Bargaining and Negotiation Final

Arbitration- THEORY behind it (1)

- assumption is that when you go to an arbitrator, you lose control over the outcomes

3. win- win (1) and does it work?

*he argues that'd we'd be better off with win-win- everybody gains (only integrated one of these three bc everyone has bought into the decision)! CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING- win/ win strategy -bring all parties together and have them talk until they agree 100% on what to do. Does it work? -this does not allow votes and you end up getting a fake consensus (let's just get out of here) -tend to work best if all parties basically agree before hand -If conflict is relatively minor ** Filley says looking at procedures will help us find an integrated agreement we must also take individual characteristics into account...

PROBLEMS with Principle Negotiation perspective

- Can see goals and broad frameworks... but how is it really done? - They say that you walk in and disclose interests... this assumes that you know your interests beforehand - You also have to figure out the other sides interests - This isn't as simple as it's made out to be - Also, they never tell us what an interest might be

4. High self-monitors (QUALITIES/ NEGOTIATIONS)

- SOCIAL CHAMELEONS- ask themselves, "what does this situation need me to be"? and then adapt to it (low self monitors are just themselves, don't bend toward situation) -SOCIALLY SKILLED- size up your perspective and act in accordance w/ what you want -PEOPLE LIKE THEM (they get more promotions, but no correlation w/ aptitude or performance quality) -NOT LOYAL- they're highly inconsistent, but they have more options available to them. They rationalize their actions w/ social appropriateness and do what they think is right in the circumstance. Do things situationally, not stably. (more likely to cheat on partners) - FRIENDLY AND DESIRABLE- so we tend to make concessions to them that we should. they use rapport building to get what they want

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 3. SANDBAGGING

- act like you are weaker than you actually are in hope that the other side will make concessions - kind of like soft bargaining - used mostly by low macs- not actively trying to decieve - make yourself appear more vulnerable - works sometimes (especially if dealing w/ someone who is ethical)

Narcissists: AS NEGOTIATORS

- become very defensive if you disagree with them - don't see why they should care about your needs or feelings - don't see your perspective

Problem with Follet (1)

- believed she was using anecdotal logic - so it disappeared until the 1960s when people looked at what she wrote again in looking for creative solutions for integrated bargaining and negotiation

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 5. STRATEGIC USE OF EMOTION

- come in and act like you are really angry/ emotional when you aren't - used by high machs - acting strategically angry works

Arbitration- 1. FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION

- conventional arbitration became a problem because arbitrator could come up with any solution they wanted, bc ppl could predict their bias and sway them (walk out w any outcome they wanted) -changed arbitration to final offer arbitration, where the arbitration must come in and choose one of the two final offers on the table - labor found a way of manipulating the system (used a form of log rolling- decided on the one thing they really wanted that management would definitely not give them and make concessions on everything else --> caused management to appear more demanding --> arbitrators picked labor's option (labor was winning massive amts of final arbitrations, management hadn't figured out this strategy)

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation- how do you repair trust- CLASSICAL VIEW (GRIT) BACKGROUND

- developed during the Cold War between US and SU - by Osgood- psychologist at U of I - most noted for methodological stuff more than theory - he describes a way that he felt the two countries could get along w/ e/o better in order to avoid world catastrophe - also used to talk about labor/ management conflict - how to take groups in a deadlock and get them to back off - called GRIT (Graduated Reduction in Tension)

7. Ego- involved

- if you think something different than them, even if it's just slightly different, they will think its radically different -difficult to negotiate w/ them because it's impossible to get them on your side b/c they are so committed to their position -if highly ego involved, tend to deadlock (could compromise if open-minded) -issue specific and dogmatic

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 2. GOOD COP, BAD COP STRATEGY

- law enforcement does this/ uses this and so do people collecting debts - one person acts conciliatory and one acts like a jerk - usually fabricated (choose who will be who) (bad cop doesn't have to be present) - Sequence matters: What order works best? better to start w/ good cop then bad cop comes in yelling - why? because of fear! - when you meet the bad cop, your level of aspiration goes down, and when the good cop shows up you are more willing to make concessions if it keeps the bad cop away how well does it work? - doesn't work as well if same person plays good cop then bad cop (not as believable) - only works well on some people, works better if you haven't used it on them in the past

Filley says we must also think about INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS/ STYLE which vary on (2) levels

- looking at procedures will help us find an integrated agreement but we must also look at individual CHARACTERISTICS - everyone has a typical style for resolving conflict, some are more integrated than others, styles vary on two dimensions: 1. concern for the other party- how much you care about what the party gets (low to high concern on X-axis) 2. concern for self- how much you care about what you get (low to high concern on Y-axis)

3. Pruitt (background)

- most noted for log-rolling approach - talks ab many strategies, but focuses on one type - where the most research has been done - very specific, works well, not vague

2. Mediation- WHAT IS IT?

- not a negotiator, because they don't have skin in the game, but hired to come in and mediate the dispute - suggests solutions, pitches ideas - pure mediation (only power is to cajole/ persuade each party to reach an agreement) - power mediation (threaten or offer promises- using leverage to make them reach an agreement)

1. Passive Facilitation- PROCESS

- observe the two parties negotiating with e/o - some evidence says it works bc the PRESENCE of the mediator causes the parties to act more rationally/ responsible

1. Must have high reasonable goals

- one of the problems with negotiation is that we are too conservative and set low goals -low goals are easy to achieve but not integrated and don't give as much as we could get -must make it a high goal that is reasonable- but not too high that you can't reach agreement -when you set high goals it has an energizing effect- challenges you to think about how to reach goals

Face- concerned - PERSONALITY/ QUALITIES

- propensity to take things personally (thin skinned) - tend to be very high in stress - tend to feel persecuted by others (feel like people are out to get them) - bad past experiences w/ conflict - when someone says something, feel like it's being said to them (narcissistic) - can't let go of hurt feelings - individuals who are sensitive to rejection are also very image concerned- never initiate things bc they think they'll be rejected; personalize everything

Arbitration- 2. ISSUE BY ISSUE FINAL ARBITRATION

- so they came up with issue by issue final arbitration - if you're the arbitrator, you take the offer from management and the offer from labor and go line by line and accept/ decide on each one at a time - takes away ability to log roll In the US, neither party wanted to use it... why? - took away their ability to manipulate the system ** main problem w/ arbitration- same people doing the same job and getting older (allows people to choose the ones they know)

What happens when you have more parties involved in a negotiation? (multi party negotiations)

- the more parties involved, the more difficult the negotiation - coalitions: - want to be just big enough to win but not too big - if you win you get less because you have to share the winnings - who gets what? (the more resources someone brings to a coalition, the greater their share of the victory, except if somebody who comes in w/ few votes/ resources than you but pushes the coalition over the top, then they might get more)

2. Obstacles to Negotiation: How you negotiate- the Mode of Communication (THE COMMUNICATION ORIENTATION MODEL- RELATIONSHIP TYPES(3) and EFFECT OF NEGOTIATION FACE-TO-FACE VS ASYMMETRICAL MODALITIES for the 3 types)

- this model said that the way to make sense of the effects of communication modalities is to look at the prior relationship between the two parties before negotiation... there are three types: 1. NEUTRAL ORIENTATION -two parties don't know each other and are negotiating for the first time 2. COOPERATIVE ORIENTATION -two parties have worked together in the past 3. COMPETITIVE ORIENTATION -two parties are used to competing against e/o and they don't like e/p - the model then looked at the effect of negotiating face-to-face as supposed to using asymmetrical modalities like e-mail (highly restricted DELAYED forms of communication vs. IMMEDIATE forms) for the 3 types of relationships: 1. the two parties were more likely to find integrated agreements and were more satisfied w/ the agreements when they negotiated face to face or thru an immediate modality ?????????

1. Log-rolling

- trading high vs. low agreements: i make tradeoffs between issues that don't mean much to me but mean a lot to you to get something that means something to me and not that much to you -not concession making: looks like it, but it's tradeoffs between issues -to do it, you have to know your priorities and your opponents priorities -prioritize and hold firm to things that are most important to me -discovered in politics: states have different issues

2. Use facilitator as intermediary- PROCESS

- use the facilitator as an intermediary -acting as linkage: someone who can link two parties together -help by passing messages back and forth - though of as neutral - there are advantages and disadvantages to intermediaries

3. Facilitation- WHAT IS IT?

- used to be considered like mediation - but different because if you're a mediator you come in and advance proposals, but if you're a facilitator you don't stress what the answers are, instead you stress the PROCESS to finding them - even if you think its a bad agreement, you won't tell them - everything is about the process

What to do to reach an agreement- 3RD PARTY INTERVENTION (3 types)

- we've discovered that people aren't generally very good at negotiation and many times we try we fail, so this is the mechanism we can turn to - if you can't reach a negotiated agreement, go to a 3rd party for help.... 1. Arbitration (conventional --> final offer --> issue by issue final arbitration) 2. Mediation 3. Facilitation

1. Arbitration- WHAT IS IT? (1. CONVENTIONAL ARBITRATION)

- when 2 parties get into a conflict and can't resolve it, the go to single individual or group of individuals that make a decision for them on what they should do (not a legal process) - used during WWII bc congressed passed laws making it illegal to strike during wartime - if union can't strike, management has the advantage - so to balance it out, congress said if you can't reach an agreement, you have to go to an arbitrator - meant to be a measure of last result as it would force labor and management to negotiate good faith

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 6. LOW BALL TECHNIQUE

- when you go in and get people commit to doing something and then increase the cost of that thing later - very deceptive and illegal in sales - started w/ buying and selling cars- when you've already committed, hard to not go through w/ it bc you've already envisioned yourself in that car so when the price goes up, you're still willing to buy it - why it works in everyday negotiation- to get them to commit to something you start by asking them to do you a favor- usually people say sure and when they find out later what the favor is and don't want to do it, they still feel obligated to do it because they already said yes (people don't like violating commitments they made to people, also don't like violating commitments to self (but less important))

Fisher and Ury put forth Principle/ Interest Negotiation (THE RULES)

- you are a RATIONAL problem solver; not a friend OR adversary -your goal is a WISE AGREEMENT- one that meets the interests of both parties -only make CONCESSIONS when it's in your interest -never set a RESISTANCE POINT when you go into negations (won't be aware of other types of issues you might look at) -TOUGH on the problem, but SOFT on the opponent -if you are a principle negotiator, TRUST is irrelevant (don't even think ab whether or not you trust other side; doesn't matter if you do or don't bc if you follow the rules you can reach an agreement)

3. Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation (WHAT CONSTITUES TRUST?)

- your willingness to be VULNERABLE (based on an expectation of positive behavior from the other side) -when you engage in trusting behavior, you could be taken ADVANTAGE OF, but you do so because you don't think that you will be -generally, people that write about negotiation say that trust FACILITATES finding integrated agreements--> disclose info, consider alternatives, etc.

Machiavellians: WHAT TRAIT DO ALL MACHS HAVE IN COMMON (1) AND HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BTWN THE DIFF TYPES OF MACHS (3 types)

-All machs have one trait in common- they're all CYNICAL - What differentiates them is how they deal with their cynicism Types: some highly cynical people become/ deal with cynicism by becoming... 1. FATALISTIC - world is bad and I'm going to lose -low self esteem -tend to ingratiate- suck up to people with power to survive/ deal with a cruel world with the hope that they'll protect them (only good to ppl with power) 2. HIGHLY COMPETITIVE -take control of the situation -high self-esteem -get what they want in two diff ways: 1. ingratiate- become friends w ppl and aggressively network (don't look for protection like fatalistic ppl but look for strategic alliances) 2. they lie their way through situations (more common) 3. HIGHLY RELIGIOUS -get very involved in religion, but doesn't mean they actually believe in religion -high in religiosity but not correlated w/ how firmly they believe -involved in the decision making- just looking for power, not belief -drawn to more conservative, fundamental religions -drawn to this side when they've gotten caught doing something bad

2. Obstacles to Negotiation: How you negotiate- the Mode of Communication (BACKGROUND)

-EXPLOSION of communication possibilities --> a lot of negotiation taking place electronically -as a result, an immense amount of RESEARCH has looked at the effects of the mode of communication on your ability to find an integrated agreement -studies were CONTRADICTORY -some found that people were more effective FACE TO FACE, others found the opposite -now there is a new model that gives us an idea of the effects of communication modalities -->The Communication Orientation Model (Kellogg)

Other tactics: Principled (Interest) Negotiation (Fisher and Ury) BACKGROUND/ TRADITIONAL NEGOTIATION (2)... how they got to principled negotiation

-First Book: Getting To Yes -start by contrasting different ways of negotiating -looking at tradition negotiation, there have been two ways to negotiate (soft or hard)-- positional negotiation: 1. soft- act like a friend -make concessions to reach an agreement and build a relationship -low resistance point -they're easy on you -trust the other side 2.hard- adversary -demand concessions -high resistance point -tough on you and tough on the issues -mistrust the other side

3. argument strategies

-Pruitt finds that the more you argue, the less likely you are to find an integrated agreement -two types of arguments that work well (both focused on offers, not the reasons for offers but the offers themselves): 1. a relative advantage argument: -what i'm offering you is going to meet your interests more than what you're asking for 2. question workability: -avoid the temptation to question the legitimacy of the other side's needs

6. contingent agreement

-agree through contract that if certain conditions are met, certain incentives kick in -performance quotas that allow you to reach agreement w/o having to re-negotiate -high risk situations- good way of guarding against risk -big for professional sports- hot shot play who is getting old/ injured asks for a lot of money but you're worried he won't be good for much longer but you also don't want to lose him so you say you get base salary and then i you perform at this level ill automatically increase your salary and give you the increment

2. Filley (background)

-business professor at U Wisconsin -consultant for business -moved notion of integrated bargaining by talking about it in a slightly different way

1. Machiavellians: BACKGROUND

-created by psychologists based off Machiavelli's book "Prince" -used to be viewed as a personality trait -now used as a measure of whether someone's a sociopath (lacking a conscience) -lack a conscience, don't feel bad when bad things happen to others

Narcissists: HOW TO NEGOTIATE W/ THEM

-don't expect much from them, they won't be able to see your perspective -don't criticize or attack them -most effective strategy to get them to work with you its ingratiate yourself to them

3. multiple issues

-have to have multiple issues for integrated bargaining (negotiating a job offer) -multiple issues allows for tradeoffs

2. Non- specific compensation (what it is and drawbacks)

-impossible to log roll when we can't do tradeoffs -so with this you add new issues to the table that are more important to the opponent than the current issues are -if i can find a new issue, then we can start log rolling -ex: salary argument btw worker and employer.. -he's seen some negotiations where the only way to get an integrated agreement is through non- specific compensation drawbacks: -this type of compensation is very difficult to do -adding a new element to the table that almost seems like a bribe -sometimes non-specific compensation involves a new incentive that doesn't look like the other factors on the table (i.e. selling a product and saying maybe I can find you cubs tickets) -not inherent how valuable one is vs the other -as a result, someone won't accept bc they don't know if its equivalent to what they have to give up -may take longer to think ab it to determine value -may require more of it to make sure it's equal

3. bridging agreement

-most inventive and creative of all types of agreements -involves coming up with an entirely new (and creative) agreement from scratch -have to look at it from different vantage point -requires you to be creative and openminded -two things have to be present to discover the bridging agreement: 1.free and open communication 2.certain type of personality: low dogs/ one of the two parties has to be a creative thinker

4. cost-cutting

-reducing the face loss or image concerns of the other side -when you go into negotiate w someone, there are two related issues: 1. precedent-setting (autonomy)- is this agreement setting a precedent for future agreements? -key aspect for image is autonomy (don't want to be controlled, want to believe you can do what you want) now OR in the future -solutions: a. negotiate in private b. stipulate that you won't tell anyone else c. address precedent issue in a funny way 2. If I make a concession, you'll think I'm weak -have to do something to make the other person feel like you respect them -immediately be submissive -make the request look small/trivial/ seem normal -build them up beforehand -thought manipulation- work the system so other side offers what you want without actually asking for it----- examples: -heard you're mean, can I take exam on a different day? grant extension bc you're not diminishing face -heard you really understand, can i take exam on a different day? grant extension bc you like that image -my life is terrible can i please take the exam on a different day? justification is so strong that you'd grant it without feeling weak -request is very small- grant extension bc its so trivial that it doesn't matter -girl doesn't take final and says that everyone extends- grant because its not a loss of face bc everyone does it -thought manipulation- someone manipulates you into offering them what they wan't so they don't have to offer it- not a loss of face for you because they didn't ask for it, you just gave it to them

5. re-opener agreement

-temporarily agree to do something and then re-open it later -a way of reducing risk -pre-nup example -disadvantages: if you know the other person will change his mind you won't put as much effort or agreement into the agreement. you want certainty that they can't get out. -need to make sure both sides are willing to commit despite the fact that there is risk attached to it

4. coercion

-this is bad -flexible rigidity- be flexible about how you will meet your goal but stick to your goal rigidly -flexible flexibility- bad. i'm not committed to reaching my goals but I'm open to how I achieve them

8. Face- concerned (BROWN)- HOW PEOPLE WANT TO BE TREATED (general)

-want to be treated as if they are competent and strong -when someone threatens your face, you become motivated and aroused - your motivation is aimed at protected your face or image

4. search model

-want to create a search model beforehand to use during negotiation process -start by specifying what your GOAL is -then IDENTIFY all the things the other party can give you to allow you to meet your goal (and configuration of ways they can give them to you) -if they can't don't lower goal, just redistribute priorities -then PRIORITIZE each of these things

Rise of Integrated Bargaining: 1. Mary Follet (general background info)

-worked with collective bargaining -involved with arbitration (one of the few women) during WWI and WWII -if unions and management can't reach agreement, they have to use arbitration -became increasingly frustrated because labor and management could rarely agreement-- couldn't/ didn't want to see a creative solution--->> -integrated bargaining began with this application of collective bargaining between labor and management

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences when you are representing a constituency- HOW DO REPS USE THE CONSTITUENCY TO THEIR BENEFIT?

1. "My hands are tied" strategy - say that you can't reach an agreement because you can't get your constituency to agree/ move on a topic - allows you to still have a good relationship w/ opponent - only works to a point- works as long as it gives them more than the minimum (resistance point) they set when they came in o You want constituency to be seen as tough, so that your opponent understands why you're hands are kind of tied - scary constituency, so that if they don't deal with you they will have to deal with them o What happens when you have a...: • Tough constituency behind a tough opponent? TT • Deadlock • Soft constituency behind a soft opponent? SS • Demand more because you know they will cave • Soft constituency behind a tough opponent? ST • You laugh because you know there is no way they can pull this off, they've got no support from their cons • Tough constituency behind soft opponent TS • If you cant negotiate with soft person you will have to deal with crazy constituency

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation (WHERE DOES TRUST COME FROM?) (4)

1. A CONTRACT- I am willing to negotiate w/ you and allow myself to feel vulnerable as long as there is an iron clad contract w/ enforcements built into it - weakness- trust is tied to the contract, not the person (substitute for trust) - don't know if their behavior is bc they're trust-worthing or bc of the contract 2. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE- powerful determinant of trust - can be w/ the person himself or people like him/her - if someone betrays you, you have a tendency to believe that everyone like him/ connected to him will also betray you - trust is easily violated and difficult to restore 3. IDENTIFICATION- identifying w/ the person - feel that people who are similar to us are trustworthy - those who we don't identify w/, we don't trust - gets us into trouble because sometimes here are people who we think are like us but really aren't - people tend to think people are more similar to them than they really are 4. COMMUNICATION- trust through communication - the others have to do with people, but sometimes its actions that build trust

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences when you are representing a constituency- HOW DO THEY PUT PRESSURE ON THE REPS (LEADING TO INCREASE IN DEADLOCKS)/ KEEP THEM LOYAL? (6)

1. ACCOUNTABILITY - constituency can require rep to come back and account/explain for his actions - increases loyalty, toughness, deadlocks 2. AUTHORITY - degree to which the rep can enter into agreement w/o going back to constituency first (decreases loyalty) - limit your authority to make decisions (increased loyalty, toughness, deadlocks) 3. IDENTIFICATION - degree to which you identify w/ your constituency - ingroup vs outgroup - ingroup- more loyal, tougher, obedient, deadlock 4. INCENTIVES - elected or randomly selected (elected- more likely to deadlock) - degree to which they'll re-elect you/ you were elected (if you were elected by narrow votes, more likely to stick w/ constituency- need the votes) - how they pay you/how much- pay before (more likely to be flexible; pay after- more likely to deadlock, more loyalty, toughness) - if constituency controls your outcome, more obedient, loyal, tough, likely to deadlock you will be 5. FEEDBACK - feedback on how you're doing halfway through - great job- become tougher--> deadlocking - bad job- become tougher --> deadlocking - any feedback results in becoming tougher 6. CONSTITUENCY WATCHING - reps will be the most loyal

Agents: WHAT TO DO BEFORE HIRING AN AGENT (6)

1. Before hiring, look at multiple agents 2. Set BATNA before you start 3. tell agent your interests, but not your BATNA 4. tap into their info base (ask questions) 5. Let them know exactly what their authority is and isn't 6. Get some ideas of what they're like emotionally

Emotional Styles (Alder)- your way of dealing with emotions; tied into contexts; how they affect negotiations (3 emotional styles)

1. COLD RATIONAL STYLE - most like what Pruitt talks about w/ integrated bargaining (??) - keep emotions under control and stay targeted on issues - don't look happy or sad - show no emotions at all and deal w/ it as a rational process - better at reaching integrated decisions - not very likable - because these people are so cold and irrational, we don't get issues that are tied to emotion solved --> don't get true satisfaction of reaching an integrated decision 1. Distributive approach—we should do what is just and fair in terms of making the decisions, all based on the logic of fairness and justice 2.Integrative approach—focus on interest, instead of justice and fairness, they try to find out what your interests are and explain what theirs are and they try to find an agreement 2. POSITIVE STYLE - accept and embrace emotion - come in always being happy and nice and smiling - pisses you off just as much as cold rational people 1. Distributive: people with positive emotion tend to promote compromise, want to split the difference so both parties can walk away with a little bit—good because of compromise 2. Integrative: also want to promote (compromise?) positive so they don't come up with an integrative solution—it is bad because you like them so much that you give up more than you need to and split the difference instead of maximizing what you could get out of it 3. NEGATIVE STYLE - always pissed off, angry - come in yelling- vengeful, ready to go - don't like them either- tend to be intimidated by them, you will end up hating them • 1. Distributive—tough bargaining so you will probably deadlock or you'll give in • 2. Integrative—tough bargaining, same thing happens—difficult to deal with in both contexts • Can't reciprocate need to stay in control, if you attack back it spirals out of control, so you have to remain rational • Need to deal with the likelihood that they will come in so upset that you get upset and they end up winning in the negotiation ** none of these styles are going to do well unless they match the situation you're in

styles of INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS (5)

1. COMPETITIVE style- low concern for other party and high concern for self. belief that there's always one right party and one wrong party. competitive people tend to believe they're always right. 2. ACCOMMODATIVE style- low concern for self and high concern for the other party. believe that if you disagree with someone you don't like them. better to give in to keep everyone happy (soft bargainers) 3. COMPROMISE style- medium concern for self/ medium concern for others. these people believe that everyone wants too much (everyone is too demanding) when they're in a conflict and that this is the fundamental problem with bargaining. Split the difference- can work in some circumstances but NOT very integrated 4. AVOIDANCE style- no concern for self or other party. believe conflicts are irresolvable. Everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affects me. Should only get involved if it impacts me or else leave me alone. NOT integrative at all-- problems won't be solved because no one can get to you 5. PROBLEM-SOLVING style- high self/ high others. the only integrative style. believe it's possible to find a solution whereby everyone is happy. maximizes the outcomes. avoids distributive outcomes, compromise problems, etc.

Mary Follet wrote several ASSUMPTIONS (5)

1. Conflict is INEVITABLE, but it is not always bad/ destructive. It can be constructive. (optimistic) 2. People can approach conflict cooperatively as PROBLEM SOLVING. she rejected the idea that negotiation is inherently competitive/ a game. she looked at it as a joint problem that could be solved as a joint task. 3. Conflict outcomes are determined by POWER. both parties should combine their power to resolve the problem together (optimistic). 4. There's INTERPLAY between the two parties in the negotiation. Each party is influenced by what the other party does. 5. COMPROMISING is an ineffective resolution to conflict because both sides are giving something up.

Wrote another book "Getting Past No, Dealing With Difficult People" (identifying why people act the way they do) Fisher and Ury identified (5) common situations that mess up principled negotiation and ways of dealing w/ each

1. Dealing with an overly COMPETITIVE person: -solution: go to the balcony, call a timeout -and then, 1) refocus on your interests (what you want to get out of this) and 2) refresh your memory of your BATNA (to remind yourself that you have an alternative) 2. Dealing with a highly EMOTIONAL person: -need to figure out what you did to cause them to become so emotional -blaming yourself for having set them off -they argue that if you can figure this out, you get insights into their interests 3. The other side does NOT want to do INTEREST negotiation: - shift gears from trying to negotiate an outcome to saying we need to negotiate the process -you have to persuade them on the process by showing them that it will benefit you both 4. They are SKEPTICAL about your offers: -build them a golden bridge- make them an offer that is so obviously in their interest that they can't refuse -not selling the process this time, but selling the offer 5. Dealing with someone who has a lot of POWER (and doesn't want to give in): -bring them to their senses, not to their needs -when dealing w/ this person, you have to get them to think outside the power dimension instead of trying to beat them or match their power -help them to see a strategy that's not power based

Obstacles to Negotiation (4)

1. Dealing with negative/ unethical behavior 2. Mode of communication 3. Trust and negotiation 4. Power differences

Fisher and Ury offers solutions (4) to this problem of what to do if the other side refuses in 'Getting to Yes'

1. Don't push back/ reciprocate what they're doing to you 2. Invite criticism (say I know this idea isn't perfect, but lets look for ways to improve it) 3. Ask questions (all scholars agree- more questions you ask, more likely to find integrated agreement- shows you're interested) 4. Develop a BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement): - before you go in, you need to develop an alternative to reaching agreement w/ other side (other course of action that will help you reach your goals) - use it as a shield, not a sword (don't use it as a threat- other side will be less likely to give you what you want) (instead, use it as a confidence builder/ backup, so the other side can't intimidate you into making concessions) ** people think this is unrealistic...

Deceptive or manipulative strategies in negotiations (6)

1. First strike strategy 2. Good cop, bad cop strategy 3. Sandbagging 4. Common value technique 5. Strategic use of emotion 6. Low ball technique

3. Integrated bargaining/ integrative decision making (Filley)- PROCESS (Two main steps, each with 3 sub-steps)

1. First: REPAIR RELATIONSHIPS (can't touch the problem until this has been done) 3 ways to do so (FILLEY)... A. EQUALIZE POWER: - get them to negotiate in a different (neutral) spot - make sure they have the same info/ access to info - equal access to facilities B. OVERCOME BIASES (correct attitudes) -oftentimes, people had bad attitudes: 1. no respect for each other ("I know more than you")- convince them this isn't the case 2. convince them that an integrated agreement is possible 3. convince them that an integrated agreement is preferable 4. convince them that it's better to ask questions than second guess (they make inferences that could be wrong) 5. don't realize that the other person is a human being- he'd have ppl interact outside of negotiation to repair negative attitude; sensitivity training C. REPAIR MISCONCEPTIONS (correct info) -oftentimes, the two sides don't understand each other's priorities/ they misunderstand e/o -make sure info is accurate -often done through log rolling 2. SECOND: NEGOTIATE A SOLUTION A. Define what the problem is - not allowed to define problems as solutions - not allowed to define the problem in a way that is patently self- interested B. Generate Solutions -surveys C. Have to agree to the solution - they key thing (according to Filley) is not making one that is a trade off between quality and acceptability - find best solution and figure out how to sell it, not weakening it to make it acceptable - key to facilitation is finding best solution and then figuring out how to get people to accept it

Machiavellians: HOW TO NEGOTIATE WITH A HIGH MACH- WHAT TO DO (2)

1. GET IT IN WRITING - their word means nothing 2. HIGHLY INDIVIDUALISTIC, SO SHOW THEM WHAT YOU'RE GIVING THEM MEETS THEIR NEEDS -make it about their needs, not yours

Arbitration- EFFECTS (3)

1. HASTENING EFFECT - arbitration will increase concession making if they know going into the negotiation that if they can't reach a decision, someone will decide it for them - congress thought this would happen, that labor and management would start making concessions out of fear of the arbitrator, but instead it slowed down concession making- thought "this isn't so bad" 2. NARCOTIC EFFECT -if you go through arbitration once, you will tend to like it so much you will want to go through it again instead of having to reach an agreement w/ other side (become dependent on it) - labor and management became addicted to arbitrators bc they liked it better than negotiating w e/o - shouldn't be a bad thing, but it is bc realized that arbitrators don't always make the best decisions and you have to pay them 3. HALF LIFE EFFECT - arbitrator's life is half lived - only given three or four days to understand the history and the story and circumstances - then have to make a snap decision that isn't always great

Agents: WHEN YOU WANT AN AGENT/ WHEN SHOULD YOU HIRE ONE? (5)

1. If they KNOW MORE about the negotiation context than you 2. If they have MORE PERSONAL CONTACTS than you do 3. If you just aren't good at negotiation and they're BETTER AT NEGOTIATION than you 4. If you want to try to do GOOD COP/ BAD COP APPROACH 5. If it's a HIGH STAKES NEGOTIATION

Machiavellians: HOW DO YOU FIND THEM? (2)

1. LOCATION -northwestern undergrads ranked higher in machiavellianism than national average -higher at good universities because we can develop these attitudes/ behaviors and machs are highly competent/strong willed so they're attracted to these types of schools 2. OCCUPATION -Lawyers (discovered that super high- machs were actually rejected by lawyers who weren't as high machs- super high are ineffective when around others who aren't as bad) -Politicians -Sales (high-machs are v successful when paid on commission- just bc they have the skills to be machs doesn't mean they always are, skills kick in when money is involved/ they need to survive) *** good machiavellians stay hidden until they bring their skills out/ not likely to admit it so it's hard to discover them unless you know their rep or have been shafted by them

Pruitt looks at specific TYPES of integrated agreements (7)

1. Log-rolling 2. non-specific compensation 3. bridging agreement 4. cost-cutting 5. re-opener agreement 6. contingent agreement 7. unlinking agreement

4. Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences- what are the SOURCES/ INSTANCES(5) when one party has more power than the other?

1. MORE INFORMATION- one party has more info than the other - because they have experience, access to info, etc. this party is better prepared when they go into negotiate - incredible advantage 2. AUTHORITY or STATUS - can make independent judgments and you can't do much about it 3. RELATIONSHIP - you like someone more than they like you - you care more about someone's opinion of you than they care about your opinion 4. ALTERNATIVES - if other side has better alternatives than you, you're more dependent on them than they are on you--> they can extract resources from you - having alternatives gives power advantage - BATNAS (Fisher and Uri) - Jean Brett- in the US, power is almost exclusively driven by alternatives compared to other cultures; alternatives drive the system in the US when you negotiate on basis of power - EX: boss has more authority than you, but if you have other offers power soars - dangers? when both have this type of power (good alternatives) --> deadlock 5. PERSONAL POWER - state of mind - influences the way we act and see things around us - feeling focused on past successes (gain frames may lead to confidence)

Roloff's List of Jerks and other types of personalities (8)- just the list

1. Machiavellians 2. Narcissists 3. Psychopathology 4. High self-monitors 5. Dogmatics 6. Verbal Agressives 7. Eg0- involved 8. Face- concerned

Third parties: CONCLUSIONS

1. Mediation and facilitation work best when: -it's about PRAGMATIC issues, not VALUES -there are no face saving concerns involved -if both parties believe in mediation 2. Success rate of mediation: varies between 15-30% - still shows that it's better to have two parties solve their own disputes 3. Don't have a good way of improving third party disputes

Pruitt identifies ways (necessities) in finding/reaching an integrated agreement (5)

1. Must have high reasonable goals 2. Must be able to quantify 3. Must have multiple issues 4. Create a search model 5. Come up with strategies you will use in negotiation

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences (HOW TO NEGOTIATE W/ SOMEONE WHO HAS MORE POWER THAN YOU) (5 strategies)

1. Negotiate w/ as MANY SUPPLIERS as possible so you'll have alternatives 2. Form COALITIONS- form coalitions with other people and negotiate as a group, rather than as an individual 3. Gather as much INFO as you can prior to the negotiation 4. Negotiate in a SEQUENTIAL WAY- so they come to like you 5. You can still LOGROLL even if you don't have as much power as them- identify priorities and demonstrate that you can offer solutions

Facilitation- ways we can look at facilitation (3)

1. PASSIVE FACILITATION 2. INTERMIDARY 3. INTEGRATED BARGAINING/ INTEGRATIVE DECISION MAKING

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation- how do you repair trust- MODERN VIEW - (3) STEPS/ASPECTS and WHICH were proven to have the most positive effects?

1. PROMISE to do better in the future 2. APPOLOGIZE for having violated the trust 3. ACTION- instead of apologizing or promising, you start actually acting in a trustworthy fashion from thereon so the person experiences you being a trustworthy person *** even if you engage in these behaviors, trust never fully comes back PROMISING showed the most positive effect on restoring trust - when you apologize, you show that you know you screwed up - when you promise to not do it again, you fully understand what you did was wrong - promises don't work, however, if the violation of trust was a lie - if you simply acted negatively, you can attempt to restore trust - if you said you'd do something nice then did something bad, they're never going to trust/ believe you

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation- how do you repair trust- the (9) STEPS involved in GRIT

1. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT/ OPENING STATEMENT- a leader of one party (not mutual) makes a PA of a desire to reduce tensions 2. UNILATERAL CONCESSION- the same leader announces a unilateral concessions - during the cold war, leaders would stand up and say they wanted to make the world a better place but never did anything - Osgood argues that once the announcement is made, a unilateral confession must follow it 3. SPECIFIC- the unilateral concession must be specific - what, when, where - if they don't give you a specific concession, you don't believe it 4.have to invite verification of the concession- inviting my enemies to come and watch me do it 5. CREDIBILITY- concessions must be carried out exactly how you said they would be (credibility) 6. FOLLOW UP- announce a follow up concession regardless of how the other side has acted 7. INVITE RECIPROCATION- invite, but do not demand reciprocation 8. GAUGE RISK- gauge future concessions (the risk of them) based on how they've responded - start reducing the level of risk bc they haven't done anything and you don't want to be at a disadvantage 9. DIVERSIFY- diversify your concessions so that you can always retaliate - Osgood says this is rational pulling back - never give up the ability to retaliate - recognizes that one of the problems w/ mistrust is that they don't trust you so if they see you weak, they'll take advantage of it

CHARACTERISTICS of problem-solving style people (3)

1. RATIONAL- make decision through thinking rather than feeling 2. EXTRAVERTED- you can't solve problems unless you like to talk. have to be actively engaged w/ other side to get their interests out on the table 3. high in COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY- able to look at issues from multiple perspectives *problem: people don't have one style all the time, it varies with the situation

Mediation- WAYS OF DOING IT/ APPROACHES (2)

1. SINGLE TEXT METHOD (DELPHI) - use it when two parties have been in a vicious fight and have a long standing history - if you let them talk face to face, they won't reach an agreement - so separate them and bring them each to a neutral location - give them each a sample proposal and ask them what's wrong with it/ how it can be improved - then adjust it to incorporate their feedback - go back to each of them w/ newly revised proposal - don't let them talk directly until an agreement has been reached - blended final proposal - playing an ACTIVE role 2. CONTINGENCY APPROACH (PRUITT)- mediator adapts strategy to the situation; looking at situations where things have fallen apart and what you should do: 1st situation: good offer on the table but one party is holding out for face saving reasons - negotiation becomes personal and one-sided (doesn't want to reach agreement bc hates the other side) -most cases- mediators take the offer and repackages it (make it his own) and then gives it to the face saving side - idea is that they then accept it because it comes from the mediator, not the other side 2nd situation: good offer on table but one party is holding out to see if they can get more - mediator provides evidence that the other side 1. has a longer time period OR 2. isn't willing to give up more - convince greedy side that other side has reached their resistance point 3rd situation: good offer on the table but one party is holding out because of prior commitments - one party has said to their constituency "I will never agree to X" - now they see X is the best deal but they won't back down - mediators have to be rhetorically adept- how can we rename this package basically os they will accept it w/o losing face 4th situation: no offer on the table but one could be found - as a mediator, you have to be an integrative bargainer- engage in log rolling, shared interests, etc. - become an ACTIVE player 5th situation: no offer on the table and one can't be found (parties want too much) - have to force them to lower level of aspiration - use power mediation

5 common dirty/jerky strategies that vary in ethics (highest to lowest in ethics) (most common to least) (5)

1. Tough bargaining - start high, then take it or leave it - few concessions - try to intimidate - most common, least offensive 2. false promises - tell someone you are going to do something when you know you aren't going to - offering false incentives - form of lying 3. Attacking the opponents network - go around the person to the group they are representing - attempt to say you don't like the person you're negotiating w/ so you try to go to the constituency - dirty trick- considered worse than above sins 4. Misrepresentation - actively lying about the facts of the negotiation - distorting reality 5. Inappropriate info gathering - go through networks - spying on other side - wire tapping - trying to find private/ classified info *** become worse, but less frequent (bc harder to get away with them)

Machiavellians: WHAT ARE THEY LIKE? (5)

1. UNEMOTIONAL -don't get fired up or angry -great deal of emotional control -can act angry when it's to their advantage, but they aren't actually angry -no real emotional response when dealing w/ others -act warm on the outside, cold and calculated on inside 2. LOW COMMITMENT TO IDEOLOGIES -no commitment to any religious or political ideology -doesn't mean they can't pretend to -very opportunistic, so they can flip sides based on situation to get what they want 3. LOW SOCIAL MORALITY -No commitment to ethics -Not necessarily unethical people, they are a-ethical 4. GOOD AT IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT -socially skilled -can do things effectively/ highly efficient -cheating study - low-machs: collapsed and told truth -high-machs: looked experimenter in the eye and denied cheating, no problem lying 5. Do not suffer from GROSS PSYCHOPATHOLOGY -non-clinical, just plain mean/bad people

Arbitration- DISTINCTIONS (2)

1. Whether it is BINDING or NON-BINDING - binding (most of the time): forced to follow the arbitrators decision by law - nonbinding: meant to be instructive 2. Whether it is focused on an INTEREST or a GRIEVANCE - grievance: attached to an existing contract; used to resolve disputes within the contract or enforce it - interest: trying to reach a contract and we can't so we go to arbitrator to decide what the contract should be

2. information exchange

1. ask questions- ppl more likely to find an integrated agreement if they ask questions instead of just disclosing info. shows that you're open to what someones needs are. build a rappore (far more likely to get what you want). 2. the exchange of numerical information- which is the best type of info to exchange? qualitative or numbers? depends on the type of negotiation. numbers for profits. also varies on whether you're a numbers person or not. 3. does it help to share your level of aspiration? people can do integrated bargaining without disclosing their goals so it doesn't hurt but doesn't help 4. sharing info about your priorities- his research indicates that the more you do this, the greater the likelihood of finding an integrated agreement ask lots of questions and share info!

Pruitt- TACTICS/ STRATEGIES to reach integrated agreement (4)

1. bargaining 2. information exchange 3. argument strategies 4. coercion

"Working Together" (con't): What should you do? How do we build a good working relationship? (6)

1. if the other side is being irrational, you should be rational 2. if they misunderstand you, you should attempt to understand them 3. if they quit talking to you, you should continue talking to them 4. if they are unreliable, you should be reliable 5. if they try to coerce you, you should not try to coerce them 6. if they reject you, you should accept them

AGENTS: WHEN YOU DON'T WANT AN AGENT (attorneys, real estate, etc) (4)

1. if you're trying to establish a GOOD RELATIONSHIP 2. if your GOAL IS TO LEARN how to negotiate the process 3. if you have a HIGHLY EMOTIONAL agent 4. if you CANT AFFORD one

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences when you are representing a constituency- HOW DO REPS REDUCE PRESSURE OF/ CONTROL THE CONSTITUENCY? (4)

1. keep constituents INFORMED- overwhelm them w/ info 2. LOWER EXPECTATIONS- before negotiation, lower their expectations of what can be achieved 3. CREATE COOPERATIVE FRAME- try to make the constituency like/ have positive feelings for opponent, frame it as a cooperation instead of competition 4. ELECT REPS- ask rank and file to elect reps to come w/ negotiation (???)

1. bargaining

1. log-rolling (have to have trust)- he thinks this is the best way to negotiate 2. heuristic trial and error (when there isn't much trust)- one-sided log rolling 3. sequential- take each of the issues and present them in a specific order; take your package and break it into parts and talk ab each individually; still like log rolling because you reach a tentative agreement on each part (but takes longer)

Arbitration- WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE IT?/ BIASES (3)

1. make decisions based on PRECEDENT - pro-labor or pro-management (preachers of habit) - can look at old decisions to predict what their decision will be ahead of time - labor and management chose who the arbitrators would be (no uncertainty) 2. WEAK person bias -tend to side w/ the weaker of the two parties - if you're the weaker party, would rather go to arbitration than try to reach an agreement with someone who has more power than you 3. like to SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE - go right down the middle between what both parties want

Obstacles to Negotiation: Dealing w/ unethical behavior: ways people respond when they see unethical behavior and effectiveness (4)

1. some people do NOTHING -commitment strategy under moderately tough bargaining -if someone makes a commitment before you, you act as though nothing happened at all -not effective 2. some people RECIPROCATE -if they threaten you, you counter threat -not effective- reach deadlock 3. some people CONFRONT and CONDEMN -you're not telling the truth, this is bad, we need to settle this and move on -doesn't work well 4. some people RECIPROCATE and then CONDEMN -if they threaten you, you threaten them back and then point out that this isn't the way you should be doing things -effective! When you hit them back you demonstrate that you are strong and willing to fight back and then the follow up statement shows that you're rational

Pruitt looks at GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS of an integrated agreement (2)

1. yield high joint benefits- both parties maximize outcomes/ have their interests served -unlike the others, pruitt thinks compromise is an integrated agreement, just not as integrated as other outcomes 2. non-obvious- discussion driven process. prior to the negotiation, you don't know what the integrated agreement is going to be. can't reach agreement until you discuss.

INTERMEDIARY (con't)- ADVANTAGES (5)/ DISADVANTAGES (4) of use of facilitators as intermediaries

ADVANTAGES: 1. keeps the parties communicating but keeps them apart 2. intermediary can inject new information as they pass messages (might be a disadvantage too) 3. can help train the party(s) on how to negotiate if they don't know how (they are apart so no one loses face) 4. can float trial balloons to see how people react 5. can say good things about the opposing party w/o making it feel like its 2 v 1 DISADVANTAGES: 1. takes a long time to reach agreement 2. might not trust intermediary (fearful that they are disclosing private info to other side) 3. because they try to be positive, they often distort/ filter info that they pass back and forth 4. make agreements that aren't long lasting

2. lose-lose (4)

All parties lose something 1. RULES- resort to rules to decide who gets what. rules aren't all bad, like in a contract, but sometimes a party might need to extend or alter their rules/rights-- everyone just follows mindless rules instead of altering them to fit the situation 2. SIDE PAYMENTS (bribes)- basically bribes, shouldn't have to bribe someone. sometimes you reach a deadlock unless you add something else to the pot. ex: 3-martini lunches in sales- people lost clients bc they thought this was unethical. Filley's perspective is that if you have a good agreement, it shouldn't rely on bribes, it should have good merits 3. COMPROMISE- same view as Follet- doesn't believe in compromise because both sides have to give something up 4. 3rd PARTIES- bringing in 3rd parties to resolve your problem. one form of this is a consultant because you have to pay them, you're losing control over the situation, you're losing money, and you feel compelled to adopt their solution even if it's not a good one

Dogmatics (AS NEGOTIATORS/ HOW TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM)

As negotiators: -unwilling to make concessions or compromise (see compromise as a defeat) -more willing to engage in threats How to successfully negotiate w/ them: -convince them that you're similar to them

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences (con't) what are examples of the dangers of both parties having good alternatives?

Bacharach and Lawler looked at this- looked at 3 situations: 1. both parties had high alternatives 2. one had high and one had low 3. both had low - found that 80% of those who both had high alts deadlocked - you don't put as much effort into negotiating Study of husbands and wives (ease with which they said they could replace each other) - those who both had good alternatives were more likely to divorce - tended to divorce even if they were satisfied bc they had good alts - you don't try enough

Face- concerned- (1. WHAT TO DO BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS; 2. DURING NEGOTIATIONS- THINGS THAT WILL SET OFF FACE CONCERNS) (FIX SLIDE??)

Before negotiations, do stuff to protect image: - public statements attacking other side or making yourself appear strong -talk to constituents for support During negotiations, things that will set off face concerns: - threats- offense to face -insults- directly attacking their image - use of non-negotiable demands- take it or leave it - third parties observing- people watching you negotiate

1. Obstacles to Negotiation: Dealing w/ unethical behavior: Fisher and Ury- what should you do if you see someone doing something unethical in a negotiation? began by observing how people respond when they are in a negotiation and see someone do something unethical (4 ways)

Fisher and Ury- if you see someone doing something unethical, you should 1. IDENTIFY the tactic, 2. CONDEMN the tactic, but 3. AVOID condemning the person but there's no research to back this up, so they watched people negotiate and observed how they responded when they saw someone do something unethical

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation- how do you repair trust- what they found in studies of GRIT/ CONCLUSION (3)

Found in controlled settings that GRIT works, but only some of the steps are necessary... 1. Has to be strong opening statement of desire to reduce tension - have to start w/ the overall frame - desire has to appear to be credible 2. Unlitateral concession must be carried out on time 3. Must never give up your ability to retaliate

2. Narcissists: QUALITIES (general and in the face of failure)

GENERAL: -highly self-absorbed -lack of empathy -seek self-promotion (common among successful people) IN THE FACE OF FAILURE: -so surprised/ depressed a/b failure -but bounce back quickly bc they blame others for the failure

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation (con't- HOW do you build trust with the other side thru communication and what EFFECTS does this have (2)?

If during the course of negotiation you're trying to build trust w/ the other side, WHAT should you do? 1. SHARE TECHNICAL INFORMATION - levels of aspiration, priorities, etc. 2. RELATION- SHARE PERONAL INFO - relational aspects of communication during the negotiation is sharing personal details about yourself (rapport building) What EFFECT does this have on the degree to which the other side trusts you? 1. Better to share technical info than to not, but doesn't have a huge effect 2. Relational info builds trust to a greater extent than sharing technical info

Agents: BIASES OF AGENTS (5)

If you're going to hire one, they're going to be biased, things that can go wrong... 1. Conflict of interest: they want to please the client but they also want to make money - worried about reaching an agreement bc if not they don't make money 2. They tend to narrows the bargaining range- because you're going to have to pay commission to the agent 3.They might distort communication to fit their own interests- misrepresent you 4. when you have an agent, you're going to lose some control over the process 5. They tend to have an agreement bias- don't get anything unless there's an agreement so they want to reach one and reach it quickly

Next book: "Working Together" (Lurie and Brown??) identify the key way to avoid nastiness (1) and then start their analysis by identifying (2) things that screw up relationships

Key way to avoid nastiness is building a good working relationship w/ other side --> trust --> integrated agreements -Starts with the two things that screw up good working relationships: 1. We assume RECIPROCITY - we unrealistically expect people to be nice to us if we're nice to them -if someone is bad to us, we are bad back to them - screws up relationships 2. We assume SIMILARITY - Assume people's interests are the same and we all want the same things - probably bc we tend to surround ourselves w/ people who are like us -screws up relationships

Lowenstein and Brett (con't): Strategies for interest and position (1 for each)

People who are interest- oriented engage in STRATEGIC FLEXIBILITY: - when I go in and negotiate w/ other side, I try to think of details - sub-goals related to how much I want to pay, locations, accommodations, etc. - people with interest-orientation are willing to change/ relax their subgoals - more likely to reach integrated decision People who are position-oriented engage in STRATEGIC PERSISTENCE: - don't shift sub-goals, they say they only want to pay X amount and will continue trying to achieve it - instead of altering sub goals, they try to find new ways of achieving the goals they have for their position - often deadlock - can't be one sided victory: only successful if there was a temporary impasse (deadlock) that caused strategic adaptation- caused them to become more interest-oriented ** on average, those who were interest- oriented reached integrated agreements more and those who were position- oriented either deadlocked or it was a distributive decision where they won and the other side gave everything (needs to be a two sided mutual victory)

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences (BEHAVIOR IN NEGOTIATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE POWER VS PEOPLE WHO DON'T)

People who have power: - action oriented - only think about the positive benefits of something --> act w/o really thinking - gain frame --> engage in premature actions - lose their ability to take the perspective of other ppl - narcissistic People who don't have power: - reluctant - loss frame - always have alternatives (don't put all their eggs in one basket)

Mary Follet had several ideas on HOW people should negotiate in order to reach an integrated solution (2)

RESOLVE conflict by trying to INTEGRATE (combine your needs and their needs- approach as problem solving) instead of dominate or compromise 1. disclose interests- when people negotiate they should go in and disclose their interests, what it is that they want/ are trying to accomplish out of the negotiation -Have to say WHY they want that -EX: What their REASONS are for wanting more money 2. fractionation- when you negotiate with someone, you have to be willing to engage in fractionation - break apart complex ideas into their component PARTS and negotiate/ discuss EACH separately ** Avoid COMPROMISING and EITHER/OR agreements

7. unlinking agreement

Removing issues from the table that are preventing you from reaching an agreement- like Follet's notion of fractionization -unlink the problematic issues from the ones we agree on and then remove them from the table -best way to unlink them is by explicitly agreeing 1. agree to disagree- won't address these issues now, maybe in the future (partial agreement) 2. dealing with precedent by explicitly saying that disagreement is not setting a precedent- whatever we decide won't stand forever so we unlink precedent 3. remove people from negotiation- it's the person that's the problem so we need to remove them, discuss it in a rational way

5. Dogmatics (QUALITIES)

Rokeach was the psychologist who studied this -RIGID, highly committed to one stance (regardless of political stance; it's independent of ideology) -reject alternative belief systems -make snap judgments -like people with similar views -strong future-focus, always looking toward future ideal (strong visions- "visionaries"; very hard to negotiate with)

3. Psychopathology (QUALITIES/ AS NEGOTIATORS/ HOW TO NEGOTIATE)

Similar to, but different from Machs and narcissists. They are: -low in empathy -act impulsively, rather than strategically -they lie a lot As negotiators: -in a distributive context, they do well in negotiation- they accrue high individual benefits, but major interpersonal downside (people who negotiate with them hate them) -in integrative agreements, they are less likely to find integrative agreements -if there is a potential agreement where both parties could benefit, they will not see it- they "leave money on the table"

1. Win/Lose (5)... who decides?

Someone gets all of it and other side gets none 1. authority - when there's a conflict, the person with the most authority decides what will happen 2. majority rule- the majority gets to decide and the minority has to go along with it 3. minority rule- a small group of people decide what's going to happen (an "in-group" in an organization). there's no vote. 4. experts- the ones who know the most make the decision. credential based. 5. physical power- the group that has the most physical power gets to decide. the people who have security, the cops, etc. (often goes along with authority but can be separate) * win/ lose is the way most organizations resolve conflicts according to Filley, so someone is losing in organization conflict

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 1. FIRST STRIKE STRATEGY

Tension about who should make the first offer; we usually don't know what the first offer to make should be bc we don't know what reaction will be - people who make the first offer usually do the best - all subsequent offers are adjusting to the first one (anchor and adjust) - making the first offer is an advantage

Obstacles to negotiation: Power Differences- Power when you are representing a CONSTITUENCY (you are in an elected or hired position)- being a representative affects your negotiation WHAT DO CONSTITUENCIES WANT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO DO? (3)

The problem is not the power of your opponent, it is when you are representing a group that has power over you... they want you to: 1. COMPLY- want the rep to do what they tell them to do 2. BE TOUGH- want them to negotiate in a tough fashion 3. EFFECTIVE- reach good agreements ** greatest risk when two reps are negotiation: deadlock- ***more pressure put on reps, the harder it is to reach an agreement

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation (HOW DO YOU REPAIR TRUST?- there are 2 views)

There are a number of different perspectives... 1. The classical view -GRIT- Graduated Reduction in Tension 2. Modern view

Deceptive or manipulative strategies: 4. COMMON VALUE TECHNIQUE

Two different aspects of this: 1. come in and act like you want something that you don't want to manipulate them--> results in better outcomes (divorce settlement example) not common 2. other side makes a false assumption about something and you don't correct it--> let you make stupid decisions/ give too many concessions as a result/ concessions that you don't have to give o Act as if you want something you don't want as a way of getting concessions on what they actually want o Can make logrolling less effective if other side is doing it, because you might give up something you don't need to o Erroneously assumed someone else had your priorities o Two forms • When you come in and lie • Don't correct her viewpoint  Sin of omission  When other side comes in and you don't tell them something is false  Sins of omission are more frequent than sins of commission because of fear that other side might actually give you what you don't want

6. Verbal Aggressives (1. what do they do? 2. why do they do it (2)? 3. how do they become VA? 4. how do you negotiate with them?)

WHAT DO THEY DO? -they like to insult other people in order to assert their dominance -believe best way to get someone to do something is to insult them, only insult when they want someone to do something -good at figuring out which kinds of insults will hurt someone the most -most common insults: 1. character insults 2. competency-based insults WHY DO THEY DO IT? 1. they believe people deserve it 2. it works HOW DO YOU BECOME VA? 1. TAUGHT it by their parents 2. They're not good at RATIONAL/ ARGUMENTATIVE thinking. Can't persuade, so they intimidate. HOW DO YOU NEGOTIATE? -Don't let them get to you!

Key problem w/ approach

What do you do if the other side refuses- doesn't want to do interest negotiation and wants to be positional instead? (one wants to do interest and one wants to be positional)

Lowenstein and Brett tried to further articulate what's going on behind the theory of Principle Negotiate- people's positions (2)

When you come into negotiate, you develop your interests, or come in focused on one of 2 positions... 1. interest- extremely broad in its focus ("I want to have a great trip" "I want to have a fulfilling job") 2. position- specific ("I want to pay X in total for the trip"; "I want a job that pays me X amount of money") when they had people negotiate, they discovered that people who come in with an interest vs a position differ in the strategies they use...

Obstacles to negotiation: Trust and Negotiation (VIOLATIONS OF TRUST)- when do they occur and why do they matter?

degree of impact depends on WHEN they occur and the NATURE of it: -having a violation of trust EARLY in a negotiation has a BIGGER impact than one toward the end -much WORSE if they engage in DECEIT than if they just aren't COOPERATIVE (lying is much worse)

Filley first looked at PROCEDURES of conflict management (3)

looked at how people resolve conflicts in organizations and then looked for a better way to do it strategies/ procedures: ways organizations solve disputes: 1. win/lose (most common way) 2. lose/lose 3.win/win (best way)

Issue with traditional distributed negotiation

spoil relationship if too hard; don't get anything if too soft

2. Quantify

-need to be able to measure your reasonably high goals