understand that the risk is typically greater for the party who must pay in the other country’s currency as a result of any international negotiation  result.
2192
2193b)     Any change in value of a currency (upward or downward) can significantly affect the value of the deal for both parties.
2194
2195 3.     Foreign governments and bureaucracies.
2196
2197a)     Firms in the United States are relatively free from government intervention, although some industries are more heavily regulated than others (e.g. power generation, defense) and some states have tougher environmental regulations than others.
2198
2199 4.     Instability.
2200
2201a)     Instability may take many forms, including:
2202
2203(1)  A lack of resources that Americans commonly expect during business negotiations (paper, electricity, computers);
2204
2205(2)  Shortages of other goods and services (food, reliable transportation, potable water);
2206
2207(3)  Political instability (coups, sudden shifts in government policy, major currency revaluation).
2208
2209 5.     Ideology.
2210
2211a)     As we all will agree,  Americans believe strongly in:
2212
2213(1)  Individual rights.
2214
2215(2)  The superiority of private investment.
2216
2217(3)  The importance of making a profit in business.
2218
2219 6.     Culture.
2220
2221a)     According to one researcher,  people in some cultures approach negotiations deductively (they move from the general to the specific) whereas people from other cultures are more inductive (they settle on a series of specific issues that become the area of general agreement).
2222
2223
22247.     External stakeholders.
2225
2226a)     Keep in mind that some stakeholders   include organizations such as:
2227
2228(1)  Business associations.
2229
2230(2)  Labor unions.
2231
2232(3)  Embassies.
2233
2234(4)  Industry associations.
2235
2236 B.    Immediate context.
2237
2238 1.     Let's talk about relative bargaining power.
2239
2240 a)     Joint ventures have been the subject of a great deal of research on cross-border negotiations, and relative power has frequently been operationalized as the amount of equity (financial and other investment) that each side is willing to invest in the new venture.
2241
2242b)     The presumption is that the party who invests more equity has more power in the negotiation and therefore will have more influence on the negotiation process and outcome.
2243
2244 2.     Levels of conflict.
2245
2246a)     High-conflict situations, or conflicts that are ethnically based,  or geographically based, will be more difficult to resolve.
2247
2248 3.     Relationship between negotiators.
2249
2250a)     Negotiators are part of the larger relationship between two parties.
2251
2252 4.     Desired outcomes.
2253
2254a)     Tangible and intangible factors will play a large role in determining the outcomes of cross-borders negotiations.
2255
2256 5.     Immediate stakeholders.
2257
2258a)     Immediate stakeholder negotiations include:
2259
2260(1)  Managers.
2261
2262(2)  Employers.
2263
2264(3)  Boards of directors
2265
2266b)   Skills, abilities, and international experience of the negotiators themselves clearly can have a large impact on the process and outcome of cross-border negotiations.
2267
2268 III.  Conceptualizing Culture and Negotiation
2269
2270 A.    Culture as learned behavior.
2271
2272 1.     The first approach to understanding the effects of culture concentrates on documenting the systematic negotiation behavior of people in different cultures.
2273
2274 2.     Rather than focusing on why members of a given culture behave in certain ways, the pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts approach concentrates on creating a catalogue of behaviors that the foreign negotiator should expect when entering a host culture.
2275
2276 B.    Culture as shared values.
2277
2278 1.     The second approach concentrates on understanding the central values and norms of  a culture and then building a model for how these norms and values influence negotiations within that culture.
2279
2280 2.     I am sure that most of the class, if not the entire class, have studied  the work of  Geert Hofstede who has made his mark by doing research on cultural dimensions. He has developed a theory that involves 4 cultural dimensions when working in the international context.. These four dimensions can  be used to describe the important differences among the cultures in the study: individualism/collectivism, power distance, career success-quality of life, and uncertainty avoidance.
2281
2282a)     Individualism/collectivism.
2283
2284(1)  This dimension describes the extent to which a society is organized around individuals or the group. 
2285
2286(2)  Individualistic societies encourage their young to be independent and to look after themselves.
2287
2288(3)  Collectivistic societies integrate individuals into cohesive groups that take responsibility for the welfare of each individual.
2289
2290b)   Power distance.
2291
2292(1) The power distance dimension describes “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1989).
2293
2294(2) Cultures with low power distance are more likely to spread the decision making throughout the organization, and while leaders are respected, it is also possible to question their decisions.
2295
2296c)   Career success/quality of life.
2297
2298(1) Cultures promoting career success were characterized by “the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people.”
2299
2300(2) Cultures promoting quality of life were characterized by concern for relationships and nurturing.
2301
2302d)   Uncertainty avoidance.
2303
2304(1) Uncertainty avoidance “indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations.”
2305
2306(2) Some researchers have  specified a limited number of cultural values that could be used to understand differences between cultures, and two of them have been applied to international negotiations:
2307
2308(i)    Communication context – In this context it is argued  that cultures can be differentiated on the basis of whether they engage in low- or high-context communication.
2309
2310(ii)  Time and space – refers to differences between cultures in how they relate to, manage, and schedule events.
2311
2312e)   The culture-as-shared-value perspective provides explanations for why cross-cultural negotiations are difficult and have a tendency to break down.
2313
2314 C.    Culture as dialectic.
2315
23161.     The third approach to using culture to understand global negotiation  recognizes that, among their different values, all cultures contain dimensions or tensions that are called dialectics.
2317
23182.     According to researchers,  the culture-as-dialectic approach has advantages over the culture-as-shared-values approach because it can explain variations within cultures.
2319
2320 3.     Recent theoretical work  provides a similar way to examine the effects of culture on negotiation but through examining cultural metaphors rather than dialectics. Cultural negotiation metaphors help people understand things that happen in negotiation and “make sense” of them.
2321
2322 D.    Culture in context.
2323
2324 1.     Proponents of the fourth approach to using culture to understand negotiations across borders recognize all behavior may be understood at many different levels simultaneously, and a social behavior as complex as negotiation is determined by many different factors, one of which is culture.
2325
2326 2.     Some researchers have  proposed cultural complexity theory in which they suggest that cultural values will have a direct effect on negotiations in some circumstances and a moderated effect in others.
2327
2328 3.     The culture-in-context models are becoming more and more complex in order to explain nuanced differences in cross-cultural negotiations, thus are becoming less useful for practitioners.
2329
2330 IV.   The Influence of Culture on Negotiation: Managerial Perspectives
2331
2332 A.    Definition of negotiation.
2333
2334 1.     The fundamental definition of negotiation, what is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate can differ greatly across cultures.
2335
2336 B.    Negotiation opportunity.
2337
23381.     Cross-cultural negotiations will be influenced by the extent that negotiators in different cultures have fundamental agreement or disagreement about whether or not the situation is distributive or integrative.
2339
2340 C.    Selection of negotiators.
2341
2342 1.     Different cultures weigh the criteria to select negotiators differently, leading to varying expectations about what is appropriate in different types of negotiations.
2343
2344D.    Protocol.
2345
23461.     Cultures differ in the degree to which protocol, or the formality of the relations between the two negotiating parties, is important.
2347
2348E.     Communication.
2349
2350 1.     Cultures influence how people communicate, both verbally and nonverbally. There are also differences in body language across cultures.
2351
2352F.     Time Sensitivity.
2353
2354 1.     Other cultures have quite different views about time.
2355
2356 2.     The opportunity for misunderstandings because of different perceptions of time is great during cross-cultural negotiations.
2357
2358G.    Risk propensity.
2359
23601.     Negotiators in risk-oriented cultures will be more willing to move early on a deal and will generally take more chances.
2361
23622.     Those in risk-avoiding cultures are more likely to seek further information and take a wait-and-see stance.
2363
2364H.    Groups versus individuals.
2365
23661.     The United States is very much an individual-oriented culture, where being independent and assertive is valued and praised.
2367
2368 2.     Group-oriented cultures, in contrast, favor the superiority of the group and see individual needs as second to the group’s needs.
2369
2370 I.       Nature of agreements.
2371
2372 1.     Cultural differences in how to close an agreement and what exactly that agreement means can lead to confusion and misunderstandings.
2373
2374J.      Emotionalism.
2375
2376 1.     Culture appears to influence the extent to which negotiators display emotions.  These emotions may be used as tactics, or they may be a natural response to positive and negative circumstances during the negotiations.
2377
2378 V.     The Influence of Culture on Negotiation: Research Perspectives
2379
2380 A.    Effects of culture on negotiation outcomes.- two approaches
2381
2382a)     Intra-cultural ‒ researchers compared the outcomes of the same simulated negotiation with negotiators from several different cultures who only negotiated with other negotiators from their own culture.
2383
2384b)     Cross-cultural ‒ researchers investigated this by comparing negotiation outcomes when negotiators negotiated with people from the same culture with outcomes when they negotiated with people from other cultures.
2385
2386B.    Effects of culture on negotiation process and information exchange.
2387
2388 1.     One researcher demonstrated how individualism/collectivism influenced negotiation planning: Negotiators from a more collectivist culture (Taiwan) spent more time planning for long-term goals, while negotiators from a more individualistic culture (the United States) spent more time planning for short-term goals.
2389
2390 2.     Another group found  that there were considerable difference in direct information sharing. Negotiators from the United States were found to be most likely to share information directly. In addition, they found that while U.S. and Japanese negotiators both maximized their joint gains, they took different paths to do so.
2391
2392a.      direct information exchange.
2393
2394b.     indirect information exchange.
2395
2396 3.     One researcher found that cultural differences  led to different communication patterns in intracultural negotiations, with negotiators from low-context cultures tending to use direct communication while negotiators from high-context cultures used more indirect communication.
2397
2398 C.    Effects of culture on negotiator cognition.
2399
2400 1.     Researchers are working to understand how culture influences the way that negotiators process information during negotiation and how this in turn influences negotiation processes and outcomes.
2401
2402a)     Gelfand and Realo (1999) found that accountability to a constituent influenced negotiators from individualistic and collectivistic cultures differently.
2403
2404b)     Gelfand, Nishii, Holcombe, Dyer, Ohbuchi, and Fukuno (2001) suggest that there are some universal ways of framing conflict (e.g., compromise-win) but there are also significant culturally specific ways.
2405
24062.     Another way to explore the influence of culture on negotiator cognition is to examine the extent to which well-known cognitive effects identified in Western cultures occur in other cultures.
2407
2408 3.     Gelfand and Christakopoulou (1999) found that negotiators from an individualistic culture (the United States) were more susceptible to fixed-pie errors than were negotiators from a more collectivist culture.
2409
2410 D.    Effects of culture on negotiator ethics and tactics.
2411
24121.     Researchers have recently turned their attention to examining ethics and negotiation tactics in cross-cultural negotiations by exploring the broad question of whether negotiators in different cultures have the same ethical evaluation of negotiation tactics.
2413
2414E.     Effects of culture on conflict resolution.
2415
24161.     Research findings suggest that culture has important effects on several aspects of negotiation, including planning, the negotiation process, information exchange, negotiator cognition, negotiator perceptions of ethical behavior, and preferences for conflict resolution.
2417
2418VI.  Culturally Responsive Negotiation Strategies
2419
2420A.    Several factors suggest that negotiators should not make large modifications to their approach when negotiating cross-culturally, however:
2421
24221.     Negotiators may not be able to modify their approach effectively.  It takes years to understand another culture deeply, and negotiators typically do not have the time necessary to gain this understanding before beginning a negotiation.
2423
2424 2.     Even if negotiators can modify their approach effectively, it does not mean that this will translate automatically into a better negotiation outcome.
2425
2426B.    Recent research findings have provided some specific advice about how to negotiate cross-culturally. This research  suggests that during preparation, negotiators should concentrate on understanding three things.
2427
2428 1.     Their own biases, strengths, and weaknesses.
2429 
24302.     The other negotiator as an individual.
2431
24323.     The other negotiator’s cultural context.
2433
2434C.    It is likely that  culturally responsive strategies may be arranged into three groups, based on the level of familiarity (low, moderate, high) that a negotiator has with the other party’s culture. Within each group there are some strategies that the negotiator may use individually (unilateral strategies) and others that involve the participation of the other party (joint strategies).
2435
24361.     Low familiarity.
2437
2438a)     Employ agents or advisers (unilateral strategy).
2439
2440b)     Bring in a mediator (joint strategy).
2441
2442c)     Induce the other party to use your approach (joint strategy).
2443
24442.     Moderate familiarity.
2445
2446a)     Adapt to the other party’s approach (unilateral strategy).
2447
2448b)     Coordinate adjustment (joint strategy).
2449
24503.     High familiarity.
2451
2452a)     Embrace the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy).
2453
2454b)     Improvise an approach (joint strategy).
2455
2456Chapter 17
2457
2458Managing Negotiation Impasses
2459
2460Now that we have covered the basics of negotiation strategies and looked at the various complications that can occur when there are multiple parties in the room, we can turn our attention to negotiations that are difficult to resolve.  We must look at the nature of impasses—what makes negotiations intractable—and discuss four elements that make negotiations difficult to resolve.  This means that we need to look at (1) the parties, (2) the negotiation setting, (3) the types of issues, and (4) the conflict management process.
2461
2462 At the end of this chapter we will explore fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that cause negotiation impasses and what strategies are available to resolve impasses and get negotiations back on track.
2463
2464I.      The Nature of “Difficult-to-Resolve” Negotiations and Why They Occur
2465
2466 A.    Impasses occur when the parties are unable to create mutually advantageous deals that satisfy their aspirations and expectations.  Remember that Impasses are not necessarily bad or destructive and are not permanent in nature.  They can be tactical or genuine and only with respect to parts of the negotiation.
2467
2468 B.    What are some of the causes of impasses in negotiations?
2469
2470 1. Divisiveness – the degree to which the conflict divides people, where they are “backed into a corner” and can’t escape without losing face.
2471
24722.Intensity – the level of participant involvement, emotionality, and commitment in a conflict.
2473
24743.Pervasiveness – the degree to which the conflict invades the social and private lives of people.
2475
24764. Complexity – the number and complexity of issues, the number of parties involved, the levels of social systems involved in the conflict, and the degree to which it is impossible to resolve one issue without resolving several others simultaneously.
2477
2478C.    What are some of the characteristics of  difficult issues?
2479
24801.     Value issues
2481
24822.     High stakes distributive bargaining.
2483
24843.     Risks to human health and safety
2485
2486D.    What are the characteristics of the parties where impasses might occur?
2487
2488 1.     Sometimes, it might originate because of the way parties define themselves..
2489
2490 2.     Sometimes, it might be because of the way parties compare themselves to others.
2491
2492 3.     When one party perceives that they have more power than the other.
2493
2494 4.     It might occur out of revenge or anger.
2495
2496 5.     It also might occur because of a conflict in management styles.  Parties avoid conflict by aggressive avoidance or by passive avoidance.
2497
2498 E.     Let's take a look at the characteristics of the negotiation environment.
2499
2500 1.     It is important that negotiators clearly understand what they are negotiating because this may be different for both parties
2501
2502 a)     Sometimes impasses can occur in the renegotiation of existing agreements. These can include post-deal negotiations, intra-deal negotiations and extra-deal negotiations..
2503
2504 2.     While all three types of renegotiations can lead to impasse, extra-deal negotiations have the largest probability of doing so because they are generally the result of a large shift in the environment that has a much larger effect on one party than the other.
2505
2506 a)      Negotiations can reach impasses on Temporal issues, Relational issues and Cultural issues.
2507
2508II.    Fundamental Mistakes That Cause Impasses
2509
2510 A.    There are six fundamental mistakes that negotiators make that can derail the negotiation process and result in impasses.
2511
2512 1.     Neglecting the other side’s problem.
2513
2514 2.     Too much of a focus on price.
2515
25163.     Positions over interests.
2517
2518 4.    Too much focus on common ground.
2519
2520 5.     Neglecting BATNAs.
2521
2522 6.     Adjusting perceptions during the negotiation.
2523
2524B.    Another mistake that negotiators make during negotiations is that they do not proactively manage the negotiation process itself.
2525
2526 1.     A major reason negotiations are not successful is that negotiators fail to manage what they have labeled the shadow negotiation; a negotiation about the negotiation process that occurs within the substantive negotiation.
2527
25282.     Economic issues may derail the negotiations.
2529
25303.     Emotions may determine their reaction to the other party or parties.
2531
2532III.  How to Resolve Impasses
2533
2534 A.    Managing impasses need to be resolved on three levels:
2535
2536 1.     There can be a cognitive resolution changing the way parties view the situation.
2537
2538 2.     There can be an emotional resolution – involves changing how parties feel about the impasse and the other party.
2539
25403.     Or there can be a behavioral resolution in which the parties address what people will do in the future and how agreements they make about the future will be realized. 
2541
2542B.    Agreement on the rules and procedures to avoid impasses
2543
2544 1.     Establishing ground rules for the negotiation which might include the following steps:  
2545
2546a, Determining a neutral  site for a meeting
2547
2548b. Setting a formal agenda and agreeing to abide by the agenda.
2549
2550c. Determining who might attend the meetings.
2551
2552d. Set time limits for individual meetings
2553
2554e. Establishing procedural rules, i.e. who may speak and for how long.
2555
2556f. Establish dos and don'ts for behavior.  No personal attacks
2557
2558C.    Impasses may be resolved by reducing tension and synchronizing de-escalation.
2559
2560 1.    You can separate the parties –Keep them in separate rooms.
2561
2562 2.     Keep tensions to a minimum.
2563
2564 3.     Acknowledging the other’s feelings:  Work on Active listening
2565
2566 D.     Improve the accuracy of communication so that both parties accurately understand the other’s position. Attempt role reversal and imagining the position of the other.
2567
2568 E.     Sometimes, impasses can be controlled by fractionating the negotiation.
2569
2570 F.     Try to establish common ground between the parties.
2571
2572 1.     For example, identify any common enemies of both parties.
2573
25742.     Managing time constraints and deadlines.
2575
25763.     Reframe the parties’ view of each other
2577
25784.     Build trust between the parties
2579
25805.     Search for semantic resolutions and language that both sides understand.
2581
2582a)     Use analogical reasoning.  Employ the use  of analogies which might help to reframe intractable conflict.
2583
2584G.    Enhancing the desirability of options to the other party.
2585
2586 1.     Give the other party a “yes-able” proposal.
2587
25882.     Ask for a different decision.
2589
25903.     Sweeten the offer rather than intensifying the threat.
2591
25924.     Use legitimacy or objective criteria to evaluate solutions.
2593
2594Chapter 18
2595
2596Managing Difficult Negotiations
2597
2598 In this chapter, we continue to look at difficult negotiations.  We will explore situations where parties are using different models to guide their negotiation because they have diagnosed the situation differently or possess different levels of negotiation sophistication.  It is believed that many negotiators are less familiar with collaborative negotiation and use it less frequently than they should.
2599
2600 Negotiators always run the risk of encountering other parties who, for any number of reasons, are difficult negotiators.  That difficulty may be intentional or negotiators who have inadequate skill sets.
2601
2602I.    Managing the Shadow Negotiation and Social Context.
2603
2604 A.    The shadow negotiation occurs in parallel with the substantive negotiation and is concerned with how the negotiation will proceed.
2605
2606 B.    The result of this ongoing shadow negotiation is a social contract regarding how the negotiation will proceed, who has influence and power, and what the boundaries of the negotiation are.
2607
2608 1.     The social contract and shadow negotiation are concerned with what the negotiation is about and how decisions are made.
2609
2610 C.    There are  three strategic levers available to help people navigate the shadow  negotiation:
2611
2612 1.     Power moves – designed to bring reluctant bargainers back to the table.  There are three kinds of power moves: incentives, pressure tactics, and the use of allies.
2613
2614 2.     Process moves – designed to alter the negotiation process itself through adjustments to the agenda, sequencing, decision rules, and the like.
2615
2616 3.     Appreciative moves – designed to break cycles of contentiousness that may have led to deteriorating communication, acrimony, or even silence.
2617
2618II.     Responding to the Other Side’s Hard Distributive Tactics
2619
2620 A.    Hard tactics – the distributive tactics that the other party uses in a negotiation to put pressure on negotiators to do something that is not in their best interest.
2621
2622 B.    As a party managing a negotiation mismatch, you can respond to these tactics  by calling on them to quit it, ignoring them or responding in kind.  You can also offer to change methods to produce more productive results.
2623
2624  III.  Responding to Irrationality
2625
2626A.  One of the more challenging negotiation situations occurs when the other party appears to be completely irrational. The key to managing this situation is to understand why they are acting that way.  Sometimes, he/she may simply be doing that as a hard bargaining tactic.  Or they may be simply uniformed, may have hidden constraints or have hidden issues.
2627
2628IV.  Responding When the Other Side Has More Power
2629
2630 A.    When dealing with a party with more power, negotiators have at least four alternatives. 
2631
2632 1.They can protect themselves, cultivate their best alternative to a negotiated settlement, in words, a BATNA
2633
2634 2. formulate a "trip wire alert system which would be an early warning signal that they need to seriously consider the walk away option
2635
26363.  Their BATNA.
2637
26384. They can try to correct the power imbalance by getting third parties to manage the transfer and balance of power.
2639
2640 V.    The Special Problem of Handling Ultimatums
2641
2642 A.    Ultimatums by one party, typically have three components:  1) a demand, 2) an attempt to create a sense of urgency, to effect compliance with the demand, and 3) a threat of punishment if compliance does not occur.
2643
2644 B.    An exploding offer has a specific time limit or deadline attached to it, forcing the other party to decide on a less-than-attractive offer or run the risk of going without anything.  Such offers have several components including a clear symmetry of power between the parties, a pressure inducing test of faith for the receiver.  These types of offers show a lack of respect for the offeree.
2645
2646 C.    The strategic logic of this type of ultimatum often involves either an attempt to force a premature agreement, an attempt to limit the other party from comparison shopping among competing offers or other possible BATNA.
2647
2648VI.   Responding To Anger
2649
2650 A.    Anger and the threat of anger in negotiation can be very intimidating.  Anger is a fundamental human emotion to which everyone can relate.  Managing angry people in negotiation is not only challenging, but it can also be very stressful.  There are perhaps 3 ways to manage angry negotiators: 1) by trying to understand why there is anger being expressed,  2) opening up the issue of anger for discussion, 3) side- stepping the power of the anger.
2651
2652  VII.  Responding When the Other Side Is Being Difficult
2653
2654 A. When the other side presents a pattern of clear difficult behavior, it is possible that the negotiator does not know any other way to negotiate, but might be responsive to suggestions for changing his/her behavior.  It also may be that the other party has a difficult personality and his/her behavior is consistent within and outside the negotiation context.
2655
2656B.    Here is a possible breakthrough approach.
2657
2658 1.     A researcher has conceptualized obstacles set by the other party as challenges that can be addressed through specific strategies described in a five-stage “breakthrough approach.”
2659
2660 2.     This approach operates on the principle of acting counterintuitively. This requires negotiators to behave directly opposite to what they might naturally do in difficult situations.
2661
2662 3.      The five-step process for this counterintuitive pattern of responding.
2663
2664 a)     Step 1:  Don’t React—Go to the Balcony – This step would psychologically remove the party from the interaction so that they become an observer to their own interaction with the other party. This provides some distance from the conflict and from his/her emotional responses. This allows some breathing space to allow negotiators to cool down
2665
2666 b)   Step 2:  Disarm Them—Step to Their Side – This step conveys the compelling image of “coming around” the table to listen to and acknowledge the other party’s legitimate points, needs, and concerns.  In order to proceed with this step, the negotiator needs to do active listening, has to acknowledge the other party's points, recognizing powers of agreement which might be a basis for some subsequent agreement.
2667
2668c)   Step 3:  Change the Game—Don’t Reject, Reframe – A reframing strategy includes asking open-ended questions, problem solving questions, reframing the other party's tactics and applying the rules of the negotiating process.
2669
2670d)   Step 4:  Make It Easy to Say Yes—Build Them a Golden Bridge
2671
2672 Attempt to get the other side to say yes, by getting them to participate in the actual design of an agreement, trying to satisfy his or her unmet    needs, be empathetic to the demands of the  other side and helping the other party to save face
2673
2674e)   Step 5:  Make It Hard to Say No—Bring Them to Their Senses, Not Their Knees – A better strategy is to bring the other negotiators to their senses without bringing them to their knees might be to pay attention to one's own BATNA, strengthening it and making sure that the other party knows what it is, help the other party to think about the consequences of not reaching an agreement.   Pay attention to one’s own BATNA, strengthening it and making sure the other party knows what it is, and keep sharpening the other's choices.
2675
2676 C.    Having conversations with difficult people.
2677
2678 1.     There are  two fundamental stages to dealing with a stressful conversation:
2679
2680 a)   Be prepared for the possibility of difficult conversations.
2681
2682b) Managing difficult conversations by keeping clarity in your responses, keeping a neutral tone and temperate phrasing.
2683
2684Chapter 19
2685
2686Third-Party Approaches to
2687
2688Managing Difficult Negotiations
2689
2690In this chapter we discuss the typical roles that third parties might play to resolving conflict.  We first need to look at how the addition of third parties changes the negotiation process.  We then will follow this presentation by an examination of the types of third party interventions that we might see in actual negotiations.  There are three formal third party roles which deserve special attention.  These are arbitrators, mediators and process consultations. Finally, we need to examine the institutionalization of third-party processes through the establishment and maintenance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems.
2691
2692I.      Adding Third Parties to the Two-Party Negotiation Process
2693
2694 A.    Here are some of the benefits and liabilities of third-party intervention.
2695
2696 1.     Benefits – Third-party interventions can yield several of other benefits, including:
2697
2698a)     Creating breathing space or a cooling-off period.
2699
2700b)     Reestablishing or enhancing communications.
2701
2702c)     Refocusing on the substantive issues.
2703
2704d)     Remedying or repairing strained relationships.
2705
2706e)     Establishing or recommitting to time limits and deadlines.
2707
2708f)      Salvaging sunk costs.
2709
2710g)     Increasing levels of negotiator satisfaction with and commitment to the conflict resolution process and its outcomes.
2711
2712 2.     Liabilities and limitations – The involvement of third parties signals a failure of the negotiation process, even if only temporarily.  This is especially true when parties turn to arbitration.   Arbitration can also be viewed as the result of the negotiators’ agreement to disagree and a willingness to surrender control over the outcome of their dispute.
2713
2714 B.    When is third-party involvement appropriate?
2715
27161.     Negotiators initiate third-party interventions when they believe they can no longer manage the situation on their own.
2717
2718 2.     A list of conditions under which negotiators might seek third-party involvement is presented in Table 19.1.
2719
2720 C.    Which type of intervention is appropriate?
2721
27221.     Look at Figure 19.1 on page 562 to see where third party interventions might be helpful.
2723
27242.     Mediation is the most common third-party intervention and negotiators surrender control over the process while maintaining control over outcomes. Mediation can be highly effective in many disputes, while helping to preserve an important benefit of negotiation:  I often used Mediation in my law practice to resolve disputes with Insurance companies.
2725
2726a)   The really nice thing about mediation is that the recommendation of the mediator is advisory.  Either side can elect to accept the recommendation or reject it. Rejection just leaves the parties to the negotiation back where they were before the mediation.
2727
2728 3.     Third parties need to use moderation:
2729
2730a)     To borrow the medical dictum, “First, do no harm,” and
2731
2732b)     To intervene only when necessary and control only as much as necessary to enable the parties to find resolution.
2733
2734II.    Types of Third-Party Intervention
2735
2736 A.    Formal interventions are designed intentionally, in advance, and they follow a set of rules or standards; they are used by judges, labor arbitrators, divorce mediators, referees, and group facilitators (e.g., psychologists or organization development practitioners).
2737
2738 B.    Informal interventions are incidental to the negotiation; a manager or a concerned friend may become involved in someone else’s dispute.
2739
2740III.   Formal Intervention Methods
2741
2742 A.    Arbitration.
2743
2744 1.    Arbitration allows negotiators to have considerable control over the process but they have little or nonexistent control over outcomes.
2745
2746 2.     Parties negotiate to reach an agreement, while arbitration resolves a disagreement by having a neutral third party impose a decision.
2747
2748 3.     There are several different forms of arbitration.
2749
2750a)   First, arbitrators may hear and rule on a single issue under dispute, or on multiple issues in a total settlement package.
2751
2752b)   Second, arbitration may be voluntary or binding.
2753
2754(1)  Voluntary arbitration – the parties submit their arguments to an arbitrator, but they are not required to comply with the arbitrator’s decision.
2755
2756(2)  Binding arbitration – requires the parties to comply with the decision, either by law or by contractual agreement.
2757
2758c)   A third variation concerns the arbitrator’s flexibility.  At one extreme, the arbitrator is free to craft any resolution they deem appropriate and at the other end, their choice is limited to one of the positions presented by the disputing parties.
2759
27604.     Formal arbitration is most commonly used as a dispute resolution mechanism in labor relations or in claims about violations of legal contracts.
2761
27625.     Arbitration initially appears to have two distinct advantages as a resolution procedure:
2763
2764a)     It imposes a clear-cut resolution to the problem in dispute, and
2765
2766b)     It helps the parties avoid the costs of prolonged, unresolved disputes.
2767
2768 6.     Five negative consequences of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism:
2769
2770a)     The chilling effect – occurs as “the parties avoid making compromises they might be otherwise willing to make, because they fear that the fact finder or arbitrator will split the difference between their stated positions.”
2771
2772 b)     The narcotic effect – negotiator passivity, loss of initiative, and dependence on the third party are common results of recurring dispute arbitration.
2773
2774c)     The half-life effect – both the sheer number of decisions required and the likelihood that those decisions will not please one or both sides increase.
2775
2776d)     The biasing effect – arbitrators must be careful that their decisions do not systematically favor one side or the other and that they maintain an image of fairness and impartiality.
2777
2778e)     The decision-acceptance effect – Arbitrated disputes may also engender less commitment to the settlement than alternative forms of dispute resolution.
2779
2780 B.    Mediation.
2781
2782 1.     The major difference is that mediation seeks to achieve the objective by having the parties themselves develop and endorse the agreement.
2783
2784 2.     Formal or contractual mediation is based on established and accepted rules and procedures. When Mediators have no formal power over outcomes and they cannot resolve the dispute on their own or impose a solution.  Instead, their effectiveness comes from their ability to meet with the parties individually, secure an understanding of the issues in dispute, identify areas of potential compromise in the positions of each side, and encourage the parties to make concessions toward agreement.
2785
2786 3.     When to use mediation – Two elements of the mediation process are integral to its success: timing and mediator acceptability.
2787
2788a)     Timing – Mediation is far more successful if it occurs when the parties are open to receiving help; this phenomenon is known as ripeness. Ripeness refers to a negotiation situation where an intractable situation is just on the verge of being addressable.
2789
2790b)     Mediator acceptability – The mediator is traditionally viewed as a neutral individual whom the parties recognize as impartial, experienced, and helpful. 
2791
2792 4.     Mediator models, choices, and behaviors. They can do content mediation (helping the parties to manage trade-offs), they can do issue identification (helping the parties to prioritize issues), or positive framing of the issues.
2793
2794a)   The appropriate sequence of issues to be discussed needs to be considered.
2795
2796(1) There are three general sequences:
2797
2798(i)  Gradualism – where the mediator starts by addressing simpler issues and moves to more complex issues as the discussion progresses;
2799
2800(ii) Boulder-in-the-road – where the mediator begins with the most complex issues in order to identify if the conflict is ripe for resolution;
2801
2802(iii)  Committee strategy – where parties are divided into subgroups to deal with different issues.
2803
2804b)   Mediator-applied pressure seems to interact with the type of situation being mediated. Parties who are in disputes marked by high intensity (e.g., major conflicts involving many issues and disagreement over major priorities) and high levels of interparty hostility tend to respond well to forceful, proactive mediation behaviors.
2805
28065.     When is mediation effective?
2807
2808 Mediation appears to be more effective in situations marked by moderate levels of conflict – situations in which tension is apparent and tempers are beginning to fray, but negotiations have not deteriorated to the point of physical violence or irrevocably damaging threats and actions.
2809
2810C.    Process consultation behaviors.
2811
2812 1.     Process consultants employ a variety of tactics.
2813
2814a)     Their first step is usually to separate the parties and interview them to determine each side’s view of the other party, positions, and history of the relationship.
2815
2816b)     The process consultant is the referee, timekeeper, and gatekeeper of the process, working to keep the parties on track while also ensuring that the conflict does not escalate.
2817
2818c)     The process consultant also directs all sides toward problem solving and integration, assuming that by confronting and airing their differences the parties can create a method for working on their substantive differences in the future and can pursue this approach without unproductive escalation recurring.
2819
2820d)     The process consultant works to change the climate for conflict management, promote constructive dialogue around differences of opinion, and create the capacity for people in the relationship to act as their own third parties.
2821
28222.     The primary focus of process consultation is to teach the parties how to resolve substantive differences themselves, not to resolve their differences for them.
2823
2824  IV.   Informal Intervention Methods
2825
2826A.    Other third-party approaches are possible, and managers, parents, counselors, and others who become involved in other people’s disputes, use many of them informally.
2827
2828B.    Managers use one of three dominant styles when they intervene in a subordinate conflict.
2829
2830 1.     Inquisitorial intervention – This was the most common style. A manager using an inquisitorial intervention exerts high control over both the process and the decision.
2831
2832 2.     Adversarial intervention – Managers who use adversarial intervention exert high control over the decision but not the process.
2833
2834 3.     Providing impetus – Managers who provide impetus typically do not exert control over the decision, and they exert only a small amount of control over the process.
2835
2836 C.    Which approach is more effective?
2837
2838 1.     While subsequent research examining how managers behave has shown that they claim to prefer mediation as a third-party style, it is not clear that managers actually use mediation unless they are specifically trained in the process
2839
2840 2.     There is evidence that judgments along five key dimensions could account for a manager’s choice of intervention:
2841
2842a)     The amount of attention the manager gives to the parties’ statements of the issues in dispute rather than to underlying problems.
2843
2844b)     The degree of voluntary (versus mandated) acceptance of the solution proposed by the third party.
2845
2846c)     Third-party versus disputant control over shaping the outcomes.
2847
2848d)     The third party’s personal approach to conflict.
2849
2850e)     Whether the dispute is to be handled publicly or privately.
2851
28523.     Other research suggests that third parties can influence conflict at three general stages – third parties will find themselves using different interventions in different sequences depending on the challenges they face.
2853
2854a)   Prevent conflicts, where interventions inhibit latent conflict from emerging.  Conflict may escalate at the “prevent” stage for three reasons:
2855
2856(1)  frustrated needs,
2857
2858(2)  poor skills, and
2859
2860(3)  weak relationships.
2861
2862b)   Resolve conflict, where conflicts that have emerged are managed.  Conflict may escalate at the “resolve” stage for four reasons:
2863
2864(1) conflicting interests,
2865
2866(2) disputed rights,
2867
2868(3) unequal power, and
2869
2870(4)  injured relationships.
2871
2872c)   Contain conflict, where ongoing conflicts that have been a challenge to resolve are contained.  Conflict may escalate at the “contain” stage for three reasons:
2873
2874(1) lack of attention,
2875
2876(2) lack of limitation, and
2877
2878(3) lack of protection.
2879
2880V.    Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems: When the Organization Is the Third Party
2881
2882 A.    There are 6 broad categories of ADR systems.
2883
2884 1.     Preventive ADR systems are those that companies adopt to prevent disputes.
2885
2886 2.     Negotiated ADR systems are mechanisms that allow the parties to resolve their own disputes without the help of any third party, using the negotiation processes mentioned earlier in the book.
2887
2888 3.     Facilitated ADR systems provide a third-party neutral (an ombudsperson) that assists the parties in negotiating a resolution.
2889
2890 4.     Fact-finding ADR systems use the technical expertise of third parties to determine the facts in a specific situation and how the facts should be interpreted.
2891
2892 5.     Advisory ADR systems use the expertise of a third party to determine what the resolution would likely be if the dispute went to arbitration, court, and so on.
2893
2894 6.     Imposed ADR systems are those in which the third party makes a binding decision that the parties must live with.
2895
2896 B.    The following factors that can undermine ADR in some companies.
2897
28981.     The belief that winning is the only thing that matters, rather than settling disputes.
2899
29002.     The perception of ADR as an alternative to litigation, rather than the preferred alternative.
2901
29023.     The perception that ADR is nothing more than litigation in disguise.
2903
2904 C.    There are several key factors that should drive the design of an effective dispute resolution system.
2905
2906 1.     One is to ensure that the parties understand their choices before they begin using a particular procedure, that disputants understand the chosen procedure well, and that they try low-cost options first.
2907
2908 2.     Second, it appears that users need to be involved in the design of alternate dispute resolution systems in order for them to be effective
2909
2910 3.     A third factor in ADR success is to appoint, train, and support individuals (e.g., ombudsmen) to advise and assist disputants in dispute resolution
2911
2912 D.    According to Lynch, healthy ADR systems share five features across organizations.
2913
2914 1.     They are all-encompassing, so they are available for use by all people and for all types of problems.
2915
2916 2.     There is a conflict competent culture, with a positive atmosphere where conflict can be surfaced and managed safely.
2917
2918 3.     There are multiple access points to the system with knowledgeable people to support it.
2919
2920 4.     There are options and choices that allow disputants access to coaches and mediators if they choose to involve them.
2921
2922 5.     There are support structures such as support from top management and educational programs institutionalize the ADR system as well as provide safeguards.
2923 
2924  Chapter 20
2925Best Practices in Negotiation
2926
2927Well, we have finally come to the last chapter in our text book.  We will close with a reflection on  providing 10 “best practices” for negotiators who wish to continue to improve their negotiation skills.
2928
2929Learning Objectives
2930
2931     Ten best practices to improve negotiation skills.
2932
2933     I.      Be Prepared
2934
2935     Negotiators who are better prepared have numerous advantages:  the ability to analyze the other party’s offers more effectively and efficiently and the  opportunity to understand the nuances of the concession-making process..
2936
2937     Preparation should occur before the negotiation.   This means understanding one’s own goals and interests as well as the ability to articulate them to the other party skillfully.
2938
2939     Good preparation includes being ready to understand the other party’s communication in order to find an agreement that meets the needs of both parties.
2940
2941    Good preparation also means setting aspirations for negotiation outcomes that are high but achievable.
2942
2943    Negotiators need to consider how these broad contextual factors will influence the negotiation.
2944
2945     II.    Diagnose the Fundamental Structure of the Negotiation
2946
2947     Negotiators should make a conscious decision about whether they are facing a fundamentally distributive negotiation, an integrative negotiation, or a blend of the two and choose their strategies and tactics accordingly.
2948
2949    Negotiators also need to remember that many negotiations will consist of a blend of integrative and distributive elements and that there will be distributive and integrative phases to these negotiations.
2950
2951     III.  Identify and Work the BATNA
2952
2953     The best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is especially important because this is the option that likely will be chosen should an agreement not be reached.
2954
2955    Negotiators need to be vigilant about their BATNA. They need to know what their BATNA is relative to a possible agreement and consciously work to improve the BATNA so as to improve the deal.
2956
2957    Negotiators also need to be aware of the other negotiator’s BATNA and to identify how it compares to what you are offering.
2958
2959     There are three things negotiators should do with respect to the other negotiator’s BATNA:
2960
2961    Monitor it carefully in order to understand and retain your competitive advantage over the other negotiator’s alternatives;
2962
2963     Remind the other negotiator of the advantages your offer has relative to her BATNA
2964
2965     In a subtle way, suggest that the other negotiator’s BATNA may not be as strong as he/she thinks it is.
2966
2967     IV.   Be Willing to Walk Away
2968
2969    Be ready to walk away from a negotiation when no agreement is better than a poor agreement or when the process is so offensive that the deal isn’t worth the work.
2970
2971    Be ready to walk away from the current negotiation if their BATNA becomes the better choice.
2972
2973    V.    Master the Key Paradoxes of Negotiation
2974
2975      Five common paradoxes that negotiators face.
2976
2977    Claiming value versus creating value.
2978
2979    All negotiations have a value-claiming stage, where parties decide who gets how much of what.  This  precedes the  value claiming stage where the parties work together to expand  the resources under negotiation.
2980
2981    Negotiators need to manage the transition tactfully to avoid undermining the open brainstorming and option-inventing relationship that has developed during value creation.
2982
2983    Sticking by your principles versus being resilient to the flow.
2984
2985    Effective negotiators are thoughtful about the distinction between issues of principle, where firmness is essential, and other issues where compromise or accommodation is the best route to a mutually acceptable outcome.
2986
2987    Sticking with strategy versus opportunistic pursuit of new options.
2988
2989    The challenge for negotiators is to distinguish phantom opportunities from real ones..
2990
2991    Strong preparation is critical to being able to manage the “strategy versus opportunism” paradox.
2992
2993    Honest and open versus closed and opaque.
2994
29951.  Negotiators face the dilemma of honesty: how open and honest should I be with the other party?  The challenge of this paradox is deciding how much information to reveal and how much to conceal, both for pragmatic and ethical reasons.
2996
2997    Trust versus distrust.
2998
2999    Negotiators face the dilemma of trust: how much to trust what the other party tells them.  Negotiators should remember that negotiation is a process that evolves over time. Trust can be built by being honest and sharing information with the other side, which hopefully will lead to reciprocal trust and credible disclosure by the other side.
3000
3001    VI.   Remember the Intangibles
3002
3003    Intangibles frequently affect negotiation in a negative way, and they often operate out of the negotiator’s awareness.  The best way to identify the existence of intangible factors is to try to “see what is not there.”
3004
3005     Often negotiators do not learn what intangible factors are influencing the other negotiator unless the other chooses to disclose them. Negotiators can “see” their existence, however, by looking for changes in the other negotiator’s behavior from one negotiation to another, as well as by gathering information about the other party before negotiation begins.
3006
3007     There are at least two more ways to discover intangibles that might be affecting the other.
3008
3009    One way to surface the other party’s intangibles is to ask questions.
3010
3011    A second way is to take an observer or listener with you to the negotiation.
3012
3013     Negotiators also need to remember that intangible factors influence their own behavior.
3014
3015     VII.    Actively Manage Coalitions
3016
3017    Negotiators should recognize three types of coalitions and their potential effects.
3018    Coalitions against you. 
3019        Coalitions that support you.
3020        Loose, undefined coalitions that may materialize either for or against you.
3021
3022    It is important to recognize when coalitions are aligned against you and to work consciously to counter their influence.
3023
3024    Strong negotiators need to monitor and manage coalitions proactively, and while this may take considerable time throughout the negotiation process it will likely lead to large payoffs at the implementation stage.
3025
3026    VIII.   Savor and Protect Your Reputation
3027
3028     Starting negotiations with a positive reputation is essential, and negotiators should be vigilant in protecting their reputations. They should act in a consistent and fair manner.
3029
3030    Strong negotiators also periodically seek feedback from others about the way they are perceived and use that information to strengthen their credibility and trustworthiness in the marketplace.
3031
3032    IX.   Remember That Rationality and Fairness Are Relative
3033
3034    People tend to view the world in a self-serving manner and define the “rational” thing to do or a “fair” outcome or process in a way that benefits themselves.
3035
3036    Negotiators can do three things to manage these perceptions proactively.
3037
3038     They can question their own perceptions of fairness and ground them in clear principles. 
3039
3040     They can find external benchmarks and examples that suggest fair outcomes.
3041
3042     Negotiators can  illuminate definitions of fairness held by the other party and engage in a dialogue to reach consensus on which standards of fairness apply in a given situation.
3043
3044     X.    Continue to Learn from Your Experience
3045    The best negotiators take a moment to analyze each negotiation after it has concluded, to review what happened and what they learned.  We recommend a four-step process.
3046
3047    Planning a personal reflection time after each negotiation.
3048
3049     Periodically “taking a lesson” from a trainer or coach.
3050
3051     Keeping a personal diary on strengths and weaknesses and developing a plan to work on weaknesses.
3052
3053    Maintaining a record of how the negotiation evolved, notes about the other negotiator, etc. especially if you are negotiating with the same person or group on a regular basis.
3054
3055    This analysis should happen after every negotiation, however, and it should focus on what and why questions.  The good negotiator should keep notes on what happened during this negotiation. 
3056
3057     1.  Why did it happen?
3058
3059     2.  What can I learn for the future?