MGMT 353
Face
"Face" is the value a person places on his or her public image, reputation and status vis-à-vis other people in the negotiation.
Rights-based negotiators:
- Apply standards of fairness to an analysis of the negotiation --May include terms specified by contracts, legal rights, precedents, or expectations based upon norms
Saving Face
- Direct threats to "face" in a negotiation include: making ultimatums, criticisms, challenges, and insults. - When a person's "face" is threatened, it can tip the balance of their behavior away from cooperation toward competition, resulting in an impasse. - The best way to help the other party "save face" is to not indicate that you think he or she has lost face.
The Power of fairness: Negotiators often use one of three fairness principles when it comes to slicing the pie.
- Equality rule: prescribes equal shares for all - Equity rule: prescribes that distribution should be proportional to a person's contribution - Needs-based rule: states that benefits should be proportional to needs
The Power of Fairness: Equity Principle
- Equity exists in a relationship if each person's outcomes are proportional to his or her inputs. - Equity refers to equivalence of the outcome/input ratio of parties. - Inequity exists when the ratio of outcomes to inputs is unequal. -Complications arise if two people have different views of what constitutes a legitimate investment, cost, or reward and how they rank each one
Each of these valued resources varies in terms of:
- Particularism - how much utility we derive depends on the provider - Concreteness - the tangibility of the resource
What drives the choice of the comparison to others? A number of goals and motives drive social comparisons, such as:
- Self-improvement - compare themselves with others who can serve as models of success - upward = inspiration, insight and challenge but also to feeling discourage and incompetence - Self-enhancement - to maintain or enhance a positive view of oneself may lead people to bias info - seek comparisons that show them in a favorable light - Accurate self-evaluation - desie for truthful knowledge about oneself
Key reasons effective negotiation skills are important:
- dynamic nature of business - interdependence - Economic forces - information technology - globalization
Sunk costs
- money you have invested that is gone- get you in trouble all the time -Should think about future costs and benefits for a decision -Can influence your own behavior and the behavior of the counterparty
Overconfidence effect
- refers to unwarranted levels of confidence in people's judgment of their abilities and the likelihood of positive events and underestimates the likelihood of negative events. -Overconfidence about the value of the other party's BATNA might serve the negotiators well -Those who are too optimistic have a distinct bargaining advantage
Surplus
- represents resources in excess of what is possible for negotiators to attain in the absence of negotiated agreement
Self-Assessment: Endowment Effects Differences in negotiators' reference points may lead buyers and sellers to have different valuations for the same object
- someone who possesses an object has a reference point that reflects his or her current endowment, or private valuation, of the object. -The difference between what sellers demand and what buyers are willing to pay is a manifestation of loss-aversion
Counterfactual thinking:
- thinking what might have been but did not occur - How can you avoid this? - have someone on your side check it - More you do homework the less you regret
Negotiation is..
- your key communication and influence tool -An interpersonal decision-making process necessary whenever we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly -not just about resources - it is equally about relationships and trust
Interests, Rights, and Power Models of Disputing: Assessing Your Approach Interests-based negotiators:
-- Attempt to learn about the counterparty's needs, desires, and concerns -- Attempt to reconcile different interests among parties in a way that addresses the parties' most pressing needs and concerns
What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
--A win-win negotiation does NOT equate to any of the following actions: -Compromise -Even split -Satisfaction -Building a relationship --Win-win negotiation really means that all creative opportunities are leveraged and no resources are left on the table - we call these outcomes integrative negotiations.
Most Common Pie-Expanding Errors If reaching win-win negotiation agreements is the objective of most negotiators, what prevents them from doing so?
--False conflict- The lose-lose effect --Fixed-pie perception- Thinking that conflicts are purely win or lose situations
Relationships in Negotiation: Negotiating with Businesspeople
--In contrast to friendship negotiation, businesspeople are much more likely to use an exchange norm. -We choose our friends, but not our coworkers. -Business relationships often have status and rank issues associated with them. -The need for swift trust -The myth of the one-shot business situation
Difference between Mediation and arbitrary litigation
--Mediation- 2 party and 1 person plays the middle party role. Helps if person is not involved. Party to be voice of reason. make their own decisions. It is resolved before a court room --Arbitrary litigation- not favorable because it is resolved in court room due to lawsuit, longer time, an unknown outcome, not in your control.
The Power of Fairness: Procedural Justice People evaluate not only the fairness of outcomes but also the fairness of the procedures by which those outcomes are determined.
--People's evaluations of procedural fairness determine their satisfaction and willingness to comply with outcomes. -The process of explaining decisions in a change context helps employees adapt to the change; whereas, no explanation is often regarded as unfair.
The two routes to building trust are:
--The cognitive route - based on rational and deliberate thoughts and considerations (if a is true than b is true) --The affective route - based on intuition and emotion (intuition and gut)
Relationships in Negotiation: Embedded Relationships
--When friends and family do business, the relationship is more complex and is known as an embedded relationship.
Based on presenters in class:
-1% actually follow up - 140 jobs but only 7 or 8 interviews - being persistent is key -156 students and 25 states
The People Side of Win-Win
-A successful, win-win negotiation is not just about money or economic value.
Self-Assessment: What is my BATNA? what is my Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement in this situation?
-BATNAs are not wishful, they are factual -your BATNA is time sensitive -Do not let the other party manipulate your BATNA -negotiators should be willing to accept any set of terms superior to their BATNA
What situations lead to mistrust?
-Breaches or defections -Miscommunication -Dispositional attributions -Focusing on the "bad apple"
Most Commonly Used Win-Win Strategies The following strategies and techniques are commonly regarded by negotiators to be key in crafting win-win deals:
-Commitment to reaching a win-win deal -Compromise -Focusing on a long-term relationship -Adopting a "cooperative orientation" -Taking extra time to negotiate
Wise Pie-Slicing The distribution of resources is an unavoidable and inevitable aspect of negotiation. What guidelines should we live by when slicing the pie?
-Consistency -Simplicity - clearly understood by the individuals who employ them and those who are affected by them. -Effectiveness - should produce a choice, meaning that the allocation procedure should yield a clear decision -Justifiability - should be justifiable to other parties -Fairness rule may be consistent, simple and effective but if it cant be justified it is not likely to be successful -Consensus - agree upon the method of allocation -Effective pie-slicing procedures are often internalized by group members, and norms act as strong guidelines for behavior and decision making in groups -Generalizability - should be applicable to a wide variety of situations -Procedures and norms develop when intragroup conflict os expected, enduring or recurrent and effective policy therefore specifies outcome distribution across situations -Satisfaction - increase the likihood that negotiators will follow through with their agreements - should be satisfying to all
People are poor at negotiation because of the influence of 4 fundamental biases:
-Egocentrism -Confirmation bias -Satisficing -Self-reinforcing incompetence
Pitfalls to embedded relationships include the following:
-Emotional potential is higher and interpersonal conflict can result -Often experience internal value conflicts -May create myopia if people are reluctant to move beyond their own networks
Deterrence-based trust:
-Expensive to develop and maintain behavioral monitoring systems - Backfiring effect (reactance theory) --Reinforcing something with incentives --Trust you because trust worthy
Subjective value inventory - assesses four major concerns:
-Feelings about instrumental outcomes -Feelings about themselves -Feelings about the process -Feelings about their relationships
Power-based negotiators:
-Focus on power use (status, rank, threats, intimidation) -Coerce someone to do something he or she wouldn't otherwise do because of costs imposed upon them or threats issued
Emotions and Emotional Intelligence Emotions and moods can be either a consequence or a determinant of negotiation behavior and outcomes.
-Genuine versus Strategic emotion -Negative emotion -Positive emotion -Emotional intelligence and negotiated outcomes
Knowledge-based trust:
-Grounded in behavioral predictability -Increases dependence and commitment among parties --If he says something you have to trust him Its about tract record Trust you because you are certified predictable
Identification-based trust:
-Grounded in complete empathy with another person's desires and intentions -Means other people have adopted your own preferences --When you actually know the person and you gain the loyalty More intimate Identify things you have in common to gain trust and understanding of someone A good kind of trust
Suboptimal
-If they fail to reach an agreement, the outcome is an impasse and is Suboptimal because negotiators leave money on table and worse off by not reaching agreement then by reaching agreement --Suboptimal - of less than the highest standard or quality.
The bargaining zone, or Zone Of Possible Agreements (ZOPA), represents the range between each party's reservation points.: - A bargaining zone can be positive or negative.
-In a positive bargaining zone, negotiators' reservation points overlap. -In a negative bargaining zone, there is no positive overlap between the parties' reservation points; therefore, parties should pursue other alternatives rather than spending fruitless hours trying to reach an agreement.
Self-Assessment: Am I going to regret this? An improtant component in determining whether a person experiences regret is counter factual thinking, or "what might have been"
-In negotiation, immediate acceptance of a first offer by the counterpart often means a better outcome for the proposing negotiator, but the outcome is less satisfying -thinking about what might have been, but did not occur may be a reference point for the psychological evaluation of actual outcomes
The Power of Fairness: Relationships People's utility functions are social rather than individual.
-Individual satisfaction is strongly influenced by the payoffs received by the counterparty, as well as the payoffs received by the self. -Discrepancies between payoffs to the self versus the counterparty lead to lower satisfaction. -People will reject outcomes that entail one person receiving more than others and instead take a settlement of lower joint value but equal-appearing shares.
Strategic advice for dealing with emotions at the table:
-Monitor your emotional displays. -Beware of what you are reinforcing. -Reevaluation is more effective than suppression. -Emotions are contagious. -Understand emotional triggers.
Tough vs. Soft Negotiators
-Negotiators often choose between two completely different negotiation styles or approaches: being "tough" or "soft." -Being tough or soft are not the negotiator's only choices. -Creating a comfortable, effective style to expand the pie allows a negotiator to maximize their slice and feel good about the negotiation.
Self-Assessment: Assessing Confidence Often, negotiators' probability judgements for certain types of events occurring are more optimistic than is warranted
-Overconfidence effect refers to a negotiator's unwarranted level of confidence in the judgement of their abilities and the likelihood of positive events -this effect also causes people to underestimate the likelihood of negative events -when we find ourselves highly confident of a particular outcome, it is important to examine why we feel this way
Effective Pie-Expanding Strategies The following strategies can help negotiators expand the pie and create win-win negotiations:
-Perspective-taking -Ask questions about interests and priorities -Reveal information about your interests and priorities -Unbundle the issues -Logrolling and value-added trade-offs -Make package deals, not single-issue offers -Make multiple offers of equivalent value simultaneously -Structure contingency contracts by capitalizing on differences -Pre-settlement settlements -Search for post-settlement settlements
Negotiators should keep the following principles in mind when choosing their approach:
-Principle of reciprocity -Interests are effective for pie expansion -How to refocus your opponent on interests (and move them from rights and power)
Structural strategies to refocus your opponent on interests and away from rights and power include:
-Put the focus on interests. -Build in "loop-backs" to negotiation. -Provide low-cost rights and power backups. -Build in consultation beforehand and feedback afterwards. -Provide skills and resources.
Relationships in Negotiation
-Relationships influence not only the process of how people negotiate, but also their choice of interaction partners. -Distributive spirals and incidental emotions from the past influence trust.
A Strategic Framework for Reaching Integrative Agreements The framework of an integrative negotiation has five major components:
-Resource assessment -Assessment of differences -Offers and trade-offs -Acceptance/rejection decision - Prolonging negotiation and renegotiation
The Power of Fairness: Egocentrism Egocentric judgments of responsibility and fairness are attributable to the ways in which people process information, such as:
-Selective encoding and memory - own thoughts distract us from thinking about the contribution of others -Differential retrieval - easier to retrieve examples about what you contributed, but once people discuss what they all did then the egos go down -Informational disparity - people are not pivy to the contributions made by others which suggests that information, not goals, mediate the self-serving effect
Effective preparation for a negotiation encompasses three general abilities:
-Self-assessment -Assessment of the counterpart -assessment of the situation
Most Commonly Asked Questions Some of the most commonly asked questions when preparing for a negotiation are:
-Should I reveal my reservation point? -Should I lie about my reservation point? -Should I try to manipulate the counterparty's reservation point? -Should I make a "final offer" or commit to a position?
The Power of Fairness: Rules Different fairness rules apply depending upon the specific negotiation situation, such as:
-The goals involved in a negotiation -A negotiator's relationship to the other party -Whether negotiators are dealing with rewards versus costs - Extenuating circumstances --Different fairness rules are a potential source of conflict and inconsistency.
Motivational Orientation: Strategic Issues Several strategic issues are relevant when it comes to motivational style:
-The myth of the hard bargainer -Do not lose sight of your own interests. -Social comparison can cause breakdowns in negotiation. -Use reinforcement to shape behavior. -The power of reciprocity -Anticipate motivational clashes at the bargaining table. -Motivational convergence Epistemic motivation
The Bargaining Zone: Negotiator's Surplus
-The negotiator's surplus is the positive difference between the settlement outcome and the negotiator's reservation point. -The total surplus of both parties adds up to the size of the ZOPA or bargaining surplus. -The bargaining surplus illustrates the mixed-motive nature of negotiation: negotiators are motivated to both cooperate and compete with the other party. - for a positive bargaining zone, but at motivated to compete with each other to get as much of the bargaining surplus as possible
Self-assessment: Sure thing principle When raced with uncertainty about an event occurring, people are reluctant to make decisions and will delay decisions until the uncertain event is known.
-The paradox of this situation is that no matter what happens, people choose to do the same thing -violations of the sure thing principle are rooted in the reasons people use to make their decisions -In the presence of uncertainty, people may be reluctant to think through the implications of each outcome
The fixed-pie perception
-There is only so much to go around, but the proportion to be distributed is limited but also variable. -The outcome is often conceptualized as a pie - one is a winner and one is the loser -Fix-pie I have to be hard, surrender or agree -It is commonly assumed that concessions are necessary by one or both parties to reach an agreement. -is almost always wrong and often leads to an ineffective approach to negotiations. -EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO NEGOTIATIONS.
How does a person build trust through cognitive means of influence?
-Transform personal conflict into task conflict. -Agree on a common goal or shared vision. -Capitalize on network connections. -Find a shared problem or a shared enemy. -Focus on the future.
Relationships in Negotiation: Negotiating with Friends
-Why people are uncomfortable negotiating with friends -Friends are less competitive with each other -Reaching integrative agreements with friends
Self-Assessment: Setting up the Negotiation When determining your reservation point, be aware and knowledgeable of the following:
-be aware of focal points -beware of sunk costs -do not confuse your target point with your reservation point -identify the issues in the negotiation -identify the alternatives for each issue -Identify multi-issue proposals of equivalent value
Lawyer presentation key points
-be self, be real and be honest -judges know things -jury selections - you get lucky because you work hard -some types of situations, you must do mediation before litigation like medical practice and mal practice situations -arbitration - more power, make decisions, not in control
Self-Assessment: What is My Reservation Point? You can determine you reservation point or the quantification of your BATNA, with respect to other alternatives by the following steps:
-brainstorm your alternatives -evaluate and order each alternative's value -attempt to improve your BATNA -Determine your reservation price based on facts
reservation point
-is a quantification of a negotiator's BANTA with respect to other alternatives - lowest point you will go -Most direct influence in the final outcome -IT SHOULD BE BASED ON FACTS -Can lead to 2 bad outcomes if failure to assess reservation point - Agree to outcome that is worse than BATNA-Reject an offer that is better than their BATNA
Situation-Assessment research related to the details of a negotiation situation is also critical to a successful negotiation outcome
-is the negotiation one shot, long term or repetitive? -does the negotiation involve scarce resources or ideologies? -is the negotiation one of the necessity or opportunity? -is the negotiation a transaction or a dispute situation? -are linkage effects present? -is agreement required? -is it legal to negotiate? -is ratification required? -are there time constraints or time-related costs?
Self-Assessment: Assess your risk propensity
-most people are risk-seeking when it comes to losses, and risk-averse when it comes to gains -reference points define what people consider to be a gain or a loss
People with this fixed-pie perception take one of three mindsets when preparing for a negotiation:
-resign themselves to capitulating to the counterpart -prepare for hard bargaining with the counterpart -compromise in an attempt to reach a midpoint between opposing demands
Common Myths about Negotiation
-they are fixed sum -good negotiators take risks: because if you prepared correctly you don't need to take risks -you need to be either tough or soft -life experience is a great teacher -good negotiators are born with the skill -good negotiators rely on thier intuition
The learning objectives of this book are:
-to improve your ability to negotiate successfully -to form your general strategies for successful negotiations -to pursue negotiations from an enlightened model, which assumes that the other person you are negotiating with is every bit as motivated, intelligent, and prepared as you
Self-Assessment: What do I want? Identify what you want may sounds straightforward, but three major problems often arise:
-under-aspiring negotiator (the winner;s curse) -Over-aspiring or positional negotiator -The grass-is-greener negotiator
Chapter 1: The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator
...
Chapter 3: Distributive Negotiation: Slicing the Pie
...
Chapter 4 - Win-Win Negotiation: Expanding the Pie
...
Chapter 5 — Developing a Negotiating Style
...
Chapter 6: Establishing Trust and Building a Relationship
....
Pie-Slicing Strategies: If negotiators follow ten basic strategies, they can substantially increase the probability they will obtain a favorable slice of the pie.
1. Assess your BATNA and improve it. 2. Determine your reservation point, but do not reveal it. 3. Research the counterparty's BATNA and estimate their reservation point. 4. Set high aspirations. (Be realistic, but optimistic.) 5.Make the first offer (if you are prepared). 6. Immediately re-anchor if the other party opens first. 7. Plan your concessions. 8. Support your offer with facts. 9. Appeal to norms of fairness. 10. Do not fall for the "even split" ploy.
Richard Shell outlines seven tools for the overly cooperative negotiator:
1. Avoid concentrating too much on your bottom line. 2. Develop your BATNA. 3. Get an agent and delegate the negotiation work. 4. Bargain on behalf of someone or something else, not yourself. 5. Create an audience. 6. Say, "You will have to do better than that because..." instead of saying, "Yes." 7. Insist on commitments, not just agreements.
Richard Shell outlines seven tools for the overly competitive negotiator:
1. Think about pie-expansion, not just pie-slicing. 2. Ask more questions than you think you should. 3. Rely on standards. 4. Hire a relationship manager. 5. Be scrupulously reliable. 6. Do not haggle when you can negotiate. 7. Always acknowledge the other party and protect that person's self-esteem.
Reputation
A negotiator needs to protect his or her reputation.
The Power of Fairness: Restoring Equity People use the following means to eliminate the tension arising from inequity :
Alter the inputs Alter the outcomes Cognitively distort inputs or outcomes Leave the situation Cognitively distort either the inputs or the outcomes of an exchange partner Change the object of comparison
Trust As The Bedrock of Relationships- There are three types of trust in relationships:
Deterrence-based trust Knowledge-based trust Identification-based trust
premature concessions
Discourage starting a range - this gives the opportunity to let the opposite part move closer to their BATNA
Personal strategies to refocus your opponent on interests and away from rights and power include:
Do not reciprocate. Provide opportunities to meet. Don't get personal - use self-discipline. Use behavioral reinforcement. Send a mixed message. Try a process intervention. Let's talk and then fight. Strategic cooling-off periods. Use paraphrasing. Label the process.
Godfather movie
Do want to be hard for the godfather because you need him, he does not need you
Telltale Signs of Win-Win Potential The following are questions for negotiators to ask when assessing the potential of a negotiation situation:
Does the negotiation contain more than one issue? Can other issues be brought in? Can side deals be made? Do the parties have different preferences across negotiation issues?
If we have to negotiate, we should divide it down the middle.
Equality rule Equity rule (merit-based rule)
Impressions of others are formed quickly, and are often more extreme and polarized than the person they represent.
Halo effect Forked-tail effect
Motivational Orientation People have different orientations toward the process of negotiation:
Individualistic Competitive Cooperative
Interests, Rights, and Power Models of Disputing Negotiators use three types of approaches when in the process of dispute resolution:
Interests Rights Power
Glick and Croson's investigation of reputations listed from the least cooperative to most cooperative:
Liar-manipulator Tough but honest Nice and reasonable Cream puff --Repairing a tarnished reputation is as hard as rebuilding trust: it is important to act, not just talk, in a trustworthy fashion.
The true definition of a win-win in an agreement is one that allows negotiators to fully maximize whatever negotiators care about, which can include:
Love Money Services Goods Status Information
Other-Assessment
Once a negotiator has thought about their own BATNA, reservation point, target point and interests, it is time to identify information about the other negotiating parties. - who are the other parties? -are the parties monolithic? -Identify counterparts' interests and positions -research the counterparts' BATNAs
Chapter 2: Preparation: What to do Before Negotiation
Preparation for a negotiation is the key to success
What psychological (affective route) strategies can be used to build trust between parties?
Similarity Mere exposure Physical presence Reciprocity Schmoozing Flattery Mimicry and mirroring Self-affirmation
Steps to repairing broken trust:
Step 1: Arrange a personal meeting. Step 2: Put the focus on the relationship. Step 3: Apologize. Step 4: Let them vent. Step 5: Do not get defensive. Step 6: Ask for clarifying information. Step 7: Test your understanding. Step 8: Formulate a plan. Step 9: Think about ways to prevent a future problem. Step 10: Do a relationship check-up.
In any negotiation, negotiators should consider the differential impact of three sources of risk:
Strategic risk BATNA risk Contractual risk
The Bargaining Zone: Bargaining Surplus
The bargaining surplus is the amount of overlap between negotiating parties' reservation points. --The bargaining surplus is a measure of the value that a negotiated agreement offers to both parties compared to the value of not reaching a settlement --Skilled negotiators know how to reach agreements even when the bargaining zone is small.
The sure thing principle -
This behavior violates one of the basic axioms of the rational theory of decision making under uncertainty: the sure thing principle - if X is preferred to Y in the condition that some event, A occurs, and if X is also preferred to Y in the condition that some event, A, does not occur, then X should be preferred to Y, even when it is not known whether A will occur.
The Power of Fairness: Social Comparison With whom do people compare themselves? Three social comparison targets may be distinguished
Upward comparison - when people compare themselves to someone who is better off, more accomplished or higher in status - sometimes they compare upwards for inspiration and motivation Downward comparison - when people compare themselves to someone who is less fortunate, able, accomplished or lower in status- downward comparison makes people feel better about them selves Comparison with similar others- when people choose someone of similar background, skill and ability with whom to compare themselves- useful when people desire to have accurate appraisals of their abilities
Mixed-Motive Decision-Making:
a more effective and accurate model -a more accurate model of negotiation is to approach it as a mixed-motive decision-making enterprise involving both cooperation and competition. -effective preparation for a negotiation encompasses three general abilities -its based on the motives - cant do it if your not prepared -Have to think about the bigger picture - the entire situation -Lottery pick you get the same salary there is not negotiating that
Risk aversion -
a strong preference of one thing over another reflects a fundamental principle of negotiator behavior
Focal points -
are salient numbers, figures, or values that appear to be valid but have no basis in fact
Reference Point
defines what a person considers to be a gain or a loss - Going to be based on different people
BATNA risk
given BATNAs of equal expected value, the more risk-averse negotiator will be in a weaker bargaining position --many BATNA's are uncertain because of potential alternatives arrive -Gain-lose basis can be potentially a problem because negotiators can be "framed" -Those who max. their gains - goes for the sure thing -Those who min. their loses adopt to more of a risky bargaining strategies - wanting to hold out for a better offer -Buys prefer vigilant strategies whereas sellers prefer eager strategies -Outcomes/alternatives that fall short of the BATNA is considered a loss -Outcomes/alternatives that exceed BATNA viewed as a gain. -More risk averse the negotiator , the more likely it is that she or he will make greater concessions -Given BATNAs of equal expected value, the more risk-averse negotiators will be in a weaker bargaining position
Winner's curse:
happens when a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted by the other party
Face threat sensitivity (FTS)
is the likelihood of having a negative reaction to a face threat
Negotiation dance -
process of making an opening offer and then reaching a mutual agreeable settlement
Heuristic judgment:
processes are necessary when normative decision procedures are absent or when their application would be inefficient Unware of the powerful contextual factors that affect their judgment of fairness
Contractual risk
refers to the risk associated with the willingness of the other party to honor its terms -- risk associated with the willingness of the other party to honor its terms. -Those with negative frames - to reach integrative agreements than those of positive frames -Reason? Because it attains a high aspiration entails some creative risk -So if integrative agreements are a sure thing then Positive frames are more effective -But if integrative agreements makes the roll the dice negative frame are more effective -Loss frame = cooperative and likely to settle than those with a gain frame
Strategic risk
refers to the riskiness of the tactics that negotiators use at the bargaining table -- riskiness of the tactics that negotiators use at the bargaining table -Choose between extremely cooperative tactics and competitive tactics - Those who experience a string of failures are more likely to adopt a "loss frame" and feel less "in control" whereas those who experience a string of successes feel greater in control. - Loss-framed - are reluctant to reveal info that could be used to exploit them they prefer to manage risk by delaying outcomes. -
Monolithic -
whether parties on the same side of the table are in agreement with one another concerning their interests in the negotiation --Many times the parties are filled with people who are on the same side but have different values, beliefs and preferences