Negotiations & Conflict Resolution Assignment

Negotiations & Conflict Resolution Assignment Words: 2839

Chain Nell/Media Used to Exchange Messages Which medium is used matters because it influences your social awareness. Social awareness influences the way you make sense of social interactions – how you perceive information, the attributions you make about the other parry, and the behavior you deem appropriate. *Table 6. 2 p. 1 70 (Text vs.. Face-to-face media) Communication Without Words Nonverbal communication or body language pertains to the transfer Of messages using any means other than the spoken word. 80-95% off messages are communicated nonverbally.

Nonverbal messages are more spontaneous and harder to fake, making them more believable. Women are better than men at sending nonverbal messages (more expressive). Women are better at decoding nonverbal messages than men, especially facial cues. Men and women are both ineffective at detecting deception. Body language is constant. Nonverbal messages may repeat, contradict, complement, or substitute for verbal messages. First Impressions Within 1/1 10th of a second, you make a judgment about a person. These judgments influence the quality of your subsequent interactions with that other person.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!

order now

Gathering information about another negotiator before the actual negotiation can help eliminate the surprise that may send undesirable messages. *Table 6. 4 p. 174 (Determinants of positive vs.. Negative first impressions) Building Rapport Building rapport engenders more information sharing, trust, and respect, and it reduces threats. It also helps to create a positive first impression. Structuring Conversations Body language is part of a system of cues that help us with structuring conversations – who speaks, when, to whom, and for how long.

Conversations that are well coordinated help build rapport and create the reception that you and the other party have hit it off. Rough transitions engender perceptions that the other party is rude, dominating, and frustrating. Detecting Deception There is no sign of deceit – no gesture, facial expression, or muscle twitch – that necessarily means the other negotiator is lying. But, there are some verbal and nonverbal tendencies suggest deceit. *Table 6. 6 p. 1 77 (Behavioral cues suggesting deceit) Chapter 7: Decision Making Decision-Making Errors Decision making errors can be cognitive in nature, perceptual, or emotional.

Cognitive Biases: Irrational Escalation of commitment Irrational Escalation of commitment entails continuing a previously selected course of action beyond what rational analysis would recommend. One reason we commit this error is that we seem to be unable to ignore sunk or unrecoverable costs (afraid to cut our losses). Impression management, Our desire to manage others’ impressions of us, also contributes. Perhaps We refuse to admit failure to defend our reputations. It may also reflect our strong desire to be consistent.

There are several steps that can be taken to combat this problem: Be aware of the problem. Cultivate alternatives and set limits. Reevaluate your course of action. Establish a monitoring system. Framing Framing is about how we say something, not what we say. It reflects our conception or definition of the situation. Cognitive frames are about the heuristics or shortcuts we use to simplify decision-making. Frames influence perceptions, decisions and actions and also lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral about their risk taking in decision-making.

Availability of Information Information that is vivid, concrete, familiar, and emotionally rich is more easily retrieved from memory, and more influential, than pallid, abstract, unfamiliar, and emotionally bland information, even if it is less relevant – it influences our evaluations of proposals and alternatives, how we attempt to persuade others, and our ability to be persuaded. Rather than considering information that is relevant and necessary for making high quality decisions, this bias also limits our search to information that is easily recalled from memory.

The more we talk about something, the more we believe it. Anchoring and Adjusting An anchor defines at least one and of the bargaining range and may be the point from which negotiators concede or adjust when issuing their bequest offers and counteroffers. Opening offers are perhaps the most common, but prior offers, target points, and resistance points also serve as anchors. The effect of the standard (anchor) against which subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are measured (ex. Tenderfoots images). Overconfidence/Overoptimistic They underestimate the occurrence of negative events.

They also tend to ignore the other party’s needs and concerns, are less concessionary, and achieve lesser outcomes than realistically confident negotiators. *Table 7. 2 p. 21 3 (Summary of cognitive decision-making errors) Perception Errors: Negotiators define situations along one of three dimensions: relationship vs.. Task; emotional vs.. Intellectual; compromise vs.. Winning. Mythical F-iced Pie Fixed pie perceptions are problematic because they lead to lower individual and joint profits. Expectations If we believe beforehand that something will be good, chances are it will be.

If we think it will be bad, it usually is (ex. Placebos). For negotiators, this means that detailed descriptions, explanations, or presentations of proposals and how they will help the other party should induce positive expectations, hush a better chance that they will be accepted. Stereotypes They are simply information processing shortcuts. Fundamental Attribution Error We tend t attribute our own behaviors and others’ behaviors to different causes. Perspective Taking This refers to our ability to consider the situation from another person’s point of view.

Perspective takers stereotype less, they are better at coordination, problem solving and creating integrative agreements, and they react more effectively to the other party’s attempts to anchor and claim more resources. Ignoring Others’ Cognitions Egocentrics: The tendency to focus on ourselves. Illusion of Transparency This entails our tendency to overestimate the extent to which others can discern our thoughts and objectives. Reactive Devaluation This is the tendency for negotiators to discount or dismiss proposals or concessions merely because of who offered them.

Extremism We believe that our own perceptions reflect objective reality. When we learn that the other side’s perceptions differ, we initially try to correct his or her “mistake”. If this does not work, we regard him as an extremist. *Table 7. 3 p. 217 (Perceptual decision-making error) Emotional Biases: Mood/ Affect This engenders emotional biases because it influences the quality and the depth of our information processing. More proclaim behaviors are executed when people are in good mood, and more antisocial behaviors are executed when they are in a bad mood.

Anger Emotions can even affect the judgment of uninvolved observers. Negotiators who are angry with each other achieve smaller joint gains and have less desire to work together in the future than do negotiators who have more positive emotional regard for the other side. Competitive Arousal This is an adrenaline-fueled emotional state. The consequences of this error are similar to those of the irrational escalation commitment error. The competitive arousal grows out of rivalry, time pressure, and audience effects.

Impact Bias/Misstating This error suggests that negotiators may have trouble deciding what they are negotiating for, and how hard to push for it. *Table 7. 4 p. 221 (Emotional decision-making errors) How to Minimize these Errors: Be thorough in your preparation. Gather additional information and evaluate it carefully. Reevaluate your chosen course of action when you reach your present limits or resistance points. Keep in mind information and explanations that are vivid, familiar and emotionally rich. Maintain your focus on your own anchors. Avoid rivals, intense time pressures and audiences.

Chapter 13: Difficult Negotiations Impasses and Dirty Tricks Reasons for Impasses: Incompatible frames Incompatible negotiation styles unrealistic expectations Dirty Tricks Dirty tricks – bogey, chicken, good cop-bad cop, intimidation, allowable- highball, nibble, snow job – are often used aggressively, in a winner-take-all manner, and they involve deception. A good way to manage dirty tricks is to call out the negotiator’s use of these tactics. He or she will probably stop using them once you establish your awareness of them because they will no longer have their desired effect.

Alternative Approaches for Managing Difficult Negotiations Shadow Negotiation: The shadow negotiation provides a more comprehensive approach that will also help you get reluctant negotiators to the table and change the other party’s misguided tactics. Rather than focusing on transactions such as buying-selling or acquiring-disposing of resources, this examines the relational aspects that underlie all negotiated transactions. Strategic Moves include giving the other party incentives to listen, consider and negotiate our ideas.

Pressure moves raise the stakes for not dealing with us by making the status quo unattractive or raising the cost of “business as usual”. Enlisted support involves using allies who are respected by the other negotiator to ensure that we gain a favorable hearing and credibility. Strategic Turns helps us airframe the negotiation (interrupt the move and name the move). Appreciative Moves help us develop a complete and shared understanding of the other negotiators’ perspectives, and linkages between these perspectives and our own.

Changing the Nature of the Game: Change the nature of the game so that both parties can reap greater gains. Go to the balcony: “Going to the balcony” allows us to step back, collect our thoughts and see the situation objectively. Manage you own emotions. Create a climate that is conductive to problem solving Problem solve Managing Difficult Conversations Difficult conversations entail three separate conversations: The conversation with a difficult conversation. The Feeling conversation: We usually frame issues in substantive terms without addressing feelings.

This is problematic because ignoring feelings recluses us from learning important things about each other such as likes, dislikes, hot buttons, attributions, accusations, judgments and perceptions of what happened. The Identity conversation: Difficult conversations threaten our identities because they potentially disrupt our sense of who we are. How to manage these difficult conversations: 1 . Prepare by walking through the three conversations. 2. Instead of blaming the other party, think about and accept what you might have done to contribute to the problem. 3. Effectively manage your own hot buttons. . Understand the purpose of the conversation and what must be accomplished. 5. Appreciate the other party’s feelings by framing them into the problem, and refrain from evaluating them. Chapter 2: Preparation Strategic Planning: Establishing the Framework Defining the Situation: Defining the situation is necessary to ensure that any outcomes that you negotiate satisfies all Of your true needs, and perhaps those Of the other party. Considering only information that is truly relevant to the situation will ensure that the real problem is identified and avoid creating new ones.

Other Factors to Consider: The nature of the interaction. Other negotiations. Obligations to negotiate with this party. Relative power. Resources and constraints. Others who may affect or be affected by your negotiation. Environment or context. Setting Ago Is: A goal is what you want to accomplish, and what you think the other parry wants to accomplish. Most negotiators emphasize on goals that are substantive (ex. Price). Relationship goals may also be important. Goals may pertain to the process of negotiating or how the parties attempt to accomplish their substantive and relationship goals.

Effective goals are clear, specific, measurable, and challenging yet attainable. Purposes of Goals for Negotiators: They guide behavior. Goals help you clarify expectations and determine priorities. Goals suggest what information is needed. Substantive and relationship goals help you determine which strategy and tactics are most appropriate. Determining your Strategy: A strategy is the plan or process by which negotiators attempt to achieve their goals. Tactics are specific, short-term actions that serve to implement the broader strategy.

Strategies and tactics are the “how to” component of the negotiation process. Strategy Implementation: Personalizing the Plan Components of the Situation: Issues are specific components or dimensions of the situation that must be addressed. Together the issues make up the bargaining mix. Positions: An offer or a counteroffer. Interests are the motives underlying your positions, your reasons for wanting them. These reasons reflect the purposes the stated position will serve for you, not your justification for it. Interests are commonly unmet needs.

Aspiration Levels or Target Points are what you realistically hope to achieve for each issue. Aspiration levels are specific to each issue. Issues and interests are particularly important because, together, they define the tuition. If you know all of the dimensions or components of the situation and the needs associated with each, you have a comprehensive understanding to be solved or the deal to be made. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATAAN): Some negotiators believe that a BAT AN is something they can work out with the other party.

It is not. A BATAAN is the best that you can do without him or her. Some negotiators confuse wishful thinking with reality. A BAT AN is about objective reality. Bataan are not passive or static. Negotiators can and should cultivate additional alternatives, or increase the value of an existing alternative. Knowing your BATAAN is beneficial for at least two reasons. First, a BATAAN is the basis for determining reservation prices, which is your breakable point or the worst acceptable outcome for each issue.

Reservation prices set limits that preclude us from settling for less than what we could have achieved without negotiating with this party. Having a good BATAAN increases your bargaining power (bring about desired outcomes, power over the other party). Estimating the aforementioned elements from the other party’s perspective definition of the situation, goals, strategy, target and assistance points, interests, BAT AN and so on should help you identify the settlement ranges or zone of possible agreement (ZAP) (the range between your resistance points). This will shape your determination of appropriate offers and counteroffers.

The dilemma of trust argues that the other party may take advantage of you if you believe too much of what he or she tells you, button may not be able to reach an agreement if you believe too little. The dilemma of honesty argues that the other party may take advantage of you if you share too much information, but you may not be able to reach an agreement if you share too little. Rapport Building and Testing Assumptions This is necessary because your efforts to analyze the other party involve making estimates, assumptions, educated guesses, or even hunches.

At some point, we must attempt to validate or verify these. Another reason for doing this is because we are susceptible to making and being influenced by first impressions. Chapter 4: Integrative Negotiation Preparation and Integrative Bargaining Defining the situation is always important because it helps you determine what you will be negotiating, your goals, and the issues that must be dressed to produce a complete solution (develop a shared understanding of the situation). Interests are the primary focus of integrative negotiators, and negotiation is sometimes called interest-based bargaining for this reason.

When you negotiate this way, you identify your own interests and those of the other party, and then try to invent solutions that satisfy all of them. Building rapport also assumes greater importance when using the integrative strategy. Trust, cooperation, and information sharing help negotiators develop shared understanding of the situation, identify interests, and invent illusions that satisfy them. Moreover, trust, information sharing, and the absence of threats enhance relationships, which is one reason we use this strategy.

Tactics of Integrative Bargaining Separating the Person From the Problem: This set of tactics is about deprogramming the problem, but it is much more than merely being nice. It is about emotions, perceptions, and communication and how these help the parties find creative solutions that allow them to maximize joint gain. In addition to deprogramming the problem, managing emotions, and clarifying perceptions, “separating the errors from the problem” requires negotiators to create a free flowing exchange of information that helps them gain a clearer and deeper understanding of the situation.

Steps to Accomplish this: Ask open-ended and probing questions to gather information and to clarify what has been said. Engage in active listening. Talk about the impact of the problem on you instead of blaming him or her for what happened to you (diminish defensiveness). If you disagree with something that is said, critique its merits, not him or her. If the other negotiator does not seem to understand what you are communicating airframe it. Look forward, not back. Focus on Interests, Not Positions: Interests are a negotiator’s fears, and unmet needs.

They are the motives underlying state positions – the purposes they will serve for you, not your justifications for them. Types of Interests: Substantive interests pertain to the tangible issues being negotiated. Relationship interests pertain to the nature of the relationship you want to have with the other party. Process interests are about how a deal is made or how a dispute is settled. Principle interests are intangible. They pertain to strongly held beliefs about what is right or wrong. Each of these types of interests can be intrinsic – you value or need something in and of itself.

How to cite this assignment

Choose cite format:
Negotiations & Conflict Resolution Assignment. (2019, Sep 21). Retrieved September 28, 2022, from