S4 - Negotiation Strategies

Question 1

security point

Answer 1

minimum a party is willing to accept

Question 2

optimal outcome

Answer 2

maximum a party is able to obtain

Question 3

bargaining space (zone of possible agreement / ZOPA)

Answer 3

the space between both the security points and the optimal outcome

No overlap in interests is no agreement, because there is no bargaining space

Question 4

lying and zone of agreement

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

two-level game and the zone of possible agreement

Answer 5

At a two-level game (Putnam), the figure looks the same, but then vertically (international / domestic level has a bargaining zone).

Question 6

common tactics: tit-for-tat

Answer 6

responding in kind to whatever the other party does. Concession of the same kind for another.

Question 7

common tactics: inviting unreriprocated offers

Answer 7

double down on a concession without making one yourself

Question 8

common tactics: extreme claims and small concessions

Answer 8

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

Question 9

anchoring

Answer 9

people stay stuck to an offer that was made in the very beginning

Question 10

common tactics: commitment tactics

Answer 10

one cannot make more concessions because one does not have the authority to do that.

Question 11

common tactics: take it or leave it offers

Answer 11

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

Question 12

common tactics: trying to make you flinch

Answer 12

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

Question 13

common tactics: personal insults/ feather ruffling

Answer 13

pressuring, negative contact

Question 14

common tactics: bluffing and lying

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

common tactics: incentives - threats and rewards

Answer 15

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

Question 16

common tactics: belittling your alternatives

Answer 16

talking bad about the alternative option that gives you a point of security

Question 17

common tactics: good cop and bad cop

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

integrative bargaining

Answer 18

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

Question 19

principled negotiation (Fisher and Ury)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

creating value

Answer 20

previously hidden joint gains

not focusing on dividing a fixed pie

finding ways to fulfill all parties’ needs and interests

avoiding zero-sum

Question 21

principled negotiation - what if they won’t play

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

principled negotiation - what if they use dirty tricks

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

key implications - hard (distributive) bargaining

Answer 23

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

Question 24

key ideas - integrative bargaining

Answer 24

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

Question 25

hard bargaining

Answer 25

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