S4 - Negotiation Strategies Flashcards
security point
minimum a party is willing to accept
optimal outcome
maximum a party is able to obtain
bargaining space (zone of possible agreement / ZOPA)
the space between both the security points and the optimal outcome
No overlap in interests is no agreement, because there is no bargaining space
lying and zone of agreement
Lying is risky, because with a lie you possibly lock yourself out of a zone of agreement (lie about your security point). With lying your bargaining space is not clear.
two-level game and the zone of possible agreement
At a two-level game (Putnam), the figure looks the same, but then vertically (international / domestic level has a bargaining zone).
common tactics: tit-for-tat
responding in kind to whatever the other party does. Concession of the same kind for another.
common tactics: inviting unreriprocated offers
double down on a concession without making one yourself
common tactics: extreme claims and small concessions
starting really high, opening bid is important.
Too high can make you seem unserious and give negative sphere to the concessions.
Starting very low brings you in a vulnerable position, you end up closer to your own security point
high opening bid
anchoring
people stay stuck to an offer that was made in the very beginning
common tactics: commitment tactics
one cannot make more concessions because one does not have the authority to do that.
common tactics: take it or leave it offers
threatens to walk away, has the effect of cutting off alternatives. Gives a ‘this deal or no deal’ situation. Comes with deadlines or ultimatums.
Can also happen with peacemaking, when the end of the summit comes up
threat with walking away, cutting off alternatives
common tactics: trying to make you flinch
increasing the pressure (price) instead of making a concession.
Occurs in hostage situations.
Eventually you accept because the price keeps going up instead of concessions being made (situation worsening).
increasing price
common tactics: personal insults/ feather ruffling
pressuring, negative contact
common tactics: bluffing and lying
deception. If you do it, there might be a risk, because when you’re caught it might bring trouble, trust is gone.
Can also lock yourself out of the zone of agreement by creating options that you do not have (risky).
Can damage relationship, but what matters is outcome of negotiations.
common tactics: incentives - threats and rewards
promising mediators will promise things in peacemaking (recognition, access to international organisations).
Have to be believable and credible, because if not there is a problem. Party should believe you are able to ‘reward’. Threat should also be avoidable.
making promises / need to be believable and able to reward
common tactics: belittling your alternatives
talking bad about the alternative option that gives you a point of security
common tactics: good cop and bad cop
friendly or aggressive behaviour.
The party will have a tendency to accept the conditions of the good cop because they are nice to you.
Can end up taking a bad deal that the good cop offers, while the bad cop could have offered a better one.
integrative bargaining
Reframing the issues to find common ground (collaborative problem solving)
Exchanging information for reframing to be successful
Enlightened self interest: helping others to help oneself
principled negotiation (Fisher and Ury)
People: Separate the people from the problem
Interests: Focus on interests, not positions
Options: Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do
Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard
people / interests / options / criteria
creating value
previously hidden joint gains
not focusing on dividing a fixed pie
finding ways to fulfill all parties’ needs and interests
avoiding zero-sum
principled negotiation - what if they won’t play
negotiation jujitsu – go back to these principles, look behind their position, understand their concerns.
Ask questions to get information so you can try to go beyond the position.
Pausing is also a trick to use, because this can gain concessions (people get uncomfortable from silence).
Other option is the one-text procedure, which basically is inviting a mediator / bringing in a third party.
principled negotiation - what if they use dirty tricks
taming the hard bargainer.
Dirty tricks means the negotiation is no longer about the problem, but about the process.
Usually when the other party is not happy with the way the negotiation is going.
Then you should go back to the four principles, identify the tactic being used and confront the other party with it.
If none of this works, you can always walk away
process is the problem. other party not happy with way negotiation is going.
key implications - hard (distributive) bargaining
Risk of deteriorating relationships (and reputation)
Risk of creating deadlocks
Ineffective to address deep-stated interests: impedes value creation
Effective to defend vital interests and essential principles
key ideas - integrative bargaining
Risk of creating unrealistic expectations
Time intensive
Opens new perspectives: creates a new bargaining space
Improves deteriorates relationships: looking through counterparts eyes
Effective for conflicts that deal with hard to quantify interests
hard bargaining
Security point = minimum a party is willing to accept
Optimal outcome = maximum a party is able to obtain
Bargaining space is the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) = voluntary exchange zone, which is the space between two security points
