MGT 3513 Exam 1, Chandler LSU, Spring 2023

assess what happens if agreement is not reached

BATNA has to be real and something you can do on your own

assess importance in each issue

Decide their importance; rank issues Trade off lower value issues to gain on higher value issues

Dispute Resolution Process of Interest, rights and power

Look at chart in notes

selecting the best strategy for negotiating

Relationship Concerns Low outcome, low relationship concerns = avoid or withdraw High outcome, high relationship concerns = collaborate High relationship, low outcome concerns = accommodate Outcome Concerns -- Companies focus on outcome High outcome, low relationship concerns = competitive Medium outcome, medium relationship concerns = compromise

interactive decision perspectives for negotiators

Requires that a negotiator considers alternatives, interests, goals, and behaviors of the other side; aka the "gathering and assessing information" steps but now for the other side Recognizes the interdependence of negotiated outcomes; result is from an interactive process Prepared to make a competitive negotiation; not enough for collaborative negotiation

conduct a self inventory

Resources -- Data Recurrence of Negotiations History -- What worked, what didn't; What can I expect from the other person Trust -- Have they been honest, Have they fulfilled their end of bargains, Key for collaborative bargaining Authority and Constituents -- What authority do I have to enter agreements, Will I take positions I am not allowed to take or make, What constituents do I have, should I factor in anyone else's interests Other Misc -- Should I prepare an agenda? What order should items be in? Who is invited? How will I track all discussions? What location? Housekeeping issues/items

differences between negotiators

interests judgment about the future risk tolerance time preference

zero-sum

only one winner

postitive emotions

person who thinks you're better off generating positive feelings with the other party and display happiness / friendliness / sympathy, etc Most effective Collaborative Generates more persistence in the negotiator

Rights

relies on independent standard that has perceived legitimacy and fairness; can be formal (laws, handbook) and informal (reciprocity, precedent, fairness, equity, seniority)

dual concerns model

A model the postulates that people in conflict have two independent types of concern: concern about their own outcomes and concern about the other's outcomes

negotiation

A process involving two or more parties in which each decides what they will give and receive in an exchange between them

negotiation myths

All negotiations are zero-sum, aka win-lose situations only or the mythical fixed pie Decide to be tough and unyielding OR soft and accommodating Good negotiators are born Experience is the best teacher Good negotiators always take risks and they are highly rewarded Good negotiators rely on intuition and feeling; wing it

determine goals

Bargaining range has three points -- Starting point = initial point; best outcome, likely a bit unrealistic ; Target point = desired point, best outcome you can realistically hope to achieve ; Resistance point = worst outcome you are willing to accept before you turn to your BATNA; always set by BATNA

BATNA

Best Alternative for The Negotiated Agreement

problems of negotiator overconfidence

Better negotiator - less likely to make concessions, increases likelihood of impasse Know where the settlement will be - don't want to hear other ideas, underuse collaborative negotiations

Psychological factors leading to

Biases in perception and judgment - choose a course of action and stake out a position, perception is bias toward info that supports the position (confirmation bias); judgments/decisions reinforce wisdom of prior decision Impression management - to change course is to admit that they made a mistake Competitive irrationality - get caught up in competitive spirals that do not make sense

interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations

Causes reciprocal anger; get what you give in negotiations In extreme cases can cause negotiations to break down Reputational effects are important to remember; people don't like dealing with angry people

intrapersonal effects of anger in negotiations

Effects the negotiator's cognitive process; really angry people think less clearly and are overcome by emotions, make errors and acn even forget what they want to negotiate because they are so mad Even if they get good outcomes, they are less internally satisfied

joint decision perspectives for negotiators

Emphasizes opportunities for cooperation between the two parties Assess if there are opportunities or advantage to working together to achieve jointly beneficial outcomes or gains Essential to collaborative negotiation

Failure to see the other party's side in a negotiation

Failure to move from individual to interactive perspective Causes The Winner's Curse

Problems Associated with Information Collection and Use

Failure to see the other party's side in a negotiation info availability

Interests

Focuses on needs, desires and concerns that underlie people's positions in negotiations; difficult because it understands a deeper understanding on the other party as well as your own

non-zero-sum

Games in which outcomes need not sum to zero. With cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose (also called integrative situations).

Types of Workplace Conflict

Goal Affective Cognitive

overconfidence an need-based illusions

Illusion of superiority - think you are more intelligent, persuasive, capable; unrealistic positive view of yourself Illusion of optimism - underestimate the likelihood that they'll experience bad future events; overestimate likelihood that they'll experience good future events Illusion of control - tend to believe they have more control over future events than they really do; don't move to interactive perspectives, like the individual perspective

Elements of a dispute

Interests Rights Power

Levels of Workplace Conflict

Interpersonal Intrapersonal Intergroup Intragroup Organizational -- horizontal, vertical, role

why are rules of fair behavior important

It can be the difference between getting a settlement or not and how people feel

how to avoid escalation of commitment

Look at decisions you make in light of the expected outcomes

Types of withdrawl

Lumping it -- dropping your claim/giving into the other party's claim because pursuing dispute isn't your best interest avoidance -- one or more parties can withdraw from relationship, such as divorce, leaving the neighborhood, etc.

negotiating rationally

Means making the best decisions that you can in order to optimize outcomes Many things you CANNOT control, but you can control your own decisions

escalation of commitment

Occurs when negotiator irrationally stays committed to an initial course of action even if it's not leading to the desired outcome; double down on bad decisions

information availability

Over rely or overuse information that's easily available Ease of retrievability - fresh in memory, maybe recent occurrence, how vivid memories are of information presented use information because it's strategically relevant not just easy to get Established search patterns - look for information from the same sources over and over again; rely on the same data and people; do not broaden search for information always question information you have and why you use it (strategy or ease of use?)

how can a negotiator be overconfident

Overconfident about their ability to win a negotiation and where the settlement is likely to be

Describe a personal conflict

Parties Issues Interests Goals Resistance point BATNA - best alternative to negotiated agreement Strategy and tactics Outcome Satisfaction

Integrated Dispute Resolution System

Power Rights Interests Not ideal, in upside down pyramid shape Best = interests resolutions; average = rights resolutions; worst = power resolutions

Types of workplace disputes

Price Equity Effort Power-voice

individual decision perspectives for negotiators

Starting point: assessing what you want from the negotiation, aka the "gathering and assessing information" steps Can identify alternatives and pay off, but is very incomplete Simplifies the process by not thinking about the other party but puts you at a disadvantage Necessary but not sufficient condition for negotiation

assess underlying interests

The "why" question; why do I care about these issues? Why are some issues more important to me? Stay focused on big goals Note: Collab bargaining = interest based negotiating; interest based dispute resolution = mediation

mythical fixed pie

The belief that negotiations are always zero-sum Fail to recognize opportunities for joint gain, always competitive

identify issues in negotiation

Things that will actually BE negotiated, items for which you are trying to get agreement and help satisfy goals More issues to negotiate = better; can have more opportunity or room for alternatives Do not load negotiations with trivial matters; could gain in little areas but lose in the big areas

withdraw/avoidance negotiating style

approach that does not involve negotiating; no one gets the bargaining surplus

gathering and assessing info for negotiations

assess type and level of conflict assess what happens if agreement is not reached (BATNA) identify issues in negotiation assess importance in each issue assess underlying interests determine goals conduct a self inventory

Power

based on relative power of parties involved; defined as the ability to coerce someone to do something they would not normally do; involves threats or actual acts of power/power contests

negative emotions

being consistent with the ranting negotiator, believe going in and displaying anger/frustration is beneficial to them Not totally ineffective in competitive bargaining

5 main negotiating styles`

competitive collaborative compromise accommodation withdraw/avoidance

elements that contribute to conflict's destructive image

competitive win-lost goals misperception and bias emotionality decreased communication blurred issues rigid commitments magnified differences, minimized similarities escalation of the conflict

3 illegit negotiating styles

con borrow rob

Latent conflict

conflict happens/occurs below the surface, conflict that is not expressed or verbalized

Interpersonal Workplace Conflict

conflict that occurs between 1 or more individuals regarding their personal goals or interests (focus of course)

Intergroup Workplace Conflict

conflict that occurs between different groups or teams over group or team goals

collaborative negotiating style

do well but recognize the need of the other party to do well; view the problem as wanting to be solved; goal is to find mutual gains; build trust, share more information, do not view other party as opponent; enlarge the pie for everyone, increase value for all

rational emotions

emotionless negotiator; person who believes that in negotiations, it's better to not show any emotion and have a poker face Losing out on advantage of positive negotiation

rules of fair behavior

equity equality needs

social dimension

examines the way people respond to others in conflict situations Engagers - people who jump right into a conflict situation Avoiders - people who are more introverted, independent, and self-reliant

Organizational Workplace Conflict

horizontal (occurs at same level) vertical (occurs at different levels, power difference) role (conflict about tasks); conflict that is defined by the organizational context

dilemma of trust

how much should negotiators believe what the other party tells them

independent, dependent and interdependent

independent: meet needs without assistance of others dependent: must rely on others for what they need interdependent: interlock goals with the other party

decision perspectives for negotiators

individual interactive joint

Intragroup Workplace Conflict

internal conflict within a group or team; relevant when negotiations are between groups or teams because it must be resolved first

Intrapersonal Workplace Conflict

internal conflict/debates

Role Conflict

intrasender - conflict that occurs because you get conflicting messages from a role sender (boss/supervisor) intersender - occurs when you get conflicting messages from multiple role senders (multiple bosses)

competitive negotiating style

mythical fixed pies, all negotiations are zero-sum, goal is to win, capture the bargaining surplus

selecting a negotiation strategy

negotiating a style assessment selecting the best strategy

causes of anger in negotiation

occurs when a negotiator believes that the negative outcomes they have been experiencing are due to the actions of others. They believe those actions were intentional and not accidental and therefore they felt controlled

the winners curse

occurs when negotiators fail to consider their opponent's decisions and behaviors during negotiations

Affective Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible feelings or emotions

Goal Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible goals or interests; any workplace issue; price, equity, effort, or power (voice); main negotiation conflict or main focus

Cognitive Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible ideas, beliefs, or thoughts; can be referred to as consensus conflict

accomodation negotiating style

plan to give in to the other side; happens when you care more about the relationship than about the outcomes; other party gets all the bargaining surplus

emotional dimension

refers to how people feel about the way they are treated in a negotiation or conflict situation Givers - tend to be generous, cooperative, or reconciliatory Takers - tend to be more competitive, assertive, and quick to defend their interests, often fearful of being taken advantage of; can lead to more authoritarian approaches

cognitive dimension

refers to how people think about conflict situations Acceptors - tend to take the conflict as it's presented to them, people who think within the lines, focus on the details of the rules that apply to the situation Redefiners - people who think outside the box, think about how they can recast the problem, look for creative solutions

Bases for Determining Default Negotiating Style

social dimension emotional dimension cognitive dimension

con negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; involves an attempt to take advantage of the other party through the deception or creation of misplaced trust, present false data or false claims; need a good understanding of the vulnerabilities of the other side and going after them

rob negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; occurs when a party uses power in negotiations to take advantage of another person in a way that that person or some objective observer would consider unjust

borrow negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; occurs when a person demands concessions now in exchange for promised future concessions; leads to ethical issues when needing to fulfill the promised future concessions (if they don't)

compromise negotiating style

split the difference approach; competitive in that it is viewed as a fixed pie but you want a quick solution and not the whole pie; not an optimizing strategy; usually turned to from another strategy

3 focuses in negotiation

what you want what do they want what factors influence what will happen in this negotiation or context

concession

when one party agrees to make a change on their position

When does conflict become a dispute?

when one party makes a claim on another party that is rejected

dispute resolution

when people with opposing goals try to come to a single outcome

ZOPA

zone of potential agreement; place where bargaining ranges overlap; area between resistance points; positive bargaining zone Best settlement you can hope for = at your opponents resistance point Bargaining surplus - when negotiation offers value to both parties that the BATNA cannot capture or that are better than their BATNA