User:Mikahlavicino/sandbox

Negotiation Strategies

In negotiation, research supports the notion that it is not always one party against the other, but rather two parties attempting to leave the least remaining on the table by trying to maximize their combined gains. This strategy emphasizes the fact that both sides can come out of a negotiation with an acceptable agreement. This is often referred to as "expanding the pie" and research has shown that several strategies are more effective than others.

Integrative Negotiation

In negotiation, there are two main interests for each party: the substance and the relationship. While it is important to negotiate in a manner that allows future relations, the relationship often becomes entangled with the substance to be negotiated. One response that may occur is for an individual to draw inferences of the other party’s attitudes and beliefs towards him or her based on the other’s comments on the substance. This problem can be further exaggerated when each party takes a positional approach to bargaining.

Positional bargaining is a strategy where one holds onto fixed idea, or position, of what he wants and argues for it alone. This approach demonstrates a lack of concern for the other party’s interests, and this results in direct conflict between relationship and substance.

To avoid this problem, negotiators should separate the relationship and the substance by facilitating “accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and forward-looking purposive outlook.” This approach will deal with the people problem directly, which will allow the negotiation issue to stand on its own to be solved. Research suggests focusing on three main areas to improve relationships when entering a negotiation:

*Put yourself in their shoes

People tend to search for information that confirms his or her own beliefs and often ignore information that contradicts prior beliefs. In order to negotiate effectively, it is important to empathize with the other party's point of view. One should be open to other views and attempt to approach an issue from the perspective of the other

*Discuss each other’s perceptions

A more direct approach to understanding the other party is to explicitly discuss each other's perceptions. Each individual should openly and honestly share his or her perceptions without assigning blame or judgement to the other.

*Find opportunities to act inconsistently with his or her views

It is possible that the other party has prior perceptions and expectations about the other side. The other side can act in away that directly contradicts those preconceptions, which can effectively send a message that the party is interested in an integrative negotiation.

*Face-saving

This approach refers to justifying a stance based on one's previously expressed principles and values in a negotiation. This approach to an issue is less arbitrary, and thus, it is more understandable from the opposing party's perspective.

Emotion

• Make emotions explicit and validate

Taking a more proactive approach in discussing one's emotions can allow for a negotiation to focus on the problem itself, rather than any unexpressed feelings. It is important to allow both parties to share any emotions he or she may have.

• Allow time to let off steam

It is possible that one party may feel angry or frustrated at some point during the negotiation. Rather than try to avoid discussing those feelings, allow the individual to talk it out. Sitting and listening, without providing too much feedback to the substance itself, can offer enough support for the person to feel better. Once the grievances are released, it may become easier to negotiate.

• Symbolic gestures

Consider that an apology, or any other simply act, may be one of the most effective and low cost means to reduce any negative emotions between parties.

Communication

• Active listening

Listening is more than just hearing what the other side is saying. Active listening involves paying close attention to what is being said verbally and nonverbally. It involves periodically seeking further clarification from the person. By asking the person exactly what they mean, they may realize you are not simply walking through a routine, but rather take them seriously.

• Speak for a purpose

Too much information can be as harmful as too little. Before stating an important point, determine exactly what you wish you communicate to the other party. Determine the exact purpose that this shared information will serve.

Signs of win-win potential

1. Negotiation contains more than one issue
2. Others can be brought in
3. Available side deals
4. Difference preferences across issues

Pie-expanding errors

1. False conflict
2. Fixed-pie perception

Poor strategies

1. Focusing on long-term relationship
2. Cooperative Orientation
3. Taking extra time to negotiate

Negotiation Tactics

Avoiding

Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to siInn1er without doing anything to minimize them. Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Sometimes they simply agree to disagree (a modus vivendi).

Yielding

Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict. People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others. Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others. In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time--they withdraw all complaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance.

Fighting

Contending is an active, proself means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one's view. Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win-lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, or contending) can take many fonns, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one's solution on the other party. ."

Cooperating

Collaborating is an active, pro-social, and pro-self approach to conflict resolution. Collaborating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides. This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem solving, or a win-win orientation, entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent's outcomes as well as their own .

Women in Negotiations

Many of the strategies in negotiation vary across genders. It has been shown that it is more difficult for women to be self-advocating when they are negotiating. Many of the implications of these findings have strong financial impacts in addition to the social backlash faced by self-advocating women in negotiations, as compared to other advocating women, self-advocating men, and other advocating men. Research in this area has been studied across platforms, in addition to more specific areas like women as physician assistants . The backlash associated with this type of behavior is attributed to the fact that to be self-advocated is considered masculine, whereas the alternative, being accommodating, is considered more feminine . Males, however, do not appear to face any type of backlash for not being self-advocating . Research also supports the notion that the way individuals respond in a negotiation varies depending on the gender of the opposite party. In all-male groups, the use of deception showed no variation upon the level of trust between negotiating parties, however in mixed-sex groups there was an increase in deceptive tactics when it was perceived that the opposite party was using an accommodating strategy. In all-female groups, there were many shifts in when individuals did and did not employ deception in their negotiation tactics .

Team Negotiations

One factor in the effectiveness of team negotiation is the problem that occurs through solidarity behavior. Solidarity behavior occurs when one team member reduces his or her own utility (benefit) in order to increase the benefits of other team members. This behavior is likely to occur when interest conflicts rise. When the utility/needs of the negotiation opponent does not align with every team member’s interests, team members begin to make concessions and balance the benefits gained among the team.

Even when a team may aim to negotiate in a cooperative nature, the outcome is less successful than is possible. Integrative potential is possible when different negotiation issues are of different importance to each team member. Integrative potential is often missed due to the lack of awareness of each member’s interests and preferences. Ultimately, this leads to a poorer negotiation result.

Thus, a team can perform more effectively if each member discloses his or her preferences prior to the negotiation. This step will allow the team to recognize and organize the team’s joint priorities, which they can take into consideration when engaging with the opposing negotiation party. Because a team is more likely to discuss shared information and common interests, teams must make an active effort to foster and incorporate unique viewpoints from experts from different fields. Research by Daniel Thiemann, which largely focused on computer-supported collaborative tasks, found that the Preference Awareness method is an effective tool for fostering the knowledge about joint priorities and further helps the team judge which negotiation issues were of highest importance.