Generated Deck

Bargaining is competitive win-lose; negotiation is win-win

A form of decision making in which two or more parties talk to resolve their opposing interests

To share a limited resource; to create something new neither could do alone; to resolve a problem or dispute

Two or more

By choice, because there is a conflict of needs and desires

Intangibles (underlying motivations), such as reputation, principle, precedent and relationships

Parties who depend on each other to achieve their own outcome, with interlocking goals

One who can meet their own needs without others’ help

One who must rely on others for what they need

Only one winner; negative correlation between goal attainments

Positive correlation between goal attainments; one party’s success does not block the other’s

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

Every interdependency has an alternative

When one party agrees to make a change to its proposal

It becomes further constrained

How much truth to tell the other party (telling all allows exploitation; telling nothing may cause stalemate)

How much to believe what the other party tells you

To claim value

To create value

Distributive strategies

In exploiting the differences between negotiators

Interests; judgments about the future; risk tolerance; time preferences

Risk tolerance (it can assume less risk)

A disagreement or opposition, including the belief that the parties’ current needs cannot be achieved simultaneously

Intrapersonal; interpersonal; intragroup; between organizations, groups or nations

Conflict between organizations, ethnic groups, warring nations, etc.

Leads to change; strengthens relationships; promotes awareness of self and others; personal development; can be stimulating

Win-lose goals; misconception and bias; decreased communication; magnified differences; escalation

Low concern for own outcomes and low concern for others’ outcomes

High concern for own outcomes and low concern for others’ outcomes

Moderate or equal concern for own and others’ outcomes

Low concern for own outcomes and high concern for others’ outcomes

High concern for own outcomes and high concern for others’ outcomes

80%

Myth; it’s about creating value

Myth; strategy beats aggression

Myth; it is a learnable skill

Myth; good negotiation strengthens them

Focus only on price, see it as win-lose, wing it, avoid conflict

Explore multiple variables, create mutual value, prepare systematically, address issues directly

A negotiator’s optimal goal

A negotiator’s bottom line

The initial price set by the seller

Starting points are public; target points are inferred; resistance points are secret

The spread between the two resistance points (also settlement range or zone of potential agreement)

Yes, it can be positive or negative

Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

Set higher goals and make fewer concessions

To obtain as much of the bargaining range as possible

Your resistance point, some targets, weak strategic position and emotional vulnerabilities

The value they attach to an outcome; their cost of delay; their cost of halting negotiations

Reduce their estimate of your cost of delay; increase their own cost of delay; reduce their perceived value of an issue; increase their perception of how much you value it

Assess the other’s position; manage their impression of yours; modify their perceptions of their own; manipulate actual costs of delay or termination

Indirectly obtaining information about an issue’s factors, e.g. what information was used and how it was interpreted

Directly obtaining information from the other party

Screening activities; direct action is more useful later

Concealment; calculated incompetence; using a spokesperson; presenting many items with only a few important

Selective presentation; explaining known facts; displaying an emotional reaction

Threatening to terminate negotiations

Disruptive action; alliance with outsiders; schedule manipulation

The negotiator making the first offer gets better outcomes

Concentrate on their own target and the other’s resistance point

The other party may end negotiations; it may harm the relationship

The initial bargaining range

How you will proceed in the negotiation

Better economic outcomes but being perceived negatively

You learn about the other’s targets, and it keeps negotiation moving by signaling settlement is possible

Not haphazardly; link it to a prior concession from the other party

Make it more substantial, dramatic but not so large it implies holding back; possibly personalize it

Provide alternative packages; assume the close; split the difference

An offer with a tight deadline that pressures the other party to agree quickly

A special concession saved for the close

Poorly prepared negotiators

Discuss them; ignore them; respond in kind; co-opt the other party

Starting with a ridiculously low (or high) opening offer you know you will never achieve

Not making a counteroffer; insist on a reasonable offer from them

Pretending an issue is unimportant to you when it is actually important

Prepare well, ask probing questions, and be wary of sudden reversals in position

Asking for a proportionally small concession on a new item to close the deal

Respond with “What else do you want?” and prepare your own nibbles

Combining a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to back down

Forcing agreement through an emotional ploy, usually anger or fear

Don’t feel threatened; discuss the process; ignore it; use a team

Relentless push for concessions; asking for the best offer early; asking you to justify proposals

Halt the negotiation to discuss the process itself

Overwhelming the other party with information or technical language so they can’t tell what matters

Ask questions until you understand; bring in experts; listen for consistency; prepare

Failing to negotiate when you should; negotiating when you should not; using the wrong strategy

Honesty and integrity; abundance mentality; maturity; systems orientation; superior listening skills

Free flow of information; understanding real needs; emphasizing commonalities; searching for solutions meeting both sides’ goals

Identify and define the problem; surface interests and needs; generate alternative solutions; evaluate and select alternatives

The first three create value; the fourth involves claiming value

It is important that creating value comes first

Failure to exchange enough information

Your priorities, not necessarily your positions

Firm about interests and needs, flexible about how they are met

Mutually acceptable, practical and comprehensive, as a goal with obstacles, depersonalized, separate from the search for solutions

Underlying concerns, needs, desires or fears that motivate a position

Intrinsic are valued for themselves; instrumental are valued for helping achieve other outcomes

Substantive; process; relationship; interests in principle

The issues under negotiation

Interests in how the negotiation unfolds

Interests in the ongoing relationship and its future

Deeply held principles that dominate guidance of action

To create a variety of options or possible solutions

Parties trade off outcomes on different issues

Both sides achieve their objectives by increasing resources

One side wins and the other is compensated in another way

One side wins and the other has their costs minimized

Differences are replaced by other, higher-level interests

Entrenched parties

Brainstorming; surveys; electronic brainstorming

Avoid judging solutions; separate people from the problem; be exhaustive; ask outsiders

A facilitator asks questions and participants anonymously type responses, which are aggregated and displayed to the group

Parties lose the benefit of seeing and hearing each other’s ideas

In advance of evaluating options

Tentative and conditional until final

Common goal; faith in problem-solving ability; belief in validity of positions; motivation and commitment; trust; clear communication; understanding of integrative dynamics

One all parties share equally, each benefiting in a way impossible without working together

One both parties work toward but that benefits each differently

One where individuals with different personal goals combine them in a collective effort

Belief that all sides can benefit and are better off cooperating

Both their own and the other’s perspective are valid

A framework for future discussions that enhances commitment to work together

Share information and encourage reciprocity; negotiate multiple issues at once; make multiple offers at once

Negatively related

Broadly applied social standards in a situation, or a process for setting them

Morals are personal beliefs

Rightness is judged by the pros and cons of consequences

Rightness is determined by obligation to principles, laws and social standards

Rightness is based on the customs and norms of a community

Rightness is based on one’s own conscience and moral standards

End-result ethics

Duty ethics

Ethical: meets moral standards; prudent: wise given efficiency and relationship consequences; practical: what can actually happen; legal: what the law allows

They attribute others’ behavior to personality and their own to the situation

Traditional competitive bargaining; emotional manipulation; misrepresentation; misrepresentation to opponent’s networks; inappropriate information gathering; bluffing

Failing to disclose information that would benefit the other

Actually lying about the issue

Outright deception

To increase power, achieve goals, or avoid being exploited

Anger and mistrust; damaged relationship

Unavoidable; harmless; avoids negative consequences; good consequences; they deserved it; they would do it anyway; they started it; fair for the situation

Ask probing questions; rephrase questions; test with a known answer; call the tactic; ignore minor ones; help shift to honesty

It escalates the conflict

Goals → Strategy → Planning

Substantive (money); intangible (winning); procedural (shaping the agenda)

List all goals; prioritize them; identify multi-goal packages; evaluate trade-offs

Concrete, specific and measurable

No, wishes are not goals

Collaborative or integrative strategy

Tactics are short-term adaptive moves that enact strategy and are subordinated to it

A win-lose strategy where I lose and you win, used to build a relationship

They set a precedent of avoiding conflict that is hard to break

They create “we-they” patterns that distort judgment

Whether to claim value or create value

Multiple issues; single issues dictate distributive negotiation

The combined list of all issues from both sides

Positions are what a negotiator wants; interests are why they want it

Ask “why” questions

Gives power to walk away and still meet needs

The least they will take

The most they will pay

Agreeing to deals later realized to be unwise

Overall goals; issues and bargaining mix; interests and needs; resistance point and alternatives

Specific, difficult but achievable, and verifiable

The other party may laugh, get angry or walk away

A soccer-field model assessing the social context of a negotiation

A: direct actors on our side; B: opposition actors

Indirect actors on the sidelines

Interested observers in the stands

Environmental factors outside the stadium

Agenda; location; time period; what if negotiation fails; tracking agreements; mechanism for modifying the deal

A sensemaking process where people interpret their environment to respond appropriately

Stimulus → Attention → Recognition → Translation → Behavior

Assigning attributes solely on a person’s social or demographic category

Generalizing about many attributes based on one attribute

Using supporting information and filtering out contrary information

Assigning to others characteristics or feelings one possesses, to protect self-concept

Ways of defining a person, event or process, separating it from the complex world around it

No, they are inevitable and occur without real intention

Substantive; outcome; aspiration; process; identity; characterization; loss or gain

What the conflict is about

How parties define who they are

How parties define the other parties

Conflict

Interests: needs and wants; rights: who is right or fair; power: imposing costs or using authority

Redefining the situation; dynamic and can occur many times

Vivid, easily recalled information gets undue weight; check accuracy of every piece of information

Sticking with a failing course of action even when irrational

Use an advisor as a reality check

Assuming all negotiations are zero-sum

Focus on underlying interests and hold negotiators accountable

Treating an initial standard as a benchmark against which adjustments are made

Thorough preparation; devil’s advocate; reality check

When a problem is framed as a possible gain

When a problem is framed as a loss

Discomfort about a win that came too easily, suspecting the other had an advantage

It solidifies support for incorrect options and discounts others’ judgments

Projecting limited past experience onto future negotiations, creating self-fulfilling prophecies

Attributing own behavior to situations but others’ behavior to personal traits

Overestimating support for your own position, opinions or behaviors

Overvaluing something you own or believe you possess

Considering the other party’s viewpoint; makes impasse unlikely and integrative outcomes likely

Minimizing the value of a concession made by a disliked other

Being aware they can occur

No, it does little on its own

Moods are diffuse, less intense and more enduring; emotions are intense and targeted

Specificity; intensity; duration

Negotiators in a positive mood may be susceptible to deceptive tactics

When it is seen as appropriate; it can backfire with deceivers or those with little at stake

Powerful negotiators; low-power negotiators get poorer outcomes

Only when displayed by those with low power

Adjusting messages to the other party’s perceived emotional state

70 percent

They tend to behave reciprocally

Those with attractive BATNAs set higher reservation prices

That negotiator gets a more positive outcome

They feel less positive about their own outcomes

Explanations made to the other party during negotiation

Mitigating circumstances; exonerating circumstances; reframing

Yes, they are more likely to have better outcomes

Call attention to it, label it counterproductive and resist reciprocating

More consistent than varied

Early stages

Language characteristics; nonverbal communication; choice of channel

Cues like eye contact and posture showing you are listening

Social bandwidth

Lack of social cues lowers communicator inhibition

Masks or reduces them

Email

The quick medium (texting)

Questions; listening; role reversal

Passive listening; acknowledgement; active listening

Restating the sender’s message in your own words

During preparation or a team caucus

It may sharpen perceptions of differences if positions are fundamentally incompatible

Power over controls the situation; power with works together

Expert; reward; coercive; legitimate; referent

Information power

Power derived from respect

Unity; radical; pluralist

Society is a clash of interests

Society is an integrated whole

Organizational hierarchy and network position

Position, via birth, election, appointment or authority

Tie strength; tie content; network structure and centrality; coalitions

A strong network of people agreeing to common goals and principles

Raises likelihood of first offer; improves outcomes; gives leverage and confidence; higher aspirations

Power distance

Avoid all-or-nothing deals; make them smaller and yourself bigger; do deals in sequence; use competition; get good information

Strategies and messages used to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioral change

Central route and peripheral route

Conscious, integrating the message into existing cognitive structures

Subtle cues and context with less active thought

Content; structure; delivery style

One-sided ignores opposing arguments; two-sided describes the opposing view then shows why it is less desirable

Breaking it down into smaller pieces

Actual threats

Message characteristics; persuader attributes; influence context

Reciprocity; commitment; social proof; scarcity

Have and use a BATNA; make a public commitment; inoculate against arguments

Develop arguments for and against your position and counterarguments to refute both