Negotiation Test 2

Development and management of coalitions

1. Difference between two party and group negotiations is the potential for two or more parties within a group to form a coalition to pool their resources and exert greater influence on outcomes 2. Group members who form coalitions may engage in private caucusing for strategic purposes

Dividing Resources

1. Each party advocates in a self-serving fashion for their own interst and multiple definitions of fairness exist a. Require all of the pie-slicing and pie-expanding skills of 2-party negotiations and more

Voting and Majority Rule

1. Groups often simplify the negotiation of multiple issues among multiple parties through voting and decision rules, however, they can thwart effective negotiation if not used right in terms of pie expansion and pie slicing 2. Problems with voting and majority rule: a. Majority Rule i. Fails to recognize the strength of individual preferences b. Unanimity Rule i. Time consuming but encourages group members to consider creative alternatives to expand the size of the pie and satisfy the interests of all group members ii. Prevents logrolling c. If voting method is agreed upon, it may not yield a choice if the group is evenly split d. Voting Paradoxes i. Condorcet paradox 1. Demonstrates that the winners of majority rule elections will change as a function of the order in which alternatives are proposed ii. Impossibility theorem 1. The derivation of group preference from individual preference is indeterminate a. Even though each manager's preferences are transitive, the group level preference is intransitive iii. Group members strategically misrepresent their true preferences so that a preferred option is more likely to be favored by the group iv. Consensus agreements are time consuming and lead to compromise in which parties identify a lowest common denominator acceptable to all

Formulating Trade-offs

1. In a multiparty negotiation, integrative trade-offs may be achieved through either circular or reciprocal logrolling a. Circular logrolling involves trade-offs that require each group member to offer another member a concession on one issue while receiving a concession from yet another group member on a different issue i. More risky because they involve the cooperation of more than two group members b. Reciprocal trade-offs are fashioned between two members of a larger group i. Typified in the more traditional form of exchanging present-->

Multiparty negotiations are becoming increasingly common negotiation as we become a more globalized world, list (and explain why) these negotiations are more complex and challenging

Dividing Resources Development and management of coalitions Formulating Trade-offs Voting and Majority Rule v. Complexity of information management vi. Communication Breakdowns

What are the psychological reasons for the escalation of commitment phenomenon?

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 i. Psychological reasons: 1. Negotiations are risk seeking when it comes to losses and risk averse for gains a. Engage in greater risk if trying to recover from losing position than they are if they see themselves as starting with a clean slate b. The bigger the investment and the more severe the possible loss, the more prone people are to trying to turn things around Some people reason that process of negotiation, not the outcome, is the reason for continuing

Strategies for maximizing coalitional effectiveness

Make your contacts early before key parties become committed to others 1) because 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 1) because most people feel obligated to follow through with promises even when verbal commitments aren't legally binding Use unbiased-appearing rationale to divide the pie 1. 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 2. If coalitional members feel that distribution of pie is fair, they are more likely to resist persuasion to leave coalition

Positive effects of conflict

Positive effects of conflict i. Brings problems into the open ii. Growth and opportunity

What is the team efficacy effect, and how does it differ from the actual results of team vs. solo negotiations

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. i. 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: 1. 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.

How does the trade-off principle operate within systems of sacred and secular values?

Trade-off principle—idea for handling scarce resource conflicts with sacred issues i. 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

Identity-based trust

Trust in another person that is based on a shared identity - like same religion or same sorority. You do not actually know or have personal experience with the individual, but you trust them due to your shared identity. 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 1. Trust Vandy alum telling you something about an interview process more than someone from other school 2. Twice as likely to buy a car from someone with same color eyes

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. 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.

What are some examples of acceptable and taboo trade-offs in negotiation?

a. Acceptable trade-offs—trading secular values for secular values Ex.: bottle of wine, house, services of gardner a. 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: 1. Trading body organs for money, time, convenience 2. Human life 3. Familial obligations 4. National honor 5. Ecosystem

Give some examples of personal and interpersonal escalation dilemmas

a. Personal dilemmas—involve one person, whether to continue with losing course of action or cut one's losses i. Continuing to gamble after losing money ii. Investing money in a car or house that continues to deteriorate Waiting in long lines that are not moving a. Interpersonal dilemmas—involve 2 or more people in competitive relationship like a negotiation i. Union strikes ii. War

calculus based trust

based on deterrence, fragile and limited potential because dependent on punishment 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 i. Deterrence is so high that trust has to be forced from both sides ii. Ex.: 1. Hawthorne plant in 1940s would hit upper arm of employees if they over- or underperformed 2. Prenups iii. Problems 1. Expensive to develop and maintain 2. Can backfire (reactance theory—people don't like freedom taken and will act to reassert it)

Conflict categories

i. Conflict over beliefs—situations where we believe reality to be different, differing beliefs are fact-based 1. Empirical questions—can find data, design test 2. Ex.: whose truck is stronger ii. Differing preferences—start as little annoyances that add up over time, may be habit-based 1. Not as easily resolved because not fact-based 2. Ex.: where to go to dinner, which supplier to use iii. Conflict over definition of role and relationships—what roles do we support, who gets to take on certain tasks 1. Ex? iv. Conflict over resources—unlimited wants but limited resources, we fight for our share and to maximize self-interest and outcome 1. Ex? v. Attribution-based conflict—conflict is largely about placing blame, can cause significantly different perception of the conflict 1. Ex.: getting cut off in traffic vi. Conflict around ethics and morals—to what extent is it an appropriate decision, perception over what is right and fair 1. We view what is fair by what benefits us mort 2. Ex?

Why are coalitions 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: 1. 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

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

i. Expression of confidence in other group of people that you won't be put at risk, harmed, injured by them Ways to build: i. 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 goal or shared vision 3. Capitalize on network connections—common node in social network 4. Find shared problem or shared enemy 5. Focus on the future—lower aspirations, expect friendlier negotiations, higher satisfaction, use problem-solving bargaining style, harmonious expectations, mutually beneficial solutions if expect to work together in future ii. Psychological 1. Similarity—more likely to make concessions with people know and like 2. Mere exposure—more we are exposed to something, the more we like it 3. Physical presence 4. Reciprocity—we feel obligated to return what others have offered or given to us 5. Schmoozing—small talk has dramatic impact on liking and trust of others 6. Flattery—people like others who appreciate and admire them, more likely to trust others who like them, respond more favorably when flattered 7. Mimicry and mirroring—facilitate discovery of integrative outcomes, better individual outcomes and joint gains and build trust when mimic mannerisms of opponents (trust congruence) 8. Self-disclosure—sharing info about oneself makes you vulnerable because you could be exploited and it invites other person to reciprocate the disclosure and thus builds trust

Key Strategies of Multi-Party Negotiations

i. Know who will be at the table and understand interests of constituencies they represent ii. Manage information and systematize proposal making 1. Matrix that lists each party (rows) and issue (columns) and record each person's preferences for each issue 2. Manage time well—make proposals and explore options and alternatives in systematic fashion iii. Brainstorm wisely 1. Brainwriting/solitary brainstorming (individuals are better at generating ideas but groups are better at evaluating them) iv. Develop and assign process roles—timekeeper, process manager, recorder of info v. Stay at the table vi. Strive for equal participation—promote information exchange vii. Allow for some points of agreement, even if only on process of reaching settlement viii. Avoid "equal shares" bias ix. Avoid agreement bias—focus on reaching common ground and reluctant to accept differences that could create joint gain x. Avoid sequential bargaining—use simultaneous bargaining (several issues under consideration at once) to fashion win-win tradeoffs among issues

Negative effects of conflict

i. Negativity and pessimism ii. Heightened arousal iii. Increased volume iv. Criticism and blame v. Sarcasm and name calling

Common reasons confrontation fails

i. Sarcasm or aggressive humor (as though it's clever) ii. Personal attacks and insults iii. Name-calling, obscenities, etc.

Best tactics to deal with conflict

i. Strike the right balance between assertiveness (capacity to articulate and advocate for own interests) and empathy (non-judgmentally understand other's world) ii. With confrontation failures, ask questions—moving us forwards or backgrounds

Knowledge-based trust

trust based on the behavioral predictability that comes from a history of interaction a. Knowledge based trust—behavioral predictability, person has enough info about others to understand them and accurately predict their behavior. Deals with the ability to predict the behaviour of the trustee based on prior performance i. Ex.: rubber market buyers and sellers form long-term relationships because of asymmetry of information and growers have reputations of trustworthiness so high quality rubber is sold ii. 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 iii. Problems 1. Economic dependence 2. Emotional commitment