New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Fabiola Bogan
Fabiola Bogan
GPA 3.76

T. Chandler

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

T. Chandler
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Business, management

This 15 page Class Notes was uploaded by Fabiola Bogan on Tuesday October 13, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to MGT 3513 at Louisiana State University taught by T. Chandler in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 48 views. For similar materials see /class/223122/mgt-3513-louisiana-state-university in Business, management at Louisiana State University.


Reviews for LABOR


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/13/15
TEST 2 Personal Bargaining lnventory in Ebook lD s your approach to negotiations a different questionnaire than we used in class You re supposed to pick 6 items from 1 and 2 that you agree with most strongly Communication competence survey handout Score the survey questionnaire on the handout 5 Different Aspects of Comm Competence Scoring Key 1 Planning conditions assess what planning suggests they assess ability to anticipate rehearse and monitor topics of conversation a You anticipate who the audience is and you plan what you re going to say in advance of meeting with that audience b High score means that it s usually true of you 2 Presence Cognitions awareness of how other people are reacting to your conversation being able to sense that people are responding positively or negatively to you or they are confused by what you re saying a High score means you have high ability to do that 3 Modeling cognitions measures the awareness of contextual variables that provide information about how to interact with the other party awareness of the environment a Given this context what s appropriate and what s inappropriate 4 Reflection cognitions the ability to reflect upon a communication performance objective here is that you want to improve your selfpresentation 5 Consequence cognitions awareness of the consequences of a communication performance this is understanding how what was communicated might impact other people Likely to find that you have high on some mid level scores on some and low on others but all of these things have been found to relate to communication competence o Negotiations are a form of social influence where you re communicating with another person over what it is you want stating demands rationale for demands interpreting communication is very important to negotiations Implementing a Competitive Negotiation Someone who uses a competitive strategy is an engager taker and 0 High concern for outcomes and low concern for relationships 0 There are some fundamental differences between competitive and collaborative o The competitive approach is not being emphasized as much today as it has been but it still very important negotiating strategy Sometimes it s the only negotiating strategy your opponent seems to be aware of Critical Factors The bargaining zone competitive negotiations occur within a very well defined bargaining zone 0 A key characteristic in competitive negotiations is that the parties accept the problem in the way it s presented to them it s presented to them in terms of bargaining ranges 0 So when you negotiate competitively you re negotiating within a framework O O O 0 So each side has a bargaining range defined by SP TP and RP Negotiations will occur within that context only if you have overlapping resistance points a positive bargaining zone Anytime you re negotiating competitively this is your focus Tactical considerations I Try to discover the opponents resistance point most important part of understanding the other usually it s done indirectly by putting yourself in their shoes think about what their needs are try to determine what their alternatives to a negotiated agreement are try to think about how much power they have in negotiations then gage where you think they may set their RP o The indirect assessment will probably be all you have To require a direct assumption would be for them to tell you I Try to get them to change their resistance point this sometimes happens in negotiations where one party will try to get the other party to move their RP in a way that benefits them 0 RP is closely related to BATNA so they must change how they value their BATNA If you think you know what their alternative then you want to influence their evaluation of that alternative It is important to them for them to know your resistance point so it s important for you to try to shield your RP from the other side best way to do this is by providing very little information screening actions 0 Very carefully screen what you tell the other side you use your words to ask questions not to tell them about your position You could take more direct actions to try to affect how they perceive your RP thru things like selective presentation you want to tell them only things that look like they strengthen your bargaining position emotional reactions shape the other side s reactions thru your emotions positive or negative exaggeration exaggerating what you have embellishing your power as a negotiator and fabrication amp lying not unheard of in competitive negotiations and very risky Source of influence depends on where the negotiation will happening in the bargaining zone the outcomes will depend on the relative influence of power of the negotiators O O BATNA extremely important major source of power for people when they negotiate if you have a good BATNA you ll set more aggressive resistance points TP and more aggressive SP s you know if you can t get a deal you can turn to your alternative I Weak BANTA puts you in a much weaker bargaining position I You should think of your BATNA as being dynamic it can improve or worsen over time Tactics good guybad buy highballlowball bogey the nibble chicken intimidation aggressive behavior I Good buybad buy good cop bad cop approach bad guy and really seems unyielding uses negative emotion then the good guy enters the negotiation tries to calm everything down makes the person that s been scared by the bad guy be his friend need a partner to pull this off Highballlowball making an extreme offer extremely high or low to try to influence the other sides perception of what s possible in a negotiated outcome can work with someone who s inexperienced or unprepared I Bogey a negotiator tries to figure out what s important to the other side which hopefully isn t important to them then they act like that issue is really important to them do you re deceiving O O O the other party to believe that something that really doesn t matter to you but matters to them is really important to them in the end you make what appears to be a huge concession The nibble toward the end of negotiations once you ve basically reached the agreement with the other side you tell them that you ll need only one more thing to finalize the deal you throw in one last demand once everyone s started feeling good about a settlement Chicken big bluff with some threat of negative action if the demand isn t met real high stakes game of threats between two parties Intimidation use of emotional ploys to try to influence the other side usually this is anger you can also use legitimate power factors that they may get in trouble Aggressive behavior relentless pursuit of outcomes you push the other party on everything These tactics aren t uncommon disagreements on how well you can expect them to work some say that these things are transparent but others say that they work sometimes too problem with these tactics is that their use doesn t always create good will about the other party There But in competitive negotiations you aren t really concerned with the relationship is some advice on what you should do if you confront someone when using these tactics ignore the tactic don t respond to it you can discuss what they re doing call them out on it you can do the same things back to them respond inkind killing with kindness be really positive really friendly Power coercive reward legitimate referent expert persuasiveness persistence personal integrity Coercive use of threats or actual punishment to influence someone to get them to do what you want them to do Reward opposite of coercive try to influence the other party by promising or providing rewards to them for going along with what you want Legitimate possessed by someone because of the position that they hold or other factors in the organization that strengthen their position because you re the superior person the rules of the org support their desired outcome laws providing a legitimate source of power Referent power that s possessed because one person lD s with or respects another person willing to submit to their desired outcomes because of that ID or respect Expert derived from a person s recognized expert knowledge in an are Persuasiveness ability to articulate demands and provide sound rationales Persistence tendency to push forward even in the face of tremendous obstacles Personal integrity power or influence you have because of your reputation So in workplace situations the first 3 of these are present coercive reward and legitimate those 3 alone can be a very important source of influence in negotiations Research finds that there are several benefits associated with power within context of negotiations Proactive powerful negotiators tend to be proactive they re more likely to negotiate a first offer than to accept it as is they re also more likely to make the first offer and they re more likely to try to overcome obstacles to reaching an agreement Protected research finds that powerful negotiators are protected weaker negotiators are much more susceptible to emotional manipulation use of emotion is found to have a stronger effect on weaker negotiators than powerful negotiators powerful negotiators often don t even recognize the emotions of their opponent they aren t influenced by attempts of emotional manipulation Creative Risk Takers research also finds that powerful negotiators are creative risk takers so they re more likely to explore creative solutiosn to problems powerful negotiators are also more likely to use risky strategies like threats and ultimatums O 0 Lose Perspective powerful negotiators lose perspective they aren t very good at putting themselves in the other party s shoes So the first three are s and the last one is a For the most part power is something that you want You need to think about what your sources of influence are your BATNA possible tactics and power use At the bargaining table Don t tell or lie about your resistance point 0 O O O 0 You know that it s important to figure out opponent s RP and you really should hide your RP As a general rule you don t want to tell them what the worse outcome is that you re willing to accept because once they know that they have no incentive to give you any more than that You negotiate competitively to capture most of the bargaining surplus and telling them your RP is completely contrary to that goal There are 2 conditions where telling them your RP may be okay You ve exhausted all off the time you have to negotiate You have a deadline that you have to meet and you ve used all your time At that point you re walking away one way or another You could tell them your RP to see if a deal is possible at that level You have an extremely strong BATNA and you believe that the bargaining zone zone for possible agreement is likely to be very narrow if it exists at all If it s useful not to tell them your RP it may be useful to lie about your RP It may seem to make sense but it s not a good move strategically You by lying make your propositions look stronger than they really are That limits your bargaining zone So what you ve done is decreased the area that an agreement is possible If it works then maybe you ll settle in there But if you follow thru with the lie you might have to walk away from deals that are away from your BATNA You decrease the bargaining zone for possible agreement If you follow thru with the lie increases the likelihood that you ll walk away from a better deal If you admit that you bluffed about your RP it creates reputation problems Set high aspirations target 0 O O The advice is typically that you should set high aspirations for your target it s the best settlement that you realistically hope to achieve You can set easy goals or hard goals for yourself What the advice is that you set more difficult goals Use your target point to assess offers that are made in negotiations Having an aggressive target will have a self regulating effect on your behavior You want to set more challenging goals use those targets to evaluate offers that are made in negotiations and the reason is is that doing so will have a self regulating effect on your negotiation behavior You ll be much better off comparing offers to your target than to your RP Research finds that people who stay focused on their target and try to get settlements near their target get better results than people who just try to get a better outcome than your RP Opening offers often considered the most difficult position to set in negotiations it s the point at which you have the least amount of information about the other side 0 Should you go first It s best for you to make the first offer if you re prepared If you have had a chance to prepare for the negotiations it s in your best interest to make the first offer If you haven t had the chance to prepare making the first offer is risky and you could fall to the winners curse The first offer in negotiations serves as a very powerful anchor from which future adjustments are made Extreme positions Aggressive or moderate Answer is that research finds that setting more aggressive starting positions yields better negotiated outcomes 0 By taking a more extreme position it leaves plenty of room for concessions which gives you a chance to see what their priorities are o It also signals to the other side that they may have to give up a lot in order to reach an agreement with you and in some cases it may even cause them to rethink their bargaining range Is there too extreme of a position that you can take YES you should take a position that you can reasonably provide rationale for you want it to be aggressive but one that you can explain not ridiculous If it is beyond something you can explain they won t take you seriously When negotiators are confronted with aggressive negotiated offers they prepare themselves to make concessions If you are the buyer you wanted to send a message that you re not pushing really hard and just want an agreement if you gave a starting position inside their bargaining range you ve given up some of the bargaining zone That s completely contrary to your competitive negotiation goal Come up with a SP right outside their RP and start making concessions Opening stance want to seem really unyielding or more reasonable 0 stance There may be times where the situation is right for aggressive unyielding approach but the general advice is one where you convey flexibility to the other side ability to work with them despite competitive nature real aggressive approach in terms of negative emotions isn t the right opening Plan your concessions without concessions you wouldn t get an agreement 0 O O O negotiators feel better if the agreement follows from a series of concessions reason for that is that people like to believe that they influence the other party concessions suggest that the other sides arguments were credible and were a reason for the outcome Pattern of concessions concessions are usually reciprocal quidproquo If you make a major concession you expect a major concession from the opponent Magnitude of concessions larger concessions tend to be made early in negotiations they tend to get smaller over time receiving smaller concessions over time signals that your getting closer to your resistance point you have less to give Timing of concessions different research findings related to this book says gradual concessions are better but not giving concessions to another party s concessions can make the other party a little jumpy Use Objectiveappearing Rationale to support your offers will increase likelihood that offer will be accepted Final offers and commitments final offers are linked to commitments O O O O O Closing the deal 0 O Commitments are explicit or implicit statements about a future course of action Must be careful when you say it shouldn t claim it is final unless it is final If you claim final and then back off of it you re not as likely to be belived Use this statement only when you re absolutely at the point where you cannot negotiate any further If the other side says final then you shouldn t acknowledge it you should just keep on negotiating prepare yourself for the end but you should not verbally acknowledge it Provide alternatives don t just put one final offer on the table provide alternatives that are of equal value to you but may differ in ways that have different values to your opponent Assume the close the negotiator realizes that each side has gone as far as they can they start to act as ifa deal has been made 0 Split the difference the most commonly used closing tactic in competitive negotiation you ve both negotiated competitively and you ve gotten as much of the bargaining surplus you could but there s still some left so you just split the difference depends entirely on the concessions that have preceded that offer 0 Exploding offers final offer put on the table and a very strict deadline for accepting or rejecting that offer you want to restrict their batna close their options some people are very critical of the use of exploding offers think it is an unfair way to treat people 0 Sweeteners one last minor concession on something that wasn t even on the negotiation table throw in some deal to try to get the party to reach an agreement with you In class activity regarding AccelMedia and GTechnica See handout Decision biases Negotiating Rationally with a competitive strategy the framework is presented to the parties by each sides bargaining range so there s very fixed parameters that the parties are operating in Anchoring and Adjustment 0 What is it ldea that in negotiations the parties will often establish anchors for their negotiating behavior and then those anchors will be very important as future adjustments are made people often look for anchors from which future adjustments are made in negotiations I Anchoring occurs at the start of the negotiation each side has to stake out a starting position I Those starting positions establish anchors from which the parties make adjustments in the form of concessions I Anchoring occurs to simplify the process of negotiations I You see the two sides staking out separate positions stake out anchors they start making adjustments from those anchors and they end up settling somewhere near the midpoint I Sometimes the anchors make a lot of sense strategic but other times they re just whatever s handy I Anchoring has a significant effect of a negotiators behavior 0 Avoiding problems I Problem is that it can unduly influence your negotiating behavior in ways that can disadvantage you in negotiations This is the whole idea behind the high ball low ball negotiating strategy You I How do you avoid the problem of anchoring and adjustment You need to prepare adequately so you have good info about what outcomes may be reasonable not going to be unduly influenced by an unreasonable offer from your opponent The other way is that if you get an unreasonable demand you request that the other party make another offer before you start negotiating you reanchor them You can also set high aspirations a high target position and use that to evaluate any future moves on your part You anchor off of something that s beneficial to you 0 You need to avoid confusing your target position with your resistance point 0 Advantages I You might be able to use people s tendencies to anchor and adjust to your advantage in negotiations Framing in Negotiation o What is it Relates to the way options available in negotiations are presented to the other side how you present or frame things to your opponent depends on how attractive they view that option 0 Prospect theory predicts that people will engage in riskaverse behavior when evaluating gains and risk seeking behavior when evaluating losses I A negotiator who frames an outcome as a gain or profit is more concessionary in order to obtain the sure outcome available thru a negotiated settlement They want what s on the table because they have framed it as a gain They ll do whatever they have to do make concessions to get that I A negotiator who frames an outcome as a cost or loss will engage in more risk seeking behavior by holding out in order to obtain a better agreement thru concessions by their opponent 0 Prospect theory also has implications for mediators I If you re mediating a conflict between two sides you want to convince them they re in a risky situation where a sure gain is possible thru a negotiated settlement they must understand that they will be better thru a negotiation 0 Key is to emphasize how your concessions are good for them don t emphasize the costs that they will have to incur because of your offer Results and Drawbacks of a Competitive Strategy Competitive negotiations don t get the spotlight as collaborative bargaining now does Positive drawback if you use it effectively it benefits you You can get the majority of the surplus you can do well with competitive bargaining Negative Drawbacks o It can be very time consuming if both sides hold out for all their demands o It could result in no agreement if they re not open to creative solutions Some negotiations will only come ot an agreement if you bring value to the table 0 Competitive bargaining can escalate emotions and increase conflict 0 Competitive bargaining can raise some ethical questions Are competitive negotiations unethical What are ethics Ethics is present issue in all negotiations but it is especially true in competitive negotiations When we discussed different types of negotiating strategies there were 3 illegitimate strategies con borrow and rob they re illegitimate because they raise ethical questions about what s important When you talk about selective presentation use of deception lying false promises false threats whatever you re doing to get a larger share of bargaining surplus there are some people that may have problems with those tactics Bottom line is that some people see competitive negotiations as a breeding ground for unethical behavior Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation There are no hard and fast rules about how you define rules on right and wrong Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation End Result Ethics the rightness of an action depends on the pros and cons of its consequences 0 Ends justify the means did what you had to do because the benefits of doing it outweighs the cost Duty Ethics idea that the rightness of an action depends on existing laws and rules and social standards 0 Obligated because of rules Social Contract Ethics idea that the rightness of an action is based on customs and norms in that community o Negotiations has its own set of rules SP is not what you really want it s just what you say you want it s a rule for negotiations Personalistic Ethics the rightness of an action is based on a person s own conscience or moral standards what rules they apply for themselves We can see how there would be disagreements about what s appropriate and not appropriate Ethically Ambiguous Tactics It s mostly about the truth not clearly always wrong or clearly unacceptiable there s ambiguity whether something should or shouldn t be done in comp bargaining All ethical questions focus on the truth presented The Dilemma of Trust vs The Dilemma of Honesty o Dilemma of Trust says that a person who believes everything they re told can be easily manipulated by dishonesty o Dilemma of Honesty says that a negotiator who tells everything can t be expected to do well in competitive bargaining shouldn t expected to settle much better than your RP These are the two dilemmas that face negotiators 0 Information is power so both parties have some incentive to manipulate information in ways that benefit them or hold back information that harm them Ethics and negotiations is really about the truth This comes into play in competitive bargaining because in comp there is strategic value in trying to hide certain things from the other side The less info you give them about your bargaining strengths and weaknesses the better off you ll be Both sides will give up some info keep things from each other deceive and embellish to each other 0 So comp neg is often the focus of discussion when it comes to ethics SINS II o Emotional manipulation positive amp negative I Faking emotions of happiness positive emotion I Faking anger or fear in effort to intimidate other party negative emotion I People may try emotional manipulation different people have different views on whether it s right or not to manipulate emotions Traditional competitive bargaining this captures the things that occur in comp bargaining like 0 I Not disclosing RP I Making inflated opening offers I Basic stuff that people often do when they competitive negotiate Attacking opponents network when you try to undermine your opponent with their colleagues the 0 network of people that they work with spreading rumors about their reputation is an examle False premises like borrowing strategy someone who makes promises that are insincere Misrepresentation what we think of as lying could be distorting events or putting a spin on it that just isn t true or outright lying O Inappropriate information gathering things that people may do to circumvent the negotiation process won t get the info from the opponent that you need so you go behind their back and offer deals to people who do have the information bribery or someone who is inside their inner circle spying on them feeding info to you All of these things have been lD ed as possibly wrong They may not be wrong to certain people but they may not be right either 0 People have very different feelings for these tactics Accd to SINS the ones viewed as less acceptable are o Misrepresentation o Inappropriate information gathering 0 False promises o Attacking the opponents network is least acceptable So there s a dichotomy of acceptable or not acceptable What we typically find is that students line up pretty closely with what the research suggests 0 Men are more okay with being more okay being unethical except for false promises 0 Women have a higher ethical threshold than men according to the text Research shows that among graduate students they re the biggest cheaters Research shows that MBA students are less ethical when they graduate than when they start the program Reasons for Unethical behavior Self gratifying sometimes it works so I engage in ethically ambiguous tactics because I ve learned that it helps me in neg to get what I want 0 Viewed as a source of power lots of this focuses on how you sue information and information is power party with the most information has the advantage 0 Not really about intrinsic satisfaction 0 People use it because they think it will give them an advantage in negotiation Demographic characteristics 0 Women have a higher ethical threshold than men 0 Also true that older people have a higher ethical thresholds than younger people 0 People hat have more work experience score higher on the ethics than the people on the lower experience 0 Age and work experience is explained by that you might learn that it works so you have a self gratifying incentive to do it but over time you incur significant costs reputation wise from doing that so it changes people s approach to ethics as they age and gain work experience 0 Educational backgrounds can have an affect too math and physics students were more unethical than students in other areas the next were business and engineering and science in terms of not being very ethical Personality how people score in terms of competitiveness and cooperativeness comp people engage in more of the questionable behaviors o h vs Ll 39 39 i 39 39 philosophy people tend to score worse on the ethical dimensions os they were less ethical more collectivistic people are concerned more about how their behavior will affect others Contextual influence situations where people find themselves in breeding grounds for unethical behavior o If you think someone s lying you ll lie 0 One shot transactions will lead you to lie 0 Personal gain situations will lead you to lie 0 Where you don t think you ll get caught life or death protect reputation low power dislike and fixed pie all lead to lying in that order Costs of unethical behavior Rigid negotiating people that start push the envelope in terms of what s acceptable behavior get caught in those comp spirals they find themselves uping the anti can t break out to move to some other type of neg strategy is very difficult for them to do Damaged relationships the target of your unethical behavior should they discover what s happening will not be very happy even if they are satisfied with the outcome of the negotiation they still won t feel good about the other side if they think they were treated uneasily Sullied reputation can mess up your reputation there are some direct costs to you Lost opportunities fits with rigid negotiating everytime you engage in unethical behavior it was a missed opportunity to treat people well Defusing other s unethical tactics Ask probing questions in negotiations people tend often not to ask questions at all state their demand provide rationale and wait for the other side to respond the other side states their demand presents rationale but then instead of asking questions to learn more theyjust state their next demand and rationale 0 So when people negotiate they think about what they re going to say next instead of asking questions If you ask questions you can find out whether that info is really accurate Recognize the unethical behavior and o lgnore it 0 quotcallquot the tactic o Respond in kind 0 Discuss it with your opponent Preventing your unethical behavior The golden rule 0 Idea to do unto others as you have them do unto you o If you follow that you wouldn t want to treat people wrong because you don t want them to treat you that way either will curb behaviors that lead to problems The front page test o Is what you re doing something you d be comfortable with if it appeared on the front page of the newspaper Role modeling o Is your behavior something that you would want your little brother or sister to do Third Party advice o If you have a plan and you are not sure if it s quite right talk to someone else about it doesn t have to stay in negotiations 0 Find someone you consider to be ethical Implementing a Collaborative Strategy When you negotiate collaboratively you re not fighting for a fixed pie but trying to make the pie larger You want win win outcomes Collaborative outcomes are obvious in retrospect but hard to find at the time of negotiating The Simplistic View these miss distinguish it from competitive bargaining Compromise anytime you meet with someone you are willing to move from your position to collaborate making concessions means compromising but this is not a defining characteristic of collaboration Even split split 5050 seems fair 0 Both of these two treat the outcomes as a fixed pie collaborative bargaining isn t about division but instead enlargement Feeling good people often think if they re satisfied with the negotiated outcome they collaborated but you can be satisfied with a competitive outcome because you wouldn t have settled if your result wasn t better than your BANTA Building a Relationship you can negotiate competitively and have the other side be willing to work with you again so it doesn t mean that you collaborated Taking extra time to negotiate how long it takes to get a settlement has nothing to do with whether the process was competitive or collaborative When you look at the defining characteristics of a collaborative bargaining strategy Deals with the process how does the process differ from comp neg Focuses on the outcomes how do the outcomes differ from comp neg Defining Characteristics Process 0 Flow of information I Research finds that if you don t have adequate info about your bargaining partner or opponent it s unlikely that you ll be able to ID winwin solutions I In class exercise illustrated this If we shared info about what we needed from the prune the solution was obvious But if we didn t share that information then we were just fighting over who gets the prunes I Being able to exchange info with the other side is important not all info tho I Must be more willingly to give info in this strategy 0 Understanding your opponent I Thru this info exchange is when you discover what s really motivating them in the negotiation I Once you realize how their priorities and preferences differ from yours it becomes easier to ID integrative or collaborative solutions 0 Attention to commonalities and differences I Often with collaborative bargaining the first thing you want to do is redefine the problem as a common goal I You re emphasizing that you have some shared concerns at stake there s a common goal you are trying to achieve I Differences aren t viewed as obstacles like they are in comp bargaining but instead as opp for trade 0 Focus on solutions I Should be solutions that satisfy both sides underlying needs you want to do well get what you want out of the negotiations but you don t judge the outcome based on whether you did better than the other side I Focus on solutions turns us to outcomes Outcomes Pyramid Model of Integrative Agreements 0 With collaborative negotiations the outcomes should capture some of the integrative potential that s available in the negations o Integrative outcomes are ones that create value for the parties you can say that you have an integrative solution when you ve discovered an outcome that makes at least one party better off without hurting the other side 0 Diagram in book figure 44 I Pyramid model of integrative agreements 0 Level 1 any agreement within a positive bargaining zone 0 Level 1 agreement is any settlement you get even in a competitive neg some value created in contrast to your alternative 0 Level 2 settlement that are demonstratively superior to other feasible settlements o Talked about a range of outcomes and decided with the other party that some outcomes will leave us better off than others 0 Level 3 Pareto Optimal o This is the best solution the one that captures all the integrative potential available thru a negotiated outcome 0 This means there s no solution left on the table I You never really know when you achieve the Pareto Optimal level Your goal when you neg collaboratively is to move from level 1 to a higher level make both sides better off and better options or at least make one side better off than the other party without harming the other party Telltale Signs of a WinWin Potential Does the negotiation contain more than one issue 0 Neg s that involve multiple issues are usually not zero sum negotiations The parties typically don t value all the issues the same way o If there s multiple issues at stake you should go for the collaborative approach Can other issues be brought in o This is if there s not multiple issues at stake 0 We think that having more issues complicates things but that s not the truth When it comes to coll the more issues you have the more opps you have for integrative bargaining Can side deals be made 0 Side deals have a bad rep they involve introducing another person into the neg It goes from bilateral to multilateral bargaining 0 But if you can bring someone else in who has resources not available to the other parties you can create value to the outcome Do parties have different preferences across negotiation issues 0 This links with the first two bullets o If there s more than one issue this is what you need to know 0 You want situations where people do have different preferences so there can be tradeoffs Decision MakingModel39 39 r quot 39 39 i 3 Everything up to this point still holds prep etc from the comp negotiation Decision Making Model Integrative Coll Negotiation Resource Assessment first step 0 ID issues specify the bargaining mix that will be discussed get everything out on the table that really matters you don t want to load the discussion up with trivial issues like you would do with comp bargaining 0 Define the problem here are the issues what is the problem that we re trying to tackle I Use neutral language one of the first challenges that people run into when they try to solve problems they want to state the problem in a way that favors their priorities I Define as a common goal an outcome that you ll work together to achieve I Keeping problem statement clean and simple that doesn t mean that it should simplify a complex problem if the problem has complexities they should be reflected in the problem statement but the point is that you don t want to bog the problem statement down with trivial matters Assessment of differences diff are not obstacles they re opp s for tradeoffs 0 Investigate differences in valuation of negotiation issues pick up how your value of issues may not align with the other side if you can do that you can engage in log rolling trade off issues not imp to you to get more imp issues from them that may not be imp to them Expectations of what the future holds pay attention to differences in each party s expectations in what 0 the future holds people have different forecasts about future outcomes that provide the basis for agreement 0 Risk attitudes some are more risk averse some are risk loving try to give a guaranteed outcome to a risk averse party and let the other side benefit from whatever risk is involved in the agreement 0 Time preferences some people need things to happen now others can wait Understand the Problem Identify Interests and Needs got to figure out what s motivating them to want what they want this is where trust comes into play must have enough trust in the other side so you will share the information 0 Share information must trust them I Don t share your BATNA or RP s if coll bargaining were to break down and turn comp you will give your neg away I ONLY Share info about underlying interest why you want what you want amp info about preferences and priorities 0 Ask diagnostic questions if you can t get info you need thru sharing I Ask them why they want what they want I Ask them what issues are more important to them and why Construct Offers and Tradeoffs this is the creative stage of collaborative stage of bargaining you want to ID possible options simple to complex 0 Expanding the pie if you can t get a settlement that satisfies both sides underlying interests one solution is to acquire more resources this solution doesn t really mean that you have to know much about the other party I When you expand the pie it involves bridging find someone who has what you want and add that to the pie I It seems winwin but it really cost someone something Logrolling occurs when you make tradeoffs based on differences in preferences make efficient trades O trade less valued things for more valued things 0 Payoffscost cutting occur when you re trying to ID something that would be of value to the other party that doesn t pertain to issues that are being negotiated I In order to get the other side to agree with what you want you introduce something new to get them to change pay them off to go along with your desired agreement I Like a legal bribe I Cost cutting is focused on trying to identify what cost or obstacles are preventing the other side from reaching an agreement then figuring out a way to reduce those costs 0 Bridging takes many forms I One would be to make a side deal side deals are a form of bridging bringing in another party to expand the pie I Payoffs also relates to that o Unbundling issues the prune case we did on Monday is an example of unbundling an issue 0 Make package deals not singleissue offers people often want to negotiate one issue at a time the reason for that is that it s simple I When you negotiate one issue at a time you don t take advantage of possible tradoffs ignore opps for possible logrolling I If you make package deals you incorporate tradeoffs into the possible solutions you would really like to come up with as many packages as you can 0 Make multiple offers simultaneously put all the packages out there together there will be discussion about the different offers and those discussions will uncover more info about underlying interests and priorities I You want offer that are equal value to you so that you can be satisfied with whatever outcome is possible Current Best Terms Selecting Solutions 0 Narrow Range of solution options by only focusing on things that seem to matter to at least one party I In the creation stage you don t judge anything I At this point tho you want to start getting rid of things that neither party really favor 0 Quality and Acceptability evaluate the decisions based on quality and acceptability I Quality does this outcome satisfy our objectives Will we both get what we want Where will the sit at the beginning of the process Is it a high quality settlement that satisfies both sides underlying needs I Acceptable to the people that have to implement it I Not the point of the process where you should specify your decision criteria back when you re defining what the problem is and specifying your goal that s when you need to talk about how you ll know when your goal is satisfied 0 Justify personal preferences people don t always feel comfortable doing this ask why do you want that I Not good in this stage to get defensive so you want to emphasize that you re not challenging their perspective but just trying to understand it 0 Be alert to intangibles face saving desires by the parties desire to feel strong to their constituents fairness concerns desire to feel as though they shaped the outcome 0 Use subgroups to evaluate complex options only true if you re negotiating in groups 0 Keep decisions tentative at this stage of the process you want things to be fairly informal no fixation on one particular outcome maintain flexibility 0 Don t be too formal during the solutiongenerating phase 0 Take time to cool off 0 Negotiate to the end with coll bargaining you may be a good job early on amp at the time where it s time to make a decision you get lazy and the other side claims more of the resources Prolong negotiation and renegotiate 0 Research finds that if the parties are in a coll bargaining situation and reach an agreement they then accept that outcome as the settlement and continue to negotiate to see if they can improve on that o The post negotiation treats that first settlement as their BATNA 0 Post settlement settlements Factors that facilitate integrative negotiation 0 Lots of research on what may predispose people to seek out integrative settlements 7 factors have been lD ed Existence of some common goal or objective when the parties to a neg believe that both sides can benefit by working together rather than competing or behaving independently then they are more likely to reach integrative settlements Faith in one s problem solving ability people who believe they can solve problems by working with another party are more able to do so a big part of this has to do with one s expertise in the problem area People who have expertise in the problem area focus of the obligations have more faith in ability to solve those issues as a result they have more self confidence and they tend to be more open to new ideas Belief in the validity of both sides positions in comp bargaining you re trying to undermine the other party you criticize the positions they have in collab bargaining you recognize that you have legitimate interests or needs that can be met in neg but you also recognize the validity of the other sides position Motivation to cooperate the parties have to adopt interpersonal styles that are more cooperative than combative more trusting than defensive or evasive more flexible than stubborn must adopt an interpersonal style related to cooperation Trust it s unclear from the research that trust always leads to coll neg and intergrative outcomes but it s very clear that mistrust prevents collaborative outcomes Clear communication parties have to make sure that each other understands the other party s interest and needs are what priorities are when people share info they assume their communication is clear to the other party but that is not the case most of the time relates to the concept of the illusion of transparency people think they re being more transparent than they really are Understanding of Integrative Processes research finds that people who have been exposed to the process of collaborative negotiation tend to be much better at discovering integrative solutions Benefits associated with collaborative negotiations Agreements are better it s mutual gains bargaining or winwin it reflects that the outcomes provide some added value to the parties over and above what would be obtained thru comp negotiation o In some cases coll negotiation is the only way you can get an agreement Promotes problem solving atmosphere 0 Discussions of why companies promote coll neg brings up that if they neg coll they ll adopt a problem solving approach to other things that happen in the company they think of other innovative ideas that may be beneficial to the org Fosters positive relationships you have a high concern for outcomes and relationships End of Test 2 material Last class we saw the video of a lease agreement negotiation of a ball club and facility Takes us thru Vll on the syllabus test 2 5 6 amp 7


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.