1a. Negotiation ( def. ) : a signifier of determination devising in which two or more parties talk with on another in an attempt to decide their opposing involvements ( p. 3 ) . Bargaining: describes competitory. win-lose state of affairss
Negotiation: refers to win-win state of affairss
A procedure that transforms over clip due to common accommodation 1b. Cardinal elements of a dialogue procedure: Mutuality. common accommodation. 1c. Types of Negotiation:
2. How people use dialogue to pull off state of affairss of mutuality.
3. Negotiation within the broader position of procedures for struggle direction.
1. to hold on how to portion or split a limited resource
2. to make something new that neither party could make on his or her ain 3. to decide a job or difference between parties
When to avoid negotiating:
1. hazard of losing everything
2. running at capacity ( raise monetary values )
3. don’t attention ( everything to lose and nil to derive )
4. no clip ( hazard of settling for less )
5. no trust in opposite numbers ( dialogue is of small or no value ) 6. waiting will better place
7. non prepared
Features of a Negotiation Situation:
1. Two or more parties ( a procedure between persons ) .
2. Conflict of demands and desires
3. Voluntary procedure
4. Expect ‘give-and-take’/compromise
5. Avoid public statement. domination of one side/capitulation of the other. firing Bridgess. or confer withing a higher authorization
6. Management of tangibles and declaration of intangibles ( frequently rooted in personal values and emotions ) .
Competitive kineticss and bad determinations:
2. Time force per unit area
3. The limelight
4. The presence of lawyers
Interdependent: occurs when two parties depend on each other to accomplish their ain preferable result. Interlocking ends – need each other to carry through aims. Mugwump: parties who can run into their ain demands without aid and aid of others. Dependant: occurs when parties must trust on other for what they need. Must accept and accommodate to provider’s caprices and foibles.
A. Types of Interdependence Affect Outcomes
1. Zero-sum / Distributive – competitory. negative correlativity between end attainments
2. Mutual-gains / non zero-sum / integrative – positive correlativity between end attainments
B. Alternatives Shape Interdependence
1. BATNA ( Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement )
Determinant on whether to hold or differ
Need to cognize one’s ain and opposite party’s BATNA
Both parties can act upon each other’s results and determinations. Continues throughout dialogue
Exchanges information. effort to influence. job solve
Work towards solution taking each other’s req’s into history. optimise result for both A. Common Adjustment and Concession Making
1. Concession Making – when one party agrees to do a alteration in his or her place. a. restrict scope of options within which a solution or understanding will be made. 2. Bargaining Range – the difference between the preferable acceptable colonies. a. further constrained when a grant is made.
B. Two Dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment
Dilemmas faced by negotiants identified by Harold Kelley
Dilemma of Honesty – Concerns how much of the truth to state the other party. Dilemma of trust – How much should negotiants believe what the other party Tells them? Factors: repute. past personal relation. apprehension of force per unit areas on other party in the present circumstance. etc. Optimum solution aided by trust and perceptual experience of just and honorable intervention ( p. 14 ¶ 3 ) . Two attempts that promote trust and beliefs
Percepts of Outcome – can be shaped by pull offing how the receiving system views the proposed consequence. Percepts of Process – can be enhanced by conveying images that signal equity and reciprocality in proposals and grants. Rejected proposals = feelings of mistreatment = failed negotiation Concession doing = physiques trust in party and procedure ‘give-and-take’ internationally expected feature of dialogue ; indispensable besides to joint job work outing in most mutualist relationships.
The Importance of Aligning Percepts
Information about negociating spouse is critical for success
Faulty information can take to miss of earnestness
Satisfaction with dialogue is every bit much determined by the procedure through which an understanding is reached as with the existent result obtained. ( p. 15. box 1. 5 )
Value Claiming and Value Creation
Structure of interdependent relationship shapes schemes and tactics. Distributive state of affairss: negotiants motivated to win over other party. Distributive Bargaining – win-lose schemes and tactics ; accepts the fact that there can merely be one victor in given state of affairs and pursues a class of action to be the master. Aim: to claim value – do whatever is necessary to claim profitss. Most appropriate when clip and resources are limited. likelihood of competitory opposite numbers. no likeliness of future interaction between parties. Integrative state of affairss: employs win-win schemes and tactics. Integrative dialogue – efforts to happen solutions so both parties can make good and achieve ends. Purpose of dialogue is to make value.
Best attack when non faced with state of affairss mentioned in ‘distributive bargaining. ’ Most dialogues are a combination of claiming and making value processes. Deductions: a. 1. Ability to acknowledge state of affairss that require more of one than the other. a. 2. Versatile negotiants comfy with using both major strategic attacks. No ‘best. ’ ‘preferred. ’ or ‘right’ manner ; version to state of affairs. a. 3. Biased perceptual experiences toward seeing jobs as more distributive/competitive than they are in world. Affected by past experience. personality. tempers. wonts and beliefs sing negociating. … [ T ] endency to presume a dialogue job is more zero-sum than it may be and overdrive distributive strategies… ( p. 16 ¶ 4 ) . Inclination to overrate fight = underuse of integrative. creating-value procedures = suboptimal results. Successful coordination of mutuality can potentially take to synergy ( “the whole is greater than the amounts of its parts” ) . Value creative activity depends on working differences between negotiants. Key differences among negotiants:
a. 1. Differences in involvements. Finding compatibility can frequently make value.
a. 2. Differences in judgements about the hereafter.
a. 3. Differences in hazard tolerance.
a. 4. Differences in clip penchant.
Value is frequently created by working common involvements. but can besides be created by differences. A. Conflict
Can stem from: strongly divergent demands. misperceptions. misinterpretations. Conflict – “’sharp dissension or resistance. as of involvements. thoughts. etc. ’ and includes ‘the perceived divergency of involvement. or belief that the parties’ current aspirations can non be achieved at the same time. ’” “…results from ‘the interaction of mutualist people who perceived incompatible ends and intervention from each other in accomplishing those goals’” ( p. 18 ¶ 2 ) .
Indication of something incorrect or dysfunctional
Creates mostly destructive effects
Degrees of Conflict
Intrapersonal or Intrapsychic Conflict – occurs within single. a. 1. Interpersonal Conflict – between persons.
a. 2. Intragroup Conflict – among squad and work group members. etc. Affects decision-making. productiveness. deciding issues. etc. a. 3. Intergroup Conflict – between two separate parties.
Intricate degree of struggle due to Numberss and countless interaction. Negotiation most complex.
Functions and Dysfunctions of Conflict. Elementss that lead to conflicts’ destructive image:
a. 1. Competitive. Win-Lose ends. Goals in contention and can non at the same time be fulfilled. = competitory procedures to achieve end.
a. 2. Misperception and Bias. For or against attitude ; believing becomes stereotyped and biased ; endorse protagonists. reject oppositions.
a. 3. Emotionality. Emotionally charged ; additions unreason.
a. 4. Decreased Communication. Productive communicating diminutions ; pass on less with those in dissension. more with those who do. What small communicating that takes topographic points is negative.
a. 5. Blurred Issues.
a. 6. Rigid Commitments. Locked places.
a. 7. Magnified Differences. Minimized Similarities.
a. 8. Escalation of the Conflict.
Aim: non to extinguish struggle. but to pull off it to command destructive elements.
Factors That Make Conflict Easy or Difficult to Pull off
P. 21: Fig. 1. 2 Conflict Diagnostic Model
P. 20: Fig. 1. 1 Functions and Benefits of Conflict
B. Effective Conflict Management
Double Concerns Model ( p. 22: Fig. 1. 3 )
Developed by Dean Pruitt. Jeffrey Rubin. and S. H. Kim
X-axis: concern about ain results
Aka assertiveness dimension
Y-axis: concern about other’s results
Aka concerted dimension
5 major schemes:
a. I. 1. Contending ( aka viing. ruling ) . Lower-right-hand corner. a. I. 2. Yielding ( aka accommodating. compeling ) . Upper left-hand. a. I. 3. Inaction ( aka avoiding ) . Lower left-hand.
a. I. 4. Problem Solving ( aka join forcesing. incorporating ) . Upper right-hand. a. I. 5. Compromising. Middle.
P. 25: Fig. 1. 4 Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict and Situations…