exam 2 Flashcards
- Negotiation & Mediation (general). What three characteristics, according to Fisher, make for a successful negotiation and what are the necessary conditions for two (or more) parties to come together in negotiation? When and why should a mediator be brought in?
3 characteristics: Wise - make sense, reasonable, efficient (not meaning fast, but negotiation gets to the heart of the issues, problems are addressed), improve the relationship.
People will not come to a negotiation if they feel they can do better in negotiating than not negotiating. Your best alternative to an negotiating agreement is worse than what you think you might be able to get out of an negotiation.
Mediator will be brought in if two parties cannot resolve the conflict on their own, often in an escalated conflict, or in a stalemate, not necessary anger but they ran out of options and not good at coming up with ideas in resolving.
- Fisher – Getting To Yes - I. According to Fisher, what are the differences between hard and soft bargaining/negotiating (give at least three—e.g., in content, style, frame, goals, etc.), and what does he call his, “new” method and how does it relate to hard and soft bargaining?
Hard negotiation is positional, is about the substance, is the stuff, often aggressive, people do not tell the truth and might lie, use contentious tactics, goal is to get the best possible deal for yourself.
Soft negotiation is when you are accommodating, bearing your soul, telling the other party what your concerns are. People generally focus on other person, goal is do not want the other person or party to be angry.
New method is principled negotiation. It is not hard bargaining because it does not focus on positions. It is not soft bargaining because you are not giving up anything and you are still concern for your outcome. Instead, this method focus on the underlying interests of both parties (self and other parties).
Positional bargaining is dividing up the pie, soft bargaining is giving away the pie, interest based bargaining is expanding the pie.
- Fisher – Getting To Yes – II. According to Fisher, what is one’s BATNA, and what is its effect on a negotiation? And
BATNA is the best alternative to negotiate alternative. It says on what point is it not worth it for you anymore to either continue negotiation or end the negotiation. So, if you want 3500 salary, and other company says the highest I can go is 3000, that is your batna, if that is the lowest that you can settle for. Chances are there is not much to hope to negotiate, unless you have some interests other than money. Both parties’ batna frame the negotiation set or the range. It is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. It is the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept.
what are the four basic components/steps in his method of negotiation—name them, describe them, give at least one example of this applied. and discuss how they play a role in a negotiation.
1Separate people from problem, just because someone want something that is different than what you want, doesn’t mean you need to get angry at them. Do not get angry just because someone does not agree with us.
2 Focus on interests (not positions), 3. Invent/find/explore option for mutual gain. you always want to generate options, want to explore that once I understand your interests, is there a way to satisfy both our interest without sacrificing both our goals. For example, if a company cannot give you the salary you want, then can they give you more vacation time, or better benefits, or start low and increase salary after several months of good performance.
4 Use objective criteria (agreement),once you decide on a outcome, then you based on the outcome to set objective criteria. It is hard because people can get in new conflict on what is the objective criteria. It is suggested that bring the objective criteria early on when generating options. For example, I want my salary close to the average, that is a way to bring in the objective criteria to share the interest on fairness.
- Lax & Sebenius – Claiming Value. What do L&S mean when by “claiming value” how does this approach relate to Fisher’s conceptions of different approaches to negotiations? And, according to L&S, what is the bargaining set/range, and how is it determined and modified (give at least three factors)? Describe three other characteristics of or strategies in claiming value.
Claiming value is a hard bargaining strategy. I am claiming values, and positioning myself in negotiation. Example: setting the bargaining range.If I say I want 3500 salary, that is my batna, but I will begin to ask for 4000, because I expect whatever the party comes in giving 2500, I am hoping that I can frame that range, to get my batna. Claiming value is all about strategy in negotiation. People do not say what they want, you say what you think you need to start at to ultimately get to where you want to go. So it is real hard bargaining strategy. Threats is a claiming value strategy. If you don’t do this, i am mad here, that is claiming value. Treats are useful to saying what is important to you. People can also make commitments such as, if you do not give me 3500, I’m gonna walk out the door. People are very strategic in how to make various concessions, always thinking about where do you want to be. The dance of reciprocal concessions, that is all addition to setting the bargaining range. The set/range is determined by opening offer, second offer, and how we make different concessions. Sometimes it is better to make the first offer, because if you make the first offer, you can control the negotiation. Sometimes it is better to make second offer, because people can control the midpoint by making the second offer. Some company make you to make the first offer, and they rate their counter offer knowing where the midpoint is, that is most likely you will end up in negotiation.
- Lax & Sebenius – Creating Value. What do L&S mean when by “creating value” how does this approach relate to Fisher’s conceptions of different approaches to negotiations? In what types of negotiations would we use a creating value approach – when might it be not appropriate (according to L&S). Describe at least three strategies for creating value.
Creating values is not soft bargaining, it is principled negotiation or interest-based bargaining. Because now we both share our underlying interests, and in doing so we can creating values, it is expanding the pie. It only works if we do have different interests, if we both want exactly the same thing for the same reason, we got problem. In two sisters and 6 oranges example, if they both want the 6 oranges for the same parts, then all the negotiation will not work. If a company cannot give you want you want, then the best strategy is claiming the value. For example, people wouldn’t do much claiming value bargaining in hard negotiation. People do not want to pay for a car more than it worth, and the seller want as much as they can get. Sales tend to claiming values in negotiations.
One strategy is dovetailing differences. you and I have different interests/needs/desires, we can dovetail that. You want to be fair to other employees, not paying more than they are making, I can take on some extra responsibilities, such as taking more projects, work extra hours, but I can get some more money. Another thing to do is unbundling. We think about It is only money, but I can unbundle my salary, so I might get less now, but more later. We unbundle the timing of the salary from the actual salary. The third is accessing risk, like stock options. I might not be able to get more salary, but I am willing to take the risk of the company is going to do well by taking stock options, it does not cause company anything at that time.
- Mediation - I. What are the basic rules/elements of formal mediation as practiced in the US – and how did Jimmy Carter’s 1978 Camp David mediations between Sadat (of Egypt) and Begin (of Israel) follow the “rules” of mediation and how did his process deviate from these rules/norms?
The basic rule/elements is neutral third party, trained, private setting, confidential, mediator does not set or determine any of the outcomes, does not voice an opinion. And they are not biased in favoring one of the party. The mediator does not serves as a goal between. Carter in the Camp David mediation served as a goal between, He had a closer relationship between one party over the other. He did most of the writing and proposal for the most of the agreement. He also did most of the brain storming. It was private and confidential. There wasn’t a written agreement in the end. It is shuttle diplomacy.
