Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Negotiation > Test 1 > Flashcards

Test 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Negotiation (Definition)

A

Art and science of securing agreement between two or more parties, seeking to maximize their outcomes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Negotiation Myths

A

Good negotiatiors are born
I can only negotiate in environments where it is only explicity allowed
I must negotiate “tough” to be successful
Experience is a great teacher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

BATNA

A

Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement
“What are you going to do if you do not make a deal with this person - determined by your available alternatives.

Defines most you will pay (buyer) and least you will accept (seller)

Key source of power - ability to walk away

Key: Always include an affirmation of commitment when disclosing your BATNA, and note that you may have to take it!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Counterpart’s perception of your BATNA

A

Give a positive impression about your BATNA, but don’t disclose specific values!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Aspiration level/target

A

Your “ideal” settlement price

you set this based on research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Reservation Price

A

Your point of indifference - “Walk away” point

Your BATNA +/- factors that make you want to do this deal

Never reveal!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bargaining Range (ZOPA)

A

Zone of Possible Agreements

ZOPA is the range between the buyer’s reservation price and the seller’s reservation price

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Positive ZOPA

A

If buyer willing to pay more than seller will accept, ZOPA exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Negative ZOPA

A

Seller demands more than most buyer will pay, no zone of possible agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Interests

A

Central concerns underlying one’s preferences

- profitablity, quality, timing, fairness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Issues

A

Items to be negotiated

price, delivery, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Positions

A

Specific outcomes on each issue that each party states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Judgmental Heuristics

A

Rules of thumb or shortcuts that people use the reduce information-processing demands

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Availability

A

Tendency to judge the probability or frequency of events by the degree to which instances of that event are readily available or retrievable from memory

Events that 1) evoke emotion, 2) are vivid, 3) are easily imagined, tend to be more available

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Representativeness

A

Tendency to assess the likelihood of an event’s occurrence by the degree to which a specific description corresponds or “represents” a broader category

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Anchoring and adjustment

A

People make assessments by starting from an initial value and adjusting to yield a final decision, even when the reliability of the initial value is questionable

Tendency to allow the initial value to be “anchored” by historical precedent

  • insufficient anchor adjustment, overconfidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Framing

A

Setting up the question or negotiation in such a way that can sway opinions in a given direction.
200 saved vs. 400 killed

18
Q

Distributive Negotiations

A

Fixed sum games - one persons gain is another’s loss; almost directly conflicting interests
Dividing the pie, but don’t know exactly how large the pie is

19
Q

Key Processes in reaching a deal

A

Creating Gains
- searching for optimal solutions

Claiming Gains
- influencing the distribution of resources

20
Q

Claiming Gains (3 key stages)

A

Opening offers
- framing/anchoring - don’t get too extreme or conservative
Concession making
- Normal, tend to be permanent, should be justified, reciprocity
Signaling commitment
- indirect (slowing concessions, showing pain)
- direct (clarity of statement, outline consequences)

21
Q

Planning critical processes

A

1) Goal definition (why want it)
2) Goal pursuit ( what strategies)
- contectual factors, external linkages

22
Q

Opening statments

A 
Initial Goals:
 Build rapport
 Signal Respect
 Communicate Enthusiasm
 Appear Optimistic
 Signal A Problem-Solving Approach
23
Q

Supporting Arguments

A

Be prepared to justify your positions
Find Credible sources
Unbiased
Recognized Expertise

Address your opponent’s perspective
Frame in a way they appreciate/understand
Communicate how compliance benefits them!

24
Q

Closing statements

A 
Similar to the opening remarks … a graceful exit may include:
Enthusiasm
Praise for the product/service
Compliments & friendly remarks
NO discussion of your reservation price!

Key: Promote stability and social utility!

25
Q

Negotiating Styles

A 
Assertiveness (concern for self) vs. Conservatism (concern for others)
Equal = Compromising
High A, High C = Collaborating
High A, Low C = Competing
Low A, High C = Accommodating
Low A, Low C = Avoiding
26
Q

Shell’s situational Matrix

A

Perveived importancr of future relationship vs perceived conflict over stakes

Balance Concerns
Relationships
Transactions
Tacit coordination
**Look at image!!
27
Q

Distributing resources fairly - Equal distributions

A

Promote cooperation and equal status

28
Q

Distributing resources fairly - Needs based distributions

A

Promotes harmony, but also neediness

29
Q

Keys for distributing fairly…

A

Identify distributions w/o knowing your “take”

Engage in PERSPECTIVE TAKING… role play, factor in other’s views

Identify OBJECTIVE sources and criteria

Seek a neutral 3rd party’s opinion

30
Q

Compliance via Trust

A

Trust: accepting vulnerability based upon a belief in the expectation that another will behave as anticipated

Deterrence/Calculus-Based trust
Can I make it irrational for them to defect?

Identification-Based trust
Can we “connect,” feel personally comfortable?

31
Q

Trust Building Tips

A

Take time to BUILD RAPPORT
Communicate an intent to COOPERATE
Gain public COMMITMENTS
Signal INTERDEPENDENCE

32
Q

Types of Issues

A 
Compatible
- areas which our goals are aligned
Integrative
- Goals are not completely in opposition
- May see beneficial trades & deals that vary in efficiency
Distributive / Competitive
- Areas in which desires are directly opposed
- “Zero-Sum” issues
33
Q

The Pareto Efficient Frontier

A

No one can be better off without making someone else worse off

The pie has been expanded to its full potential (unless other issues are added)

34
Q

Scoring Systems

A

Purpose: To quantify the quality of different alternative outcomes and to help negotiator(s) assess tradeoffs among issues.

Criteria for a good scoring system:
Complete - All important issues are identified.
Measurable - Provides a common metric for comparing qualitatively different issues.
Operational - Can be used to sort out specifics regarding what sets of alternatives are preferable to other sets.
Useful - Provides a shorthand for the negotiator that reasonably translates actual qualitative preferences into a quantitative system of measurement.

35
Q

Developing a Scoring System

A

Define all issues
Prioritize
Assign relative weights to each issue by importance
Calculate and quantify the value of all options for each issue

36
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Friendship/Liking

A

Friendship/Liking–We prefer to say yes to people we know and like.
Factors that facilitate liking include:
a) similarity
b) compliments/praise
c) physical attractiveness

37
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Reciprocity

A

Reciprocity–We should repay, in kind, what another person has provided us. Give what you want to receive.

38
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Social Proof

A

Social Proof–We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.

1) We are especially susceptible in unfamiliar situations.
2) We more often follow the example of others similar to ourselves.
3) Peer Power:  Demonstrate how a respected peer has agreed.
39
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Commitment and Consistency

A

Commitment and Consistency–Once we make a choice or take a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment.

	1) public commitments (e.g., statement of principles)			
	2) minimal commitments (e.g., foot-in-the-door tactic)			
	3) saying yes (e.g., would you like to save money?)
40
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Authority

A

Authority–We are more likely to accede to the request of a perceived authority figure. People defer to experts.
1) Authority is a powerful source of influence!

2) Symbols of authority include: titles, clothing, and other trappings	
3) 4 out of 5 Dentists recommend…
41
Q

Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion - Scarcity

A

Scarcity–Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available.

1) People react against threats to their freedom to choose.		
2) This can be manipulated through:
		a) time limits
		b) limited supply
		c) decreasing supply
		d) competition
42
Q

Integrative Approaches: Strategies

A

Capitalize on Similarities
Similar BACKGROUNDS
Similar OBJECTIVES
Similar levels of INTERDEPENDENCE

Builds liking and trust

Capitalize on Differing Priorities or Values:
Use “Logrolling”
Give away what matters least in exchange for what matters most
Recognizes that PREFERENCES may differ
Does not require trust or direct disclosure!

Differing Positions, Compatible Interests:
Use “Bridging Solutions”
Surface conflicts erupt, though interests are parallel
Can you get beneath the surface, to identify a route wherein everyone can be satisfied?
Often results from “False Conflict” or from “Position-based Disagreements”

Capitalize on Differing Expectations:
Use “Contingency Deals”
Who is RIGHT??  Who cares??
May AVOID difficulties in projecting the future, or in establishing correctness via DELAY
Create objective TIE-INS to your deal…

Capitalize on Differing Cost Structures or Extra Opportunities:
Use “Cost Cutting”
Make the deal cheaper for one/both parties
Make it easy for them to comply!
Seek to “Expand the Pie”
Add value to the pot to sweeten the deal for both parties
Can makes Impossible deals Possible

Optimizing your Timing
Use “Re-Opener Agreements”
Discussion too heated? Call time-out
Be specific as to when negotiations will begin again
Use “Post-Settlement Settlements”
Can review your deal for possible improvements
Parties work from the safety of a negotiated agreement
Enables info sharing and exploration

Negotiation (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions