Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is a negotiation |
An interaction between two or more interdependent parties in which at least one party tries to influence at least one other party to behave in a particular way |
|
|
Self-assessment |
What do I want - set target - overaspiring/underaspiring? What is my BATNA? What is my RP? Identify the issues in the negotiation Avoid violating sure thing principle or becoming grass is greener negotiator What is my propensity to risk? |
|
|
Counterpart assessment |
Who are the other parties and what power do they have? Are they friendly or hostile? Are the parties monolithic (all in agreement concerning their interests in the negotiation) What are the other parties/ interests and preferences What are the other parties' BATNAs |
|
|
Situation assessment |
Is it a one-off or repetitive negotiations
Are linkage effects present (will it affect other negotiations) Is there a time pressure Is is private or public |
|
|
BATNA |
Best alternative to a negotiated agreement Determined by objective reality - by your available alternatives Is time-sensitive - either improving/deteriorating as a result of market forces/situational conditions Defines the most you will pay (buyer) and least you will accept (seller) A key source of power - ability to walk away |
|
|
Target |
Your ideal settlement price |
|
|
Reservation Price |
The monetary "walk-away" point in a negotiation How much you are willing to spend (buyer), and the least you can accept (seller) Determined by your BATNA - reality + subjective probability + idiosyncratic preferences: - brainstorm your alternatives - evaluate each alternative in terms of relative attractiveness to you - try to improve your BATNA |
|
|
ZOPA |
Zone of possible agreements The range between the buyer's reservation price and the seller's reservation price, in which an outcome will be acceptable to both parties Positive ZOPA = agreement can exist Negative ZOPA = agreement can never exist |
|
|
Negotiator's surplus |
Resources in excess of what is possible for negotiators to attain in the absence of negotiated agreement The total surplus of the two negotiators adds up to the size of the ZOPA |
|
|
Bargaining surplus
|
The amount of overlap between parties' reservation points - a measure of the value that a negotiated agreement offers to both parties over the value of not reaching an agreement |
|
|
Open-ended questions
|
Generates useful information on interests, defines issues, provides rationale for positions With explanation - so seems less confrontational/intrusive |
|
|
Broad-based clarifications questions |
To identify underlying differences on an issue |
|
|
Circular Questions |
TO expand discussion beyond the immediate situation to a larger context, to clarify positions |
|
|
Leading questions |
To state a position, causing the other party to confirm your position |
|
|
Loaded questions |
To trigger an emotional or defensive response |
|
|
Uncovering Underlying Concerns Questions |
TO shift discussion from one of competition to mutual recognition of concerns |
|
|
Seeking creative solutions questions |
To generate proposals that meet the needs of both parties on an issue |
|
|
Distributive issues |
Where you negotiate over the distribution of a fixed sum value |
|
|
Integrative Negotiations |
Where all creative opportunities have been leveraged and no resources are left on the table NOT: - compromise (not concerned with reaching middle ground/how pie is divided) - even split (not concerned with reaching middle ground/how pie is divided) - satisfaction (no guarantee money/resources have not been wasted) - building a relationship (important but no guarantee that the parties will think creatively and reach an integrative agreement) |
|
|
How to identify potential Integrative Negotiations |
Does the negotiation contain more than one issue? - small probability that preferences across all issues will be identical, so can profitably trade off to create joint gain Can you bring other issues in? Do parties have different preferences across negotiation issues? - ask questions and listen Can side deals be made? |
|
|
Common roadbloocks to integrative outcomes |
False conflict - when you believe your interests are incompatible with the other party's but in fact they are not Fixed pie perception - based on faulty perceptions - perceive other party's interests as directly opposed to your own (view the negotiation as being distributive) Negotiation approach - your ability to exact information and understand the other party's interests |
|
|
Commonly used win-win strategies |
Commitment to reaching a win-win deal - however no guarantee of such a deal being & need to be avoid falling victim to agreement bias Compromise - equal concessions negotiation, splitting the difference - doesn't really ensure a win-win outcome has been reached Being cooperative - can keep negotiators from focusing on the right information at the right time Taking extra time to negotiate - no guarantee negotiators will reach an integrative agreement |
|
|
Effective win-win strategies |
Perspective taking - more likely to avoid impasses by allowing negotiators to engage in successful logrolling - more likely to discover hidden potential Ask the right questions, and listen - establish their preferences/priorities and share information in return - discover where the value is Reveal information about your interests and priorities - trigger principle of reciprocity Unbundle the issues - assessing/unbundling/creating new issues can transform a distributive negotation into integrative Logrolling/trade-off - trade off low-value issues for high-value issues, and demand reciprocity Package deals rather than single issue offers - allows trade-offs to be made - ZOPA on single issues may be narrow Make multiple offers of equivalent value simultaneously - can work out other party's preferences - seen as more flexible by other party - serves as more sticky anchor |
