Negotiations Exam 2

What are some examples of acceptable and taboo trade-offs in negotiation? How does the trade-off principle operate within systems of sacred and secular values?

A. Acceptable trade-offs—trading secular values for secular values --> Ex.: bottle of wine, house, services of gardner B. Taboo tradeoffs—proposals to exchange sacred values (beliefs, customs, assumptions that form the basis of a culture's belief system, so fundamental that they are not debatable) for secular ones (issues that can be traded and exchanged) --> Ex.:Trading body organs for money, time, convenience, Human life, Familial obligations C. Trade-off principle—idea for handling scarce resource conflicts with sacred issues --> Assumes that people can compare and trade resources in a way that maximizes outcomes and that everything is comparable and has a price --> But trade becomes unconscionable in some situations with sacred values—refuse to place monetary value on good or even think of trading it

On what types of tasks would a team outperform an individual? Why?

a. A team would outperform an individual when the situation requires multiple skills, shared interests, technical expertise, and negotiation expertise. In addition, when negotiations have an integrative potential. b. Teams are effective because negotiators exchange more information about their interests and priorities when at least one team is at the table than when solos negotiate, and this information exchange leads to greater judgment accuracy about parties' interests, which promotes integrative agreement. c. The team efficacy effect is that both teams and solo players believe that teams have an advantage (MORE EXPLINATION NEEDED!!!!!!)

What are some of the best tactics for dealing with conflict? Expect to analyze a conflict situation and make recommendations on how to best approach.

a. Best tactics to deal with conflict --> Strike the right balance between assertiveness (capacity to articulate and advocate for own interests) and empathy (non-judgmentally understand other's world) --> With confrontation failures, ask questions—moving us forwards or backgrounds b. Recommendations for how to best approach conflict

Also, be prepared to list, define and provide examples of the conflict categories.

a. Conflict over beliefs—situations where we believe reality to be different, differing beliefs are fact-based -->Empirical questions—can find data, design test - Ex.: whose truck is stronger -->Differing preferences—start as little annoyances that add up over time, may be habit-based,Not as easily resolved because not fact-based - Ex.: where to go to dinner, which supplier to use -->Conflict over definition of role and relationships—what roles do we support, who gets to take on certain tasks - Ex? -->Conflict over resources—unlimited wants but limited resources, we fight for our share and to maximize self-interest and outcome - Ex? -->Attribution-based conflict—conflict is largely about placing blame, can cause significantly different perception of the conflict - Ex.: getting cut off in traffic --> Conflict around ethics and morals—to what extent is it an appropriate decision, perception over what is right and fair, we view what is fair by what benefits us mort - Ex?

The three forms of trust are knowledge, identity, and calculus (or deterrence) based. Be prepared to define and give examples/identify each as well provide recommendations on an example case.

a. Knowledge based trust—behavioral predictability, person has enough info about others to understand them and accurately predict their behavior -->Ex: rubber market buyers and sellers form long-term relationships because of asymmetry of information -->Benefits: 1. Increases dependence and commitment among parties, 2. Less likely to exploit, 3. More likely to cooperate (not with competitors though), 4. Low mobility integrative agreements across interactions -->Problems: 1.Economic dependence 2.Emotional commitment b. Identity based trust—empathy with another person's desires and intentions, trust because each person understands, agrees with, empathizes with, takes on other's values because of emotional connection between them --> Ex.: Trust Vandy alum telling you something about an interview process more than someone from other school, Twice as likely to buy a car from someone with same color eyes c. Calculus (deterrence) based trust—behavioral consistency, people will follow through on what they promise to do because of threats/promises of consequences that will result if consistency and promises are not maintained --> Deterrence is so high that trust has to be forced from both sides --> Ex.: 1.Hawthorne plant in 1940s would hit upper arm of employees if they over- or underperformed 2.Prenups --> Problems: 1.Expensive to develop and maintain 2. Can backfire (reactance theory—people don't like freedom taken and will act to reassert it)

Give some examples of personal and interpersonal escalation dilemmas. What are the psychological reasons for the escalation of commitment phenomenon?

a. Personal dilemmas—involve one person, whether to continue with losing course of action or cut one's losses Ex: Continuing to gamble after losing money, Investing money in a car or house that continues to deteriorate b. Interpersonal dilemmas—involve 2 or more people in competitive relationship like a negotiation Ex: Union strikes, war c. Escalation of commitment phenomenon—tendency of negotiators to persist with losing course of action even in face of clear evidence that behaviors are not working and negotiation situation is deteriorating Ex: 1.Psychological reasons: i)Negotiations are risk seeking when it comes to losses and risk averse for gains -->Engage in greater risk if trying to recover from losing position than they are if they see themselves as starting with a clean slate -->The bigger the investment and the more severe the possible loss, the more prone people are to trying to turn things around 2. Some people reason that process of negotiation, not the outcome, is the reason for continuing

Conflict is ubiquitous in the world today and dealing with it appropriately can save negotiators countless losses and unnecessary time commitment. Be prepared to list the positive and negative effects that may come from conflict, as well as list some of the most common reasons that confrontation fails?

a. Positive effects of conflict -->Brings problems into the open -->Growth and opportunity b. Negative effects of conflict -->Negativity and pessimism -->Heightened arousal -->Increased volume -->Criticism and blame c. Common reasons confrontation fails -->Sarcasm or aggressive humor (as though it's clever) -->Personal attacks and insults -->Name-calling, obscenities, etc.

Why is trust important in negotiation and what are possible ways to build it throughout the negotiation process?

a. Trust is important in negotiation --> Expression of confidence in other group of people that you won't be put at risk, harmed, injured by them b. Ways to build trust through negotiation process— -->Cognitive: 1) Transform personal conflict (emotional) into task conflict (cognitive, depersonalized)—argumentation about merits of ideas independent of identities, stimulates creativity for integrative agreement 2) Agree on common goals or shared vision 3) Capitalize on network connections 4)Find shared problem or shared enemy --> Psychological: 1)Similarity—more likely to make concessions 2)Mere exposure—more we are exposed to something, the more we like it 3)Physical presence 4) Schmoozing—small talk has dramatic impact on liking and trust of others 5)Flattery

Coalitions are potentially risky:

i. Difficult to maintain because people are tempted by other members to join other coalitions but coalitions should contain the minimum number of people necessary and because agreements are not enforceable ii. Members of coalitions have a strong pull to remain intact even when it isn't rational: According to the status quo bias, even when new coalition strategy offers greater gain, they are influenced by coalitional integrity to stick with their current coalition iii. Distribution of resources among members of coalition is complex because no normative method of fair allocation

Strategies for maximizing coalitional effectiveness:

i. Make your contacts early before key parties become committed to others: People tend to feel obligated to others with whom they have made explicit or implicit agreements because of the commitment process ii. Seek verbal agreements: Most people feel obligated to follow through with promises even when verbal commitments aren't legally binding iii. Use unbiased-appearing rationale to divide the pie: If members of coalition regard proposed allocation of resources to be unfair, the coalition will be less stable and they will be likely to renege

Elaborate on the team efficacy effect is that both teams and solo players believe that teams have an advantage.

i. This differs from the actual results of team vs. solo negotiations because teams do not necessarily outperform solos in terms of the distributive component of negotiations but they believe they have the advantage. ii. In solo vs. team negotiations, the solo negotiator earns less than the team, but the amount of joint resources is greater in the team-solo negotiation because the presence of a team increases the integrativeness and expands the pie for all sides.:Even though a team may take more profit than their solo counterparts, both sides benefit because the pie is expanded greater than in solo-solo negotiations.