ORGN chapter 4 part 1

Perspective taking

By taking the perspective of the other party, negotiators attempt to see the world through the counterparty's eyes. Indeed, negotiators who take the perspective of the counterparty are more successful in terms of a number of social outcomes, such as coordinating with others.25 Negotiators who take the perspective of the other party are more likely to avoid impasses, specifically by allowing the counterparty to engage in successful logrolling (i.e., making concessions on low-preference versus high-preference issues) compared to egoistic negotiators also enhances problem solving abilities

What should negotiators do to avoid lose-lose agreements? (3)

First, they should be aware of the fixed-pie perception and not assume that their interests are in contradiction with those of the other party. Second, negotiators should avoid making premature concessions to the other party (i.e., conceding on issues before even being asked). Third, negotiators should develop an accurate understanding of the other party's interests—a skill we explore in-depth.

Timing of information is important

For example, negotiators achieve greater value on an issue after they seek information about that issue as compared to when the same information is readily accessible.38 In short, the active pursuit of information is more beneficial than the passive receipt of information

If negotiators have different strengths of preference across the negotiation issues, then integrative negotiation is possible. (T or F)

T

negotiators who are naturally straightforward tend to show greater concern for the other party and make more concessions, especially in purely distributive negotiations, resulting in lower profit. (T or F)

T

Lack of time and effort do not explain lose-lose outcomes and the fixed-pie perception (T or F)

T. In fact, negotiators who are accountable (held responsible) for their outcomes may be at greatest risk for harboring faulty fixed-pie perceptions. Negotiators who feel accountable for their outcomes, are more likely to hold the faulty fixed-pie perception when negotiating with an in-group member than with an out-group member.

the lose-lose effect

The failure to capitalize on compatible interests is known as a lose-lose agreement.

Even though many negotiators provide information during a negotiation, the counterparty may not necessarily understand the information. Faulty assumptions may be traceable to the illusion of transparency.

The illusion of transparency occurs when negotiators believe they are revealing more than they actually are (i.e., they believe others have access to information about them when in fact they do not).

Negotiators who have high epistemic motivation----- are more likely to

a personal need for structure—are more likely to reach higher joint outcomes because they ask more questions that benefit the dyad as a whole compared to negotiators who are low in epistemic motivation. Moreover, negotiators high in epistemic motivation are more likely to benefit from adding and discussing more issues.41

Few conflicts are purely win or lose.13 In most mixed-motive negotiations, parties realize that they have two incentives vis-à-vis the other party:

cooperation (so that they can reach an agreement and avoid resorting to their BATNAs) and competition (so that they can claim the largest slice of the pie). However, what this analysis misses is the incentive to create value, which is the key to integrative negotiation.

the probability that negotiators will have identical preferences across all issues is small, and it is

differences in preferences, beliefs, and capacities that may be profitably traded off to create joint gain

many negotiators hold faulty assumptions that prevent the

discovery and creation of integrative agreements. Two of the most common faulty assumptions are: false conflict and the fixed-pie perception.

Distributive negotiation focuses on how negotiators integrative negotiation refers to how negotiators create the

divide resources the resources (that will ultimately be divided)

The biggest detriment to attaining integrative agreements is the

faulty assumptions we make about the counterparty and the negotiation situation. Rarely are negotiations purely competitive situations. Rather, most negotiation situations are mixed-motive in nature, meaning that parties' interests are imperfectly correlated with one another. The gains of one party do not represent equal sacrifices by the other.

Above questions important for win win agreements because (2)

first, such questions help negotiators discover where the value is; and second, diagnostic questions do not tempt the counterparty to lie or to misrepresent him

integrative negotiation does not focus on how the resources are divided between parties; rather, integrative negotiation refers to

how many resources are created for a win-win outcome. For most people, the goal of expanding the total volume of resources via integrative negotiation is to allow both parties to gain, hence the term, "win-win."

Pareto efficient frontier

is the set of outcomes corresponding to the entire set of agreements that leaves no portion of the total amount of resources unallocated.

Most negotiators are motivated to search for integrative agreements that

leverage the interests of both parties. Such agreements are considered to be "win-win" because they involve the creation of mutual gain

side deals can allows

more issues to be added to the mix, this increases the possibility of creative conflict resolution

Truly integrative negotiations are ones in which all opportunities are leveraged so that

no resources are left on the table. We call these outcomes pareto principle

The concept of pareto optimality states that the bargaining process should

not yield any outcome that both people regard as less desirable than some other feasible outcome.

False conflict aks illusory conflict occurs when

people believe that their interests are incompatible with the other party's interests when in fact, they are not. For example, in a labor strike at the Dow Chemical Company, both union and management preferred the same wage increase, but neither party realized this fact at the time of the strike.

It is important for negotiators to separate

positions (stated demands) from interests (underlying needs) there positions may be opposed but underlying interest aren't when they perceive themselves to be in conflict about values they see themselves as more opposed than when they are in conflict about scarce resources

Asking. Questions about interest and priorities negotiator could ask the other party any number of questions during the negotiation. Two types of questions are helpful types of questions to ask in terms of expanding the pie:

questions about underlying interests and questions about priorities. - Negotiators who ask the counterparty about their preferences are much more likely to reach integrative agreements than negotiators who do not ask the other party about their priorities. - left on their own they dont ask diagnostic questions

Compromise refers to

reaching a middle ground between negotiators positions. Many negotiators believe that "even splits" signal win-win. We disagree. Even splits, like compromises, refer to how the bargaining zone is divided among the negotiators.

Capitalize on principle of reciprocity by

signaling willingness to share info about your interests not BATNA

The fixed-pie perception is the belief that

the counterparty's interests are directly and completely opposed to one's own interests.6 Most untrained negotiators view negotiation as a pie-slicing task: They assume that their interests are incompatible, that impasse is likely, and that issues should be discussed individually, rather than as bundles or packages.

Integrative potential exists in just about every negotiation situation. However, people often fail to see it because

they do not believe that win-win is possible.