Test 1 Flashcards

Question

Negotiating Styles

Answer 1

``` 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 ```

Answer 2

Perveived importancr of future relationship vs perceived conflict over stakes ``` Balance Concerns Relationships Transactions Tacit coordination **Look at image!! ```

Answer 3

Promote cooperation and equal status

Answer 4

Promotes harmony, but also neediness

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

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?

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

``` 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 ```

Answer 9

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)

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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.

Answer 15

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?)

Answer 16

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…

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

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