conflict res exam 3
Card Set Information
conflict res exam 3
conflict res exam
conflict res exam 3
To settle by discussion and mutual agreement.
Falls between avoidance and domination.
Involves active engagement not avoidance.
Product of negotiation
Problem resolution or impasse.
Assume conflict is win/lose or zero sum
Rewards are fixed pie to be distributed
The fixed pie of rewards or resources to be distributed
Bargainer not concerned about future relationship with the other party and is trying to maximize gain and minimize loss.
A resistance point beyond which other will not go to make a deal
Assumes the parties have diverse interests and common interests and that the process can result in win/win
Mixed motives, separate needs, and interdependent needs.
Assumption of integrative negotiations
Polar opposites are not necessarily in conflict.
Sometimes people can reach a satisfactory solution because they want different things.
Expanding the pie
Expanding the resources alters the structure of the conflict
Encourages collaborative outcomes b/c most conflicts are based on perception of scarce resources
Process where one of the parties is “paid off” with some creative form of compensation
Can also help break a competitive spiral
Essentially a bribe
When one offers to trade off issues that are the top priority for the other.
Arrange agreements so each gets the top priority item while giving on the lower priority item
Minimizes the other’s costs for going along with you.
Invents new options to meet the other’s needs.
7 elements of principled negotiation
Attend to the relationship
Attend to all elements of communication
Focus in interests not positions
Generate many options
Find legitimate criteria
Analyze the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” BATNA – walk away alternative
Work with fair and realistic commitments.
Remaining firm about yoru goals but flexible regarding how to accomplish them.
Best alternative to negotiated agreement
Negotiators who have a strong BATNA will have more power throughout negotiating and should be able to achieve more of their goals.
Your resistance point, some of your targets, and confidential info of a weak strategic position or an emotional vulnerability are best concealed.
– price of a car
– wanting to win, wanting to save face, wanting to show you can get a good deal, etc.
– need to make sure you search for agreement rather than other things like openly fighting; ultimate goal is to agree.
– more like integrative negotiation; trying to find a way to have no zero sum thinking.
– trying to claim as much resource as possible not trying to create more value.
– not caring about what the other wants or what they may do; deciding to barrel in and force as much as possible to get as much of the pie as possible
– considering the impact of the other’s strategy on your own; if other comes in forcing what will that do to my approach.
Latitude of rejection
Walkaway point is the price at which its not worth it to make the deal because its too expensive
Latitude of acceptance
– any point at which both parties are overlapping in their perceived common ground
Not giving the negotiating agent all necessary info making it impossible for them to leak info.
Revealing only the facts necessary to support your case.
A form of action negotiators can take to show what is important to them.
= material interests, tangibles
– the procedure you want to use to solve the differences
– desire to get along, interest in the negotiation maintaining positive terms; more value level interests like being treated respectfully.
Good cop/bad cop
– one person plays nice and the other person is really really bad, so you will work out any deal with the good person to get rid of the bad person
One person can try to play both roles but it looks weird
Is the most transparent of the tactics
– coming up with unrealistic offers, unrealistically low or high
Effects of highball offers
– trying to take advantage of the rejection then retreat; (foot in the door)
Norm of reciprocity
– making a ridiculous offer and then backing off from it making the other person want to offer a concession
– making a ridiculously low offer that you know itll be rejected but that gives you a lot of room to make concessions
– looking like you’re making a big concession on something big when it’s something you don’t really care about hoping to get the other to make a large concession.
– asking for little things to be thrown in later
– usually to act on anger or fear; getting very upset/angry to get them to back off
– “I thought we were here to make an honest/ good deal” you’re not acting very professional, I don’t know if I can trust you; makes the other person feel sorry and maybe offer more.
– overwhelming the other side with irrelevant crap so that they can’t sort through what actually matters; hallmark of the legal system.
– idea of opening bid on a deal sort of creating the starting point price that all offers revolve around or are close to.
– asking them what their numbers are.
– researching market trends and stuff to guess what their target.
– getting a bunch of your friends to go into a small restaurant and order coffee during the lunch hour; can be a way to get Other to the table to negotiate.
– with outsiders to manipulate the costs of not giving into you.
Coming up with a threat that isn’t really a direct threat
I have a friend at the better business bureau…
Manipulating what the schedule is going to be to try to force deals to get done
Deadlines have a big effect on getting deals done
– the deal’s almost worked out here’s 3 agreements we can go with, I’m ok with all of them
Asking a child do you want to go to bed in 15 mins or 20 mins ?– either way they're in bed 10 minutes earlier than usual but they got to make the choice.
Assume the close
– instead of asking “do we have a deal”/”are you sure you want to do this” they launch into “ok so we’ve got the paper work made up all we need is a signature and a check and we’re good to go”;
sometimes can be effective;
also very annoying since they didn’t confirm you wanted to make the deal
Split the difference
– giving a final concession to get a final concession to get the deal done
– an offer that’s sort of there on the table ticking but after a certain time, like a short time, its gone;
sales at stores
Trying to make the offer seem scarce so Other will react
Can counter with an exploding offer of your own – “if you don’t give me 8 days to make a decision, the answer is no”
– throwing in something else at the end of a deal to persuade Other further; final little concession to get the person over the edge of the deal
Understand surface interests
Generate alternatives- what are the possibilities
Evaluate alternatives and select one that addresses the issues
– trying to find a solution when in a situation where any change from where you are now results in a gain for one but a loss for the other person. But not a loss for both.
Solution on a curve = most efficient
Trying to create as much value as possible, avoiding both losing
= expanding the pie, adding to solutions
= taking part of the pie, saying you want it
– trust based on an awareness of the cost of compliance or noncompliance; contract based; trusting the other side will do what they say because of their reward or punishment
– trusting because you have knowledge that they are a trustworthy person.
– trusting them because you believe your relationship is too important to them for them to do anything to damage it.
– friends reliable in most aspects
–friends reliable in certain contexts and unreliable in others; different areas of relationship
- collective sense of “us”, shared commodities; tend to value the other person more, less coercion/hardball tactics.
– people higher up are responsible for taking care of people who are lower
Military – clear lines of who is in what place
– 1 to 1 relationship with a lot of reciprocity
– exchange material for money; not so worried about relationship, relationship might be temporary for the deal, person may be valued less
One that all parties share equally, each one benefiting in a way that wouldn’t be possible if they didn’t work together.
Both parties work towards a goal but that benefits each differently.
One that involves indivs with different personal goals agreeing to combine them in a collective effort.
sense of we-ness
pronouns go from you and I to we/us
about the distribution of outcomes
parties concerned one party is getting more than they deserve, that they should be treated equally or outcome distributed based on need.
process of determining outcomes
parties concerned they werent treated fairly during negotiation, not allowed to give their side or not respected.
how parties treat each other in one to one relationships
people have strong expectations about the ways others should treat them
when those are violated they feel unfairly treated.
how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the norms thta develop for how they should be treated.
– activities designed to hide your true goals so the other side doesn’t know what you’re truly after