lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Lecture notes, lectures 1-10 - International Business

Negotiation

International Business Negotiation (Copenhagen Business School)

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter  1  –  negotiation.  
 
We  interact  with  others  because  we  are  interdependent  –  we  have  something  they  need  
or  the  other  way  around.  Negotiation  is  a  social  process  by  which  interdependent  people  
with  conflicting  interests  determine  how  they  are  going  to  allocate  resources  or  work  
together  in  the  future.  We  negotiate  when  we  believe  can  achieve  more  with  others,  than  
without  them.  
 
How  people  negotiate  –  The  dual  concerns  model:  
Early  conflict  researchers  argued  that  how  people  manage  conflict  depends  upon  the  
relative  importance  they  attach  to  their  own  outcomes  and  the  other  parties  outcomes.    
Competitive  strategy  (distributive,  positional)–  also  known  as  a  win/lose  strategy,  
people  who  attach  much  more  importance  to  their  own  outcome  than  the  other  party’s  
outcome.  This  strategy  is  about  claiming  value,  and  I  most  appropriately  used  when  the  
parties  goal  are  in  fundamental  conflict,  resources  are  fixed  or  limited,  they  attach  
greater  importance  to  the  substantive  terms  of  the  outcome  than  the  relationship.    
Accommodation  –  a  win/lose  strategy,  used  by  those  who  attach  more  importance  to  the  
other  party’s  outcome  than  their  own.  Maintain    or  improve  relationship  is  important  
here.    
Avoidance  –  a  strategy  used  by  those  who  don’t  care  about  any  party,  a  so-­‐called  
lose/lose  strategy.    
Compromising  –  the  strategy  used  by  those  who  are  only  moderately  concerned  by  both  
parties.    
Collaboration  -­‐  is  the  strategy  of  choice  for  those  who  seek  a  win/win  outcome,  they  
attach  great  importance  to  the  other  parties  outcome.    Substantial  importance  is  
attached  to  both  the  relationship  and  the  substantive  terms  of  the  outcome  for  both  
parties.  This  strategy  is  about  creating  value  so  that  both  parties  can  benefit  from  it.    
 
The  dual  concerns  model  argue  that  how  people  negotiate  depends  upon  the  relative  
importance  they  place  upon  the  substantive  terms  of  the  outcome  or  at  stake,  and  the  
relationship  with  the  other  party.    
 
The  initial  stage  of  negotiation  typically  includes,  or  should  include,  pre  negotiation  
preparation  and,  when  you  meet  with  the  other  part  rapport  building  and  more  
information  gathering  to  test  your  assumptions.    
 
• Preparation  –  Pre  negotiation,  build  rapport,  test  assumptions  
• Debate  –  formulate  arguments/counterarguments  and  offers/counteroffers  
• Offer  
• Deal  –  implement  agreement    
 
 
 
 
Shadow  negotiation  includes  using  strategic  moves  to  ensure  that  the  other  party  comes  
to  the  table  and  gives  you  interest  and  proposals  a  fear  hearing,  using  strategic  turns  to  
reframe  the  negotiation  in  favour  if  it  turns  in  an  unproductive  direction,  and  using  
appreciative  moves  to  build  a  stronger  connection  with  the  other  party  to  develop  a  
shared  and  complete  understanding  of  the  situation  and  a  more  productive  negotiation.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

 
Preparation  is  crucial  because  it  builds  the  foundation  for  your  negotiation.  
 
Some  negotiations  are  purely  distributive  –  the  task  is  to  divide  a  fixed  amount  of  value.  
Other  negotiations  are  potentially  value  creating:  they  offer  opportunity  to  create  value  
by  expanding  the  universe  of  what  is  being  negotiated.    
 
Skilled  negotiators  know  how  to  be  assertive  and  empathic.  They  make  it  clear  what  
they  want  and  need,  and  are  also  genuinely  curious  to  discover  what  the  other  side  
wants  and  needs.  
 
Make  sure  to  work  hard  enough  to  establish  a  strong  relationship  that  will  lead  to  give  
and  take,  which  results  in  better  deals.  Make  sure  you  know  when  the  other  side  is  being  
unreasonable,  strategies  that  are  unpleasant  and  unethical.  Make  sure  to  listen  and  be  
aware  if  the  other  side  is  actually  reasonable.    
 
When  you  are  employing  and  agent  or  acting  as  one  yourself  be  aware  that  your  
interests  may  not  be  shared.    
 
Be  aware  of  hard  bargaining  tactics:    
• Commitment  tactics  –  your  opponent  may  say  his  hands  are  tied  
• Trying  to  make  you  flinch  –  your  opponent  keeps  making  demands  waiting  for  
you  to  reach  you  breaking  point.    
• Take  it  or  leave  it  offers.    
• Personal  insults  and  feather  ruffling.  
 
 
Chapter  2:  -­  Preparation  
 
Preparation  process:  
• What  do  I  want?  
• What  do  they  want?  
• What  is  my  alternative?  
• What  is  their  alternative?  
• Develop  a  strategic  plan,  it  will  minimize  problems,  and  help  you  capitalize  on  
benefits.  Strategic  planning  is  especially  important  if  stakes  are  high.  Flexibility  is  
essential  so  don’t  follow  a  script.  It  is  more  about  establishing  goals  you  want  to  
achieve.    
• Target,  aspiration  –  wished  for  price.  
• Reservation  point  –  Walk  away  price,  least  acceptable  price.  
 
 
 
Can  u  explain  what  discourse  is  in  organization?  
How  different  organizations  handle  conflict.  
 
 
 
 

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

 
Defining  the  situation:    
• A  strategic  framework  will  guide  your  negotiation  –  this  entails  to  establish  goals  
you  which  to  achieve  (deciding  your  framework).  In  order  to  achieve  yor  goal,  
you  need  to  gather  relevant  information:  examine  relevant  documents  and  
records.  Gather  information  about  the  bargaining  history  between  the  parties.  
• The  nature  of  interaction  –  where  and  when  will  the  negotiation  take  place?  Will  
you  be  negotiating  with  this  party  once  or  multiple  times/publicly  or  privately?  
• Other  negotiations  –  will  this  negotiation  be  influenced  by  other  negotiations.    
• Obligations  to  negotiating  with  this  party  –  Are  you  obligated  to  negotiate  or  do  
you  have  the  luxury  of  saying  no?  
• Relative  power  –  if  you  have  more  or  equal  power  you  are  likely  to  negotiate  
differently  than  if  you  have  less  power.    
• Resources  and  Constraints  –  parties  with  substantial  resources  are  more  likely  to    
(expertise,  money  charisma,  skills)  are  more  likely  to  set  more  ambitious  goals,  
while  those  with  few  resources  are  likely  to  be  more  conservative.    
• Others  who  may  affect  or  be  affected  by  your  negotiation-­‐    (colleagues,  
attorneys),  ad  indirect  participants  (managers,  shareholders,  suppliers,  
competitors).  Well  done  job  might  be  a  significant  interest  for  you.    
• Environment  or  context  –  Stock  prices,  interest  rates,  market  wage,  inflation  
levels,  governmental  policies,  ethics.    
 
Setting  goals:  
• Determine  your  goals  –  what  you  want  to  accomplish  and  what  you  think  the  
other  party  wants  to  accomplish.  Most  negotiators  emphasize  goals  that  are  
substantive  in  nature,  example  include  language  and  contract  price.  Relationship  
goals  may  also  be  important  (may  be  useful  in  future  interactions).  Last  you  are  
process  goals,  negotiation  tactic  may  help  you  in  the  future.    
• Goals  help  you  clarify  expectations  and  determine  priorities.  
• Goals  suggest  what  information  is  needed.    
• Goals  guide  behaviour;  it  is  easy  to  get  sidetracked.    
• Substantive  and  relationship  goals  help  you  determine  which  strategy  and  tactics  
are  most  appropriate.    
 
Determining  your  strategy:    
• Strategy  –  plan  or  process  by  which  negotiators  attempt  to  achieve  their  goals.    
• Tactics  –  The  specific  short  term  actions  that  serve  to  implement  the  broader  
strategy.    (Strategy  and  Tactics  =  How  to  component  of  the  negotiation  process).  
• How  people  negotiate  depends  on  the  relative  importance  they  attach  to  their  
substantive  and  relationship  concerns  (dual  concerns  model).    
 
After  framework  and  plan  is  formulated,  you  must  operationalize  you  plan  –  define  the  
component.  
   
The  component  Parts  of  the  situation.  
Issues:    
• Specific  components  of  the  situation  that  must  be  addressed.  Together  the  issues  
make  up  the  bargaining  mix.  For  example  when  you  negotiate  the  terms  of  a  job  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

offer,  your  bargaining  mix  might  include;  job  title,  duties,  salary,  getting  bonus,  
other  benefits,  stock  options,  start  date  etc.    
• If  negotiators  may  fail  to  identify  all  issues,  important  dimensions  remain  hidden  
and  lead  to  incomplete  agreement  or  solutions.    
• The  importance  of  the  issues  may  vary;  prioritizing  them  enables  you  to  allocate  
more  effort  to  the  most  important  parts  of  your  negotiation  –  trade  low  priority  
items  for  high  priority  items  (for  example  salary  or  bonuses).    
Positions:  
• In  most  negotiations  each  person  takes  a  position  –  offer  or  counter  offer.  Basic  
problem  is  not  the  conflicting  position,  but  in  conflicting  needs,  desires  concerns,  
fears  etc.    
Interests:  
• Interests  are  the  motives  underlying  your  position,  your  reason  for  wanting  
them.    
• Reasons  reflects  purposes  the  position  will  serve  for  you.  Interests  are  commonly  
unmet  needs.  Basic  needs:  hunger,  shelter,  and  safety.  Higher  level  needs:  
affection,  respect,  recognition,  achievement,  or  self-­‐fulfilment.    
• Job  offer  negotiation:  Issue  is  your  Salary.  Position  is  the  75000  starting  salary  
you  demand.  Interests  are  the  purposes  the  75000  will  serve  for  you  (Respect,  
recognition,  safety  etc).  
Aspiration  Levels  or  Target  Points:  
• What  you  realistically  hope  to  achieve  for  each  issue.    
• Aspiration  (längtan/  strävan)  levels  are  specific  to  each  issue.  Make  sure  you  set  
a  fair  target  for  yourself,  do  not  put  your  targets  in  response  to  the  other  parties  
opening  offer  (all  parties  will  try  to  satisfy  their  own  needs).  Make  sure  not  to  
suffer  from  winners  curse,  which  is  what  happens  if  you  set  your  target  too  low  
and  ask  for  too  little.    
BATNA  –  best  alternative  to  negotiated  agreement:  
• Identify  your  BATNA.  
• People  negotiate  because  they  believe  they  can  satisfy  their  interests  more  
effectively  with  the  other  party  than  they  can  without.    
• Both  parties  BATNAS  cannot  be  reached.  Does  it  offer  greater  value  then  best  
course  of  action  without  the  other  party.    
• When  preparing  you  should  identify  and  analyze  your  best  no-­‐agreement  
alternatives,  because  it  influences  weather  you  should  negotiate  and  weather  you  
should  accept  an  offer.  
• You  cannot  work  out  the  BATNA  without  the  other  party,  a  BATNA  is  the  best  you  
can  do  without  him  or  her.    
• A  BATNA  is  about  objective  reality.  What  you  think  you  should  have  been  offered  
or  what  might  be  offered  is  not  your  BATNA.    
• BATNAS  are  not  passive  or  static.  Negotiators  should  cultivate  additional  
alternatives,  or  increase  the  value  of  an  existing  alternative.  
Reservation  prices  or  Resistance  points:  
• Knowing  your  BATNA  is  at  least  beneficial  for  two  reasons.  First  of  all  it  is  a  basis  
for  reservation  prices  (walk  away  prices  or  resistance  points.    
• A  reservation  price  is  your  breakeven  point  or  the  worst  acceptable  outcome  for  
each  issue.    
• Reservation  prices  set  limits  that  preclude  us  from  settling  for  less  than  what  we  
could  have  achieved  without  negotiating  with  this  party.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

•Likewise  they  enable  us  to  avoid  rejecting  offers  that  are  better  than  our  BATNA.    
•Quantifying  BATNA  is  one  way  negotiators  can  determinate  their  resistance  
points.  
• You  can  also  assess  what  an  item  is  worth  –  including  cost  of  obtaining  it  and  cost  
of  negotiating  (time,  resources).    
Bargaining  Power:    
• The  second  reason  BATNA  is  important  is  because  it  increases  your  bargaining  
power.    
• The  party  who  needs  the  other  party  most  has  the  least  power.    
• An  alternative  conception  of  bargaining  power  is  the  ability  to  work  effectively  
with  the  other  party.  This  implies  that  negotiators  must  learn  to  influence  the  
other  party  even  if  the  hey  no  formal  authority  to  do  so.  This  is  more  consistent  
with  integrative  bargaining,  where  you  are  trying  to  find  solutions  that  work  well  
for  both  parties.    
• Having  more  power  enables  you  to  establish  more  ambitious  aspiration  levels  
and  reservation  prices,  and  these  lead  to  better  outcomes.  Understanding  your  
relative  power  is  also  useful,  as  it  will  influence  the  effectiveness  with  which  you  
can  execute  your  strategy  and  tactics.      
Analyzing  the  other  party:  
• Estimating  elements  from  the  other  party’s  perspective-­‐definition  of  the  
situation,  goals,  strategy,  target  and  resistance  point,  BATNA,  interests,  issues  
helps  you  identify  the  settlement  ranges  or  zone  of  possible  agreement  
(ZOPA)(the  range  between  your  resistance  points).    
• Understand  the  other  party’s  perspectives  to  anticipate  his  or  her  objections  
to  your  proposals  and  thereby  be  able  to  overcome  them.  
• Understanding  the  other  party  as  much  as  possible  makes  it  easier  to  
minimize  surprises  and  stay  on  track.    
• The  dilemma  of  trust:  If  you  believe  too  much,  the  other  party  will  take  
advantage  of  you,  but  you  may  not  reach  an  agreement  if  you  believe  too  little.    
• The  dilemma  of  honesty:  argues  that  the  other  party  might  take  advantage  of  
you  if  you  share  to  much  information,  but  you  might  not  reach  to  an  
agreement  if  you  don’t  share  enough.  
• If  a  party  has  complained  about  how  a  prior  agreement  was  implemented,  
those  issues  are  likely  to  be  raised  again.  
• Any  personal  knowledge  about  the  other  party  is  useful  (financial  situation,  
knew  product,  labor  unrest)  should  help.  Talk  to  colleagues  who  have  
negotiated  with  the  other  party  before  and  ask  what  issues  were  raised  (what  
the  other  party  demanded,  strategies  and  tactics  used  etc.)  
• For  intraorganizational  negotiations  co-­‐workers  and  supervisors  posses  
valuable  information.  
Rapport  Building  and  Testing  Assumptions  
• Building  rapport  is  not  a  waste  of  time  (as  negotiators  in  USA  think),  it  tests  your  
assumptions  and  enhances  your  fundation.  
• Negotiators  who  chat  for  just  5-­‐10  minutes,  even  about  unrelated  topic,  share  
more  information,  make  fewer  threats  and  develop  trust  and  respect.    
• You  should  also  test  your  assumptions.  
• Your  efforts  to  analyze  the  other  party  involve  making  estimates,  assumptions,  
educated  guesses  or  even  hunches  (magkänsla).  At  some  point  we  have  to  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

attempt  to  validate  of  verify  these.  Testing  assumptions  may  allow  for  an  easier  
segue  (följa)  into  your  discussion  of  the  focal  issues.    
• Who  is  the  other  man,  how  does  he  act.    
• The  opening  minutes  in  a  negotiation  are  critical;  it  can  lay  a  foundation  for  a  
profitable,  lasting  relationship.  
• Be  careful  of  misjudging  someone  and  talking  down  to  them  because  your  
perception  of  them  is  something  different  from  reality.    
Where  should  you  negotiate:  
• Before  you  implement  your  plan,  think  a  out  where  you  are  going  to  negotiate.  
• You  are  better  off  negotiating  at  your  home  turf  because  familiar  setting  will  put  
you  at  ease,  make  resources  readily  available  and  enhance  confidence.  
• If  you  travel  to  the  other  party’s  turf,  you  convey  a  strong  desire  to  make  a  deal.    
• If  you  travel  to  a  neutral  site  it  closes  all  visual  clues  of  learning  opportunities  for  
both  party’s.    
• Your  setting  is  critical  to  the  negotiation,  sitting  side  by  side  at  a  round  table  
connotes  more  corporation  and  may  inspire  negotiators  to  take  a  problem-­‐  
solving  approach.  How  you  choose  to  arrange  the  room  should  be  consistent  with  
your  goals  and  strategy.    
• Electronic  negotiations  make  schmoozing  and  testing  assumptions  more  difficult,  
which  is  why  you  should  make  a  phone  call  to  the  other  party  before  the  
negotiation  begins  to  build  rapport  and  test  assumptions.    
Conclusion:  
Preparing  the  negotiation  is  about  defining  the  situation,  determining  your  goals  and  
devising  a  plan  for  achieving  them.  Determine  and  cultivate  alternatives  so  you  can  
much  easier  walk  away  if  the  negotiation  does  not  produce  a  wise  agreement.  Effective  
preparation  also  includes  analyzing  the  other  party.    
Before  you  begin  the  negotiation,  consider:    
• Be  prepares  –  How  extensive  you  preparation  should  be  depends  on  your  stakes.    
• Fully  explore  and  understand  the  situation  you  are  negotiating  –  Exploring  it  may  
help  you  reveal  additional  interests  that  you  want  to  satisfy.  
• Identify  all  of  the  issues  –  this  ensures  that  you  satisfy  all  of  your  needs  and  
perhaps  the  other  party’s  needs.  
• Identify  interests  for  each  issue  –  You  may  decide  to  accept  or  reject  an  offer  
based  on  weather  it  is  better  or  worse  than  you  BATNA.    
• Work  hard  to  understand  and  improve  your  BATNA.  
• Take  time  to  get  to  know  the  negotiator  –  makes  the  negotiation  more  effective  
since  it  increases  trust  and  respect.    
• Preparation  check  list:  
1. Define  situation  –  What  is  the  problem  to  be  solved,  opportunity  to  be  
mined,  dispute  to  be  settled,  and  team  decision  to  be  made.    
2. Establish  goals  –  What  do  u  want  to  accomplish,  and  what  does  the  other  
party  wish  to  accomplish?  
3. Strategy  formulation  –  Which  of  the  dominant  strategies  are  most  
appropriate  for  you  in  this  situation,  how  will  the  other  side  negotiate?  
Think  about:  Bargaining  mix,  target  points,  BATNA,  Resistance  points,  Relative  power,  
Build  rapport,  Test  assumptions.    
 
 
 

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

 
Chapter  3  –  Distributive  Bargaining:  
Distributive  bargaining  is  a  competitive  process  for  determining  how  to  distribute  or  
allocate  scarce  resources.  This  is  the  strategy  you  use  when  you  want  to  claim  value  for  
yourself  and  you  are  not  very  concerned  about  the  relationship  or  the  other  party’s  
outcome.    
Preparation  and  distributive  bargaining:  
• Positions  are  the  primary  focus  of  distributive  bargainers  and  is  sometimes  called  
positional  bargaining.    
• Reservation  prices  and  resistance  points  are  important  because  they  set  limits.    
• Since  they  are  the  worst  acceptable  outcomes  of  each  issue,  they  define  the  
settlement  range  and  ZOPA  –  you  must  settle  between  your  resistance  point  and  
the  other  party’s.  
• Aspiration  levels  or  target  points  –  are  what  you  realistically  hope  to  achieve,  
they  define  your  objectives  for  each  issue.  Challenging  and  specific  targets  like  
challenging  and  specific  goals  produce  better  outcomes  for  negotiators.  
Aspiration  levels  also  influence  opening  offers,  they  must  be  greater  than  your  
target  points  if  you  hope  to  achieve  them  (making  adjustments  or  concessions  is  
inevitable).    Distributive  bargainers  make  offers  and  counteroffers  between  their  
opening  offers  and  reservation  prices.    
• Alternatives  –  are  important  when  bargaining  distributively  because  they  define  
your  resistance  points  and  your  power  –  you  ability  to  walk  away.  You  are  less  
dependent  upon  the  other  party  if  you  have  a  very  attractive  BATNA.  You  can  set  
higher  aspirations  and  reservation  prices,  and  end  the  negotiation  if  the  other  
negotiator  does  not  offer  something  at  least  as  valuable  to  you  as  your  
BATNA/resistance  point.    
Tactics  of  distributive  bargaining:  
• Distributive  bargaining  –  adopt  a  position  and  try  to  persuade  the  other  party  to  
accept  it.    
• Estimate  The  Other  Party’s  Resistance  Points.    
• Estimating  the  other  party’s  resistance  points  when  you  prepare  and  then  testing  
your  assumptions  when  you  meet  with  him  or  her  to  determine  if  you  are  right  
will  clarify  what  you  want  to  achieve  when  you  negotiate  each  issue.  This  is  not  a  
simple  task  because  a  negotiator  is  not  likely  to  reveal  them  (if  they  do,  it  might  
not  be  his  or  her  real  resistance  point).  If  the  other  party’s  BATNA  is  revealed  
early  and  it  is  strong,  you  are  likely  to  make  less  demanding  offers  and  settle  for  
less.    
• Understand  you  BATNA  and  improve  it  –  your  BATNA  is  an  important  source  
of  you  power,  a  good  one  helps  you  move  the  other  party  toward  his  or  her  
resistance  points.  It  also  helps  you  resist  his  efforts  to  move  you  toward  your  
own.    
• If  your  BATNA  is  weak,  if  you  are  not  sure  of  its  value,  or  if  you  want  a  better  one,  
improve  it.  Pursue  another  job  opportunity  in  hopes  of  being  offered  a  better  
employment  package.  This  will  increase  your  power  and  he  or  she  is  more  likely  
to  make  less  demanding  offers,  disclose  more  truthful  information  and  settle  for  
less  (if  revealed  early).    
• Set  your  targets  high:  Be  optimistic,  but  nor  outrageous  
• Negotiators  who  set  their  aspirations  higher  than  the  other  party’s  aspirations  
“slice  the  pie  on  their  favour”.  Since  specific  targets  generate  better  outcomes  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

than  nonspecific  targets,  they  should  not  be  set  as  “target  ranges”.  Nor  should  
they  be  driven  by  your  reservation  prices  –  we  tend  to  set  them  too  low  when  we  
merely  adjust  from  our  resistance  points.  The  two  points  should  be  establishes  
separately,  because  as  noted  earlier,  setting  targets  too  low  often  results  in  a  
winners  curse,  getting  what  you  want  too  easily  and  being  unhappy  with  it.    
• If  you  are  able  to  accurately  estimate  the  other  party’s  resistance  points,  use  
them  as  your  targets.  If  you  are  unable  to  estimate  them,  use  your  preparation  to  
guide  you.  Remember  to  be  optimistic  because  higher  aspirations  pay  dividends.  
But  avoid  being  outrageous  because  that  will  not  help  you  and  it  may  hurt  by  
leading  to  failed  negotiation.    
• Ask  for  more  than  you  expect  to  get.  Be  optimistic  but  nit  outrageous.  
• As  already  noted,  this  means  your  opening  offer  must  be  more  favourable  to  you  
than  your  target  point,  so  that  you  have  room  to  make  concessions  without  
jeopardizing  your  target  points  or  your  resistance  points.    
• The  give  and  take  of  bargaining  also  enables  you  to  learn  more  about  the  other  
parties  wants,  needs  and  priorities  by  observing  how  his  or  her  demands  change  
over  time.    
• Opening  offers  establish  important  anchor  points.  The  final  outcome  in  a  
negotiation  is  typically  the  first  two  offers  that  fall  within  the  ZOPA.    
• Extreme  offers  that  fall  outside  the  ZOPA  are  not  likely  to  have  much  of  an  impact  
on  the  final  outcome.  Outrageous  opening  offers  may  also  cause  the  negotiator  to  
walk  away  (the  negotiator  may  not  take  you  serious  if  you  are  to  extreme).  
• If  your  preparation  and  testing  of  assumptions  have  given  you  a  reasonably  clear  
understanding  of  the  ZOPA,  or  if  the  situation  you  are  negotiating  is  so  familiar  
that  you  have  a  reasonable  understanding  of  it,  you  should  be  able  to  make  an  
accurate  estimate  of  the  other  party’s  resistance  point.      
• If  the  is  no  good  basis  for  estimating  the  other  negotiators  BATNA  or  reservation  
prices,  he  or  she  is  not  forthcoming  when  you  are  exploring  your  assumptions,  
there  are  no  easy  answers.    
• Make  the  first  offer  if  you  are  prepared  –  Evidence  tells  us  that  the  party  who  
makes  the  first  offer  usually  secures  a  better  final  outcome.  First  offer  anchor  the  
negotiation  and  these  anchors  are  strongly  correlated  with  final  outcomes.    If  the  
other  party  opens  with  an  extreme  offer  we  commonly  react  by  talking  ourselves  
down.    
• If  the  other  party  does  make  the  first  offer,  respond  immediately  but  thoughtfully.  
This  signals  your  willingness  to  negotiate  and  simultaneously  reduces  the  
influence  of  his  or  her  anchor.  Maintaining  your  focus  on  factors  such  as  your  
own  target  point  or  BATNA  will  also  diminish  the  influence  of  his  or  her  anchor.  
• If  your  understanding  is  inferior  –  You  will  have  trouble  anchoring  effectively  if  
the  other  party  knows  more  about  the  ZOPA  than  you.  Ask  for  more  than  your  
target  point/BATNA  “My  understanding  is  that  a  candidate  with  my  experience  
get  …”.    
• If  your  understanding  is  superior  –  take  advantage  an  make  an  optimistic  offer.    
• If  both  party’s  understand  the  ZOPA  well  –  doesn’t  matter  who  makes  the  
opening  offer,  because  anchors  will  not  be  very  influential  (both  party’s  want  to  
be  treated  fairly,  and  tend  to  use  objective  standards  (market  price)).  
• If  neither  party  understands  the  ZOPA  well  –careful,  don’t  be  to  demanding.      
• Plan  your  concessions  –  Opening  offers  are  rarely  accepted  in  negotiations.  
Instead  each  party  makes  an  opening  offer  and  then  makes  adjustments  or  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

reductions  in  their  demands.  These  adjustments  are  called  concessions.  This  is  
why  your  opening  offer  must  be  greater  than  your  aspiration  levels  if  you  hope  to  
achieve  them.    
• You  want  to  win,  but  make  sure  not  to  harm  the  relationship  or  have  the  other  
party  lose  face  –  his  or  her  status/image  in  the  eyes  of  other.    
• People  are  usually  much  more  satisfied  with  agreements  resulted  for  concession  
making.    
• Do  not  make  successive  concessions  –  once  you  concede,  wait  for  the  other  party  
to  reciprocate.    
• Negotiators  who  make  fewer  and  smaller  concessions  fare  better  than  those  who  
make  larger  and  more  frequent  concessions.    
• Begin  with  generous  concessions  and  than  become  tough  and  unyielding,  
otherwise  you  will  elicit  more  concessions  from  the  other  party  of  you  start  out  
with  tough  concessions.    
• Provide  objective  support  and  explanations  for  your  offers  –  Objective  
support  is  more  persuasive  than  no  support  or  emotional  appeals  (even  if  the  
explanation  seems  irrelevant).    
• Do  not  say  yes  to  the  other  party’s  first  offer  –  Even  if  the  first  offer  is  near  
your  target  point  or  better,  do  not  accept.  You  might  have  set  the  target  incorrect.  
It  is  highly  unlikely  that  the  other  party  is  opening  at  his  or  her  resistance  point.  
It  will  also  help  the  other  party  avoid  the  winner’s  curse  –  the  inevitable  
dissatisfaction  that  he  dropped  an  anchor  that  was  too  low  or  too  high  –  that  we  
make  him  work  much  harder  for  the  other  issues.    
• Use  silence  –  Listen  at  least  as  much  in  order  to  learn  something.  Ask  many  open  
ended,  probing  questions.  Wait  for  answers,  and  wait  some  more  if  the  other  
party  does  not  answer.  Another  way  to  gain  information,  or  perhaps  additional  
concessions  is  to  respond  to  the  other  negotiators  argument  or  offer  with  silence.    
• Use  time  to  your  advantage  –  Negotiators  reduce  their  demands  and  increase  
the  rate  at  which  they  make  concessions  as  the  approach  final  deadlines.  
Negotiators  believe  a  deadline  is  a  strategic  weakness.  Hiding  your  own  
deadlines  may  hurt  you,  being  aware  of  your  own  deadline  often  causes  you  to  
rush  and  concede  to  get  the  deal  done  on  time  (more  hurtful  to  us  than  the  othe  
party).    
• Appeal  to  norms  of  fairness  –  We  tend  to  focus  on  the  norms  that  serve  our  
own  interests.  If  you  can  determine  which  norms  of  fairness  guide  the  other  
party,  you  can  effectively  frame  your  offers  to  appeal  to  them.    
• Flinch  –  Flinching  is  about  feigning  shock  or  surprise  silently  when  the  other  
party  extends  an  offer.  There  are  situational  determinants  for  fairness  norms.  
Relationship  goals=equality.  Performance  of  productivity  goals  =equity.  Personal  
development  goals  =  needs.    
• Be  willing  to  walk  away  –  Developing  a  mindset  that  you  will  walk  away  if  the  
negotiation  is  not  progressing  well,  should  prove  to  be  very  beneficial.    
• Dirty  tricks  –  Dirty  tricks  tend  to  backfire  and  do  not  work  well.  Aggressive  
distributive  bargaining  tactics  are  viewed  as  offensive  and  many  people  tend  to  
seek  revenge.    
• Bogey  –  Pretending  an  unimportant  issue  is  very  important.  Most  effective  when  
an  issue  is  selected  that  is  of  great  value  to  the  other  party  but  little  to  the  party  
using  the  bogey.  To  counter  this  tactic  test  this  assumption  when  you  prepare.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• Good  cop  -­  bad  cop  –  Bad  cop  usually  opens  with  a  tough  position  and  then  
leaves  the  room.  The  good  cop  then  tries  to  reach  an  agreement  while  bad  cop  is  
out  of  the  room  –  may  lead  to  concessions.    
• Intimidation  and  other  aggressive  behaviour  –  tactics  negotiators  use  to  make  
them  appear  as  more  powerful.  Anger,  guilt,  threats,  personal  insults,  pushiness,  
impatience.  
• Lowball-­Highball  –  Negotiators  using  this  tactic  begin  with  extremely  high  or  
low  opening  offer,  to  convince  the  other  negotiator  to  temper  his  or  her  demand.    
• Nibble  –  When  you  do  not  place  an  issue  on  the  agenda  and  bring  it  up  to  create  
concession  and  close  the  deal.    
• Snow  job  –  involves  inundating  the  other  party  with  so  much  information  that  it  
is  not  possible  to  determine  what  is  accurate  or  relevant.  Ask  questions,  listen  
actively,  and  bring  someone  to  the  table  that  has  expertise  within  the  given  field  
to  figure  out  what  information  is  important/relevant.      
• These  tactics  are  used  to  manipulate  the  other  party’s  perception  of  what  is  
possible  etc.  Call  the  negotiator  out  for  using  them,  take  a  break  and  so  on.    
• Commitments  –  A  commitment  is  a  strong  position  “we  must  5%  other  wise  we  
will  choose  another  vendor”.  Limits  the  other  party’s  choices.  Despite  advantages  
you  reduce  flexibility.  Of  course  it  can  always  be  ignored.  Commitments  can  help  
you  gain  advantage,  but  it  can  also  cause  the  other  party  to  walk  away  if  it  is  
outrageous,  make  sure  you  have  good  alternatives  to  fall  back  on.    
• At  some  point  you  will  reach  a  point  beyond  where  you  are  unwilling  to  go,  when  
you  get  there  makes  sure  to  make  your  final  offer  –  “this  is  the  best  I  can  do”.    
Repeat  your  claim  is  the  other  party  does  not  give  in,  and  walk  away  if  he  or  she  
continuous.    
Conclusion  
1. Estimate  the  other  party’s  resistance  points.  
2. Understand  your  BATNA  and  cultivate  other  offers  to  improve  it.  
3. If  you  have  prepared  well,  make  the  first  offer  and  support  it  with  
objective  information.    
4. When  the  other  negotiator  makes  an  offer,  remain  silent.  He  or  she  
might  think  you  are  opposed  to  it  and  extend  a  counteroffer  without  
making  you  concede  first.    
5. Avoid  using  dirty  tricks  and  tactics.    
6. Focus  on  positions,  not  interests.    
 
 
Chapter  4  –  INTEGRATIVE  NEGOTIATION  
• Define  situation,  interests  and  build  rapport.    
• Defining  the  situation  is  always  important  because  it  helps  you  determine  what  
you  will  be  negotiating,  your  goals,  and  the  issues  that  must  be  addressed  to  
produce  a  complete  solution.    
• Interest  are  the  primary  focus  of  integrative  negotiation,  negotiation  is  
sometimes  called  interest-­‐bargaining  for  this  reason.  When  you  negotiate  this  
way  you  identify  your  own  interests  and  those  of  the  other  party.  There  are  
different  ways  to  satisfy  interests  so  integrative  negotiations  afford  better  
opportunities  to  find  mutually  beneficial  solutions.    
• Building  rapport  –  Develops  respect  and  trust,  reduces  theats  and  enhances  the  
relationship.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• Integrative  Negotiation  myths  –  people  think  it  is  about  being  soft  or  nice  and  
that  they  have  negotiated  interactively  if  they  maintain  or  improve  the  
relationship.  It  is  all  about  being  soft  on  the  people,  but  not  the  problem  nor  the  
interests.    
• Pointing  our  problems  associated  with  exercising  a  BATNA  are  examples  of  when  
it  is  appropriate  and  necessary  to  be  aggressive.    
• Nor  is  integrative  negotiation  about  compromising.  The  integrative  part  of  the  
negotiation  is  the  value  creation  component.    
• The  assumption  of  fixed  pie  is  another  myth  that  may  prevent  people  from  using  
this  strategy  properly,  or  even  attempting  to  use  it.  If  there  are  two  or  more  
issues  and  the  negotiators  prioritize  them  differently,  integrative  potential  exists.    
• Tactics  of  integrative  bargaining  –  separate  the  people  from  the  problem,  focus  
on  interests  rather  than  positions,  invent  options  for  mutual  gain  and  use  
objective  criteria  to  evaluate  options.    
• Separating  the  person  from  the  problem  –Is  about  emotions,  perceptions  and  
communication  and  how  the  parties  find  creative  solutions  that  allow  them  to  
maximize  joint  gain.  Do  not  attach  the  other  party  when  trying  to  satisfy  
respective  needs.  Attack  the  problem  not  the  person.    
• The  role  of  emotions  –  If  one  negotiator  attacks  the  other,  he  or  she  is  most  
likely  to  reciprocate.  Negative  emotions  cause  negotiators  to  pay  less  attention  to  
the  other  party’s  interest,  diminish  accuracy  of  the  judgements  of  these  interests  
and  lead  to  less  favourable  outcomes.  These  emotions  also  make  negotiators  less  
interested  in  having  future  interactions  with  the  other  party.  Positive  emotions  
engender  better  outcome,  but  not  to  positive.  Emotions  will  not  help  you  
maximize  joint  gain.  Do  not  reciprocate  if  the  other  party  attacks  you,  sit  back  
and  wait,  have  self-­‐control,  take  a  break.    
• The  role  of  perceptions  –  Viewing  the  situation  from  the  other  party’s  
perspective  is  very  beneficial  because  it  enhances  problem  solving  and  facilitates  
effort  to  reach  integrative  agreements.  Our  own  view  may  make  it  difficult  to  
view  the  problem  objectively,  and  integrative  negotiation  requires  the  party’s  to  
develop  a  shared  and  complete  understanding  of  the  problem.    
• The  role  of  communication  –  Communication  problems  are  just  as  common  as  
misperceptions.  They  may  misunderstand  the  other  party  or  misinterpret  the  
other  party  because  they  do  not  listen  well.  In  order  to  separate  the  people  from  
the  problem  and  clarify  perceptions  requires  negotiators  to  create  a  free  flowing  
exchange  of  information.  Ask  open  ended  and  probing  questions.  Engage  in  active  
listening.  Talk  about  the  impact  of  the  problem  on  you  instead  of  blaming  the  
other  party.    
• Focus  on  interests,  not  positions  –  The  reason  why  you  need  something  is  your  
interests  (what  you  need  is  your  position).  You  need  5000  dollar  salary  raise  
because  of  status,  standard  of  living  etc.    
• Try  not  to  focus  on  the  demand  (5000),  because  that  makes  only  one  possible  
solution.  Focus  on  the  purposes  instead  and  you  will  find  that  there  is  more  than  
one  possible  solution  to  the  problem.    
• Substantive  interests  –  pertain  (angår)  to  the  tangible  issues  being  negotiated,  
which  include  price,  delivery  date,  or  who  will  handle  the  installation.  
Relationship  interest  pertains  to  the  relationship  you  want  to  have  with  the  
other  party.  Process  interests  are  about  how  a  deal  is  made  or  how  a  dispute  is  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

settled.  Principle  interests  are  intangible.  They  pertain  to  strongly  held  beliefs  
about  for  example,  what  is  right  and  wrong.    
• Each  of  these  interests  can  be  intrinsic  (inneboende)  –  you  value  or  need  
something  of  itself.  Or  they  can  be  instrumental  –  you  value  or  need  something  
because  it  will  help  you  in  the  future.    For  example  someone  might  chose  to  
negotiate  with  in  a  strident  (harsh,  noisy)  manner  because  it  may  help  them  feel  
like  they  won  –  this  is  an  intrinsic  process.    Others  might  choose  a  corporative  
approach  because  they  believe  it  will  make  future  interactions  with  the  other  
party  more  productive.    
• To  identify  your  own  interests,  ask  yourself:  Why  I  want  the  position  I  demand.  
How  will  it  help  me.  What  purposes  will  it  serve  for  me.  What  will  happen  if  the  
other  party  says  no  to  my  demand.  What  will  happen  if  the  other  party  says  yes.    
• Identify  your  interests  for  each  issue  and  share  them  with  the  other  party  so  he  
or  she  will  share  interests  with  you.    
• Ask  the  same  questions  of  him  or  her  that  you  ask  for  yourself.    
• Make  sure  you  ask  the  other  party  “Why,  What  am  I  asking  for”  if  he  objects  –  you  
are  looking  for  the  other  party’s  fears,  desires  and  needs.    
• It  is  not  clear  what  someone  will  get  from  hiding  his  interests.  More  obvious  that  
he  or  she  will  exaggerate  his  or  her  resistance  point  or  BATNA.    
• Invent  options  for  mutual  gain  (brainstorming  task)  –  hammering  out  
soulutions  the  first  thing  you  do  will  most  likely  not  maximize  joint  gain.  You  
need  to  make  sure  you  have  a  clear  understanding  of  what  the  problem  is  to  
capitalize  on  a  new  opportunity.    
• Brainstorming  –  Clarify  issues  and  than  search  for  solutions  that  satisfy  them.  
Have  an  open  and  creative  mind  to  enhance  brainstorming  efforts.    
• Premature  judgement  –  Don’t  criticise  solutions  because  they  seem  unworkable  
or  outrageous,  be  open-­‐minded.  Separate  inventing  and  evaluating  functions.  
• Factors  that  increase  creativity  –  Clarify  goals,  invent  and  look  for  tools  hat  
help  you  break  out  from  traditional  thinking.  Incubate,  take  a  break  and  work  on  
something  else.  Create  an  appropriate  working  environment,  quiet  and  natural.  
Take  your  time.  External  evaluation.  Individual  differences,  motivation,  empathy,  
emotional  intelligence.    
• A  mythical  fixed  pie  is  a  problem  –  because  the  other  party  might  believe  that  a  
gain  for  the  other  party  is  a  loss  for  him  or  her,  this  inhibits  creativity.  
Egocentrism  stifles  brainstorming  efforts,  consider  the  other  party  too  even  if  
you  have  to  focus  on  your  own  interests.    
• Integrative  bargaining  is  about  maximizing  joint  gain.    
• Types  of  integrative  solutions  –  once  your  brainstorming  has  produced  a  list  of  
creative  solutions,  start  critiquing  and  evaluating  them.  Start  by  looking  at  the  
most  promising  ones.    
• Bridging  solutions  –  for  example  the  buyer  pays  a  lower  price  now,  and  pays  
more  based  on  performance  in  the  future.  May  be  more  attractive  than  no  
agreement  at  all.    
• Logrolling  –  You  can  maximize  joint  gain  by  using  logrolling,  if  someone  
prioritises  one  interests  over  an  other,  you  can  make  an  agreement  that  gives  
both  parties  the  possibility  to  get  what  they  want  (dinner,  movie).  Receive  the  
product  now  in  return  for  a  payment  over  time.  
• Nonspecific  compensation  and  cutting  cost  of  compliance  –  allowing  one  
person  to  obtain  him  or  her  objectives  and  then  payind  off  the  other  person  for  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

accommodating  those  interests.  Cutting  costs  for  compliance,  if  you  can  not  
afford  to  pay  someone  and  instead  give  the  person  other  goods  to  compensate  
such  as  tickets  to  a  game  etc.  Make  sure  you  have  a  proposal  that  satisfies  the  
other  party’s  needs.    
• Use  objective  criteria  to  evaluate  options  –  in  order  to  evaluate  alternative  
solutions,  you  must  evaluate  them  and  decide  which  ones  to  keep.  Use  objective  
criteria  when  you  do  this,  because  it  is  independent  of  your  will.  For  example,  
legal  requirements,  market  prices  or  wages,  customs,  professional  standards  and  
policies.    
• When  determining  which  objective  criteria  should  be  used,  it  is  better  to  use  an  
explanation  that  offers  little  or  no  explanation  than  no  explanation  at  all.  Fair  
standards  work  well  for  evaluating  substantive  options;  they  might  resolve  
conflicting  interests,  such  as  flipping  a  coin  or  drawing  straws.    
• Fine  tuning  efforts  to  achieve  integrative  solutions.  
• Avoid  focusing  on  one  issue  at  the  time  –  a  better  approach  is  to  surface  all  
issues  and  interests  associated  with  each  early  on.  Focusing  on  one  issue  
precludes  finding  beneficial  tradeoffs  because  we  spend  more  time  arguing  for  
our  position  and  against  the  other.    
• Use  multiple  equivalent  offers  –  Negotiators  who  make  multiple  equivalent  
offers  find  more  integrative  solutions,  achieve  more  profitable  outcomes,  and  are  
thought  of  more  favourably  by  the  other  party  because  we  like  flexibility  that  
comes  with  choices.    
• Trust  –  trust  matters  because  integrative  negotiation  requires  the  other  parties  
to  honestly  and  openly  share  information,  so  they  can  share  the  same  
understanding  of  the  situation  and  respective  interests.  Trust  leads  to  greater  
information  sharing.  Integrative  processes  tend  to  increase  trust,  distributive  
decrease  trust.  Face  to  face  negotiation  increase  trust.  Online  negotiation  
decreases  it  and  makes  a  less  desire  for  future  interaction.    
• Increase  and  repair  trust  –  Built  rapport  (talk  and  share  info),  Relationship  
(ongoing  interactions  must  be  honest  and  trustworthy),  Promises  (honor  
promises),  Reciprocate  (sharing  information  and  making  concessions),  
Avoid  attacking  (do  not  attribute  situational  behaviour  to  others),  
Responsibility  (apologize),  Trust  harmed  by  deception  (bedrag)  never  fully  
covers.    
 
Conclusion  
• This  strategy  produces  wise  agreements  because  it  satisfies  the  party’s  interests,  
it  is  efficient,  and  it  often  preserves  or  improves  the  relationship.  These  are  
achievable  if  you  separate  the  people  from  the  problem,  focus  on  interests  
instead  of  positions,  invent  options  for  mutual  gain,  and  use  objective  criteria  to  
evaluate  options  you  invent.    
1. Manage  emotions,  clarify  perceptions,  and  communicate  clearly  once  the  
requisite  conditions  for  integrative  negotiations  are  met.    
2. Frame  each  of  the  issues  as  shared  or  joint  problems.  
3. Keep  in  mind  that  the  pie  can  be  expanded  only  when  you  and  the  other  
party  try  to  advance  the  full  set  of  interests.    
4. Focus  both  of  dealcrafting  and  interpersonal  process.    Find  logrolling  
opportunities,  offer  nonspecific  compensation,  reduce  the  other  party’s  
cost  of  agreeing  or  find  another  solution.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

5. Use  objective  criteria  rather  than  engaging  in  a  contest  of  wills  and  decide  
which  options  are  best.    
 
CHAPTER  5  –  CLOSING  DEALS  
 
The  most  common  objections:  
• It  is  not  my  idea  –  Negotiation  is  a  political  process  in  which  the  each  negotiator  
must  participate  in  crafting  an  agreement  –  most  people  do  not  like  to  be  told  
what  to  do.  Employees  reject  change  even  if  it  is  e  benefit  to  them  because  they  
were  not  involved  in  identifying  problems  that  would  clarify  the  need  to  change.  
• To  overcome  this  barrier  you  should  ask  the  negotiator  for  ideas  rather  than  
telling  him  what  is  right  or  wrong.  Seek  the  other  negotiators  feedback.  
• Even  if  you  involve  the  other  party  he  might  still  reject  because  of  his  unmet  
needs.    
• Needs  other  than  money  must  also  be  met,  such  as  recognition,  autonomy,  
affiliation  (tillhörighet),  respect,  status.      
• The  other  party  is  losing  face  –  Nobody  want  their  face,  reputation  or  image  
damaged  by  what  happens  on  the  table  (backing  down  from  a  strong  
commitment,  changing  positions).  
• Helping  to  save  face  –  Can  be  accomplished  by  offering  new  information  that  
has  not  yet  been  rejected  or  dismissed,  or  presenting  different  objective  criterion.  
Help  him  or  her  prepare  the  presentation  or  help  present  it.  Developing  
persuasive  counterarguments.    
• Too  much  information  to  fast  –  Presenting  the  other  party  with  a  complex  
proposal  and  requiring  an  answer  in  a  very  short  period  of  time  may  engender  
objections  rather  than  acceptances  because  he  or  she  is  overwhelmed.  You  will  
probably  not  reach  an  agreement  at  all.  Break  up  the  situation  into  component  
parts  and  proceed  step  by  step.  Alternatively,  propose  treating  your  idea  as  an  
experiment  that  will  be  tried  for  a  brief  period  of  time  or  only  in  one  department  
and  then  revaluate  it.  Do  not  rush  into  a  deal  at  the  very  end,  give  him  or  her  time  
to  think  and  consult  with  constituents.    
• It  is  too  expensive  or  I  cannot  afford  it  –  What  you  are  proposing  might  exceed  
the  other  party’s  budget.  Framing  involves  how  you  present  the  cost  of  your  
proposal,  for  example  as  a  cost  of  unit  or  cost  per  time  instead  of  the  total  cost.  
You  could  emphasize  how  much  the  other  party  will  save  over  time  relative  to  his  
or  her  costs  rather  than  simply  addressing  how  much  it  costs  now.    
• This  does  not  work  for  me  or  I  do  not  want  it  –  The  other  party  does  not  yet  
understand  how  your  proposal  solves  the  problem  capitalizes  on  the  opportunity  
or  satisfies  his  or  her  interests.  Drawing  diagrams  and  visualizing  the  positive  
outcome  might  help.  Demonstrating  what  the  positive  outcomes  will  look  like  
clarifies  how  it  serves  his  or  her  purposes.    
• I  want  to  think  about  it,  I  need  more  time  –  Whatever  the  reason,  it  will  be  
much  harder  to  persuade  someone  to  accept  your  offer  if  he  or  she  walks  away  to  
think  about  it.  You  can  overcome  this  by  asking  if  he  or  she  has  all  the  
information  required  or  needed  to  make  the  decision.  Emphasizing  the  cost  that  
will  be  incurred  or  the  decrease  in  value  that  will  be  gained  if  the  decision  is  
delayed  should  introduce  a  sense  of  urgency  to  his  or  her  decision-­‐making.  
Explaining  that  a  price  decrease  is  coming  soon.      

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• I  do  not  believe  you  will  comply  –  Negotiators  sometimes  hesitate  to  accept  
your  offer  because  they  question  your  willingness  or  ability  to  follow  through  on  
what  you  have  promised.  Share  past  experiences  that  demonstrate  your  
trustworthiness  and  your  capabilities.  The  root  of  cause  of  most  objections  if  fear.  
To  overcome  fears  and  help  him  or  her  save  face  and  avoid  looking  foolish,  you  
must  also  persuade  the  other  party  that  you  proposals  satisfy  his  or  her  needs.    
• When  should  you  attempt  to  close  the  deal  –  Asking  open-­‐ended  questions.  A  
decrease  in  the  number  of  intensity  of  objections.  If  he  or  she  acknowledges  that  
our  proposal  has  potential.  If  the  nature  of  the  other  party’s  questions  changes  to  
how  it  will  actually  work.  Comments  such  as  “I  like  that  size”,  “the  price  is  lower  
than  I  thought”.    
• Ask  the  party  to  agree.    
• Split  the  difference  or  compromise  –  splitting  the  difference  or  compromising  
is  the  most  common  closing  deal  tactic.  To  avoid  walking  away  without  a  deal,  
you  might  say  something  like  “we  have  been  at  this  for  a  while  and  are  very  close,  
it  would  be  a  shame  to  spend  all  that  time  and  get  this  close  without  a  deal”  Why  
don’t  we  split  the  difference  an  call  it  a  deal?”  If  the  other  party  tries  to  split  first,  
try  split  again,  if  you  are  unsuccessful  you  allow  him  or  her  to  feel  like  a  winner,  
which  is  beneficial  for  future  deals.  The  chances  of  making  mistakes  when  
splitting  must  be  considered.    
• Comparison  –  delineate  the  benefits  the  other  party  derives  from  your  proposal  
and  from  his  or  he  own  proposal,  and  compare  them.    
• Cost-­benefit  or  balance  sheet  –  listing  benefits  of  your  proposals  on  one  side  of  
the  paper  and  then  asking  the  other  party  to  list  his  or  her  costs.    
• Multiple  equivalent  offers  –  Provide  multiple  offers  by  offering  alternatives  and  
multiple  equivalent  offers.  Some  limits  are  necessary,  because  too  many  offers  
may  cause  the  party  to  not  choose  any  of  the  options.    
• Sweeteners  –  include  something  cost  free  of  value  to  them  without  reducing  the  
value  of  the  deal  to  you.  
• Default  options  –  You  sort  of  trick  someone  into  deciding.  Example,  car  rentals  
include  insurance  unless  you  decline  it.  Donation  of  organs  in  some  countries  ar  
automatic  unless  you  decline  it.    
• Assume  close  –  Sales  people  often  assumes  closes  and  head  on  with  asking  
questions,  “Once  we  have  submitted  the  new  program”.  
• Exploding  offers  –  These  use  deadlines  and  time  pressure  to  close  deals.  They  
are  used  to  limit  the  recipients’  choices,  preclude  him  or  her  from  cultivating  
alternatives.    
• Sequential  question  –  a  negotiator  asking  a  series  of  related  questions.    
Conclusion  –  it’s  all  about  persuading  the  other  party  to  say  yes,  demonstrate  how  your  
value  of  the  proposal  is  greater  than  it’s  costs  and  that  is  satisfies  the  other  parties  
interests.    
1. Ask  open  –ended  question  to  enhance  your  understanding  of  the  other  
party.  Make  sure  he  does  not  loose  face,  and  do  not  attack  the  other  party.  
2. Learn  to  identify  signals  to  close.    
3. Educate  the  other  party  how  your  proposal  is  of  value  to  him  and  how  it  
satisfies  his  needs.    
4. Reframe  your  offer  in  different  ways  if  the  other  party  hesitates  to  accept.  
Savings  to  be  realized  to  a  competitive  product  or  service  because  your  
service  will  last  longer  or  is  more  productive.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

5. Know  when  to  give  an  extra  push  and  when  to  back  off.    
6. Ensure  the  terms  agreed  upon  are  practical  and  that  they  can  be  
implemented  easily  and  effectively.    
 
Chapter  6  –  Communication  
• The  essence  of  interpersonal  communication  –  The  goal  of  communication  is  
for  the  person  who  receives  the  message  to  attach  the  same  meaning  to  it  that  is  
intended  by  the  sender.  A  negotiator  with  competitive  attitudes  who  works  for  an  
equally  competitive  boss  is  likely  to  frame  his  or  her  arguments  more  
aggressively.    
• Message  encoding  –  One’s  attitudes,  values,  beliefs,  work  experience,  desires,  
culture,  needs  and  knowledge  all  influence  what  the  sender  says  and  how  he  or  
she  says  it.    
• Message  decoding  –  The  same  forces  that  influence  how  the  sender  encodes  the  
messages  determine  how  the  receiver  decodes  them.    
• Feedback  –  Feedback  messages  are  exchanges  in  conjunction  with  the  focal  
message.  Negotiators  might  respond  to  an  offer  for  example,  by  accepting  it,  
proposing  a  different  alternative,  laughing  and  rejecting  it,  or  with  silence.  Each  
of  these  feedback  messages  will  tell  the  initial  sender  something  different.  For  
example,  the  sender  my  suffer  a  winners  curse,  if  his  or  her  initial  offer  is  
accepted.    
• The  communication  channel  -­  Medium  through  where  messages  are  sent.  Face  
to  face,  telephone,  email  etc.  Face  to  face  implicates  multiple  channels.    
• Noise  –  Is  any  disturbance  that  interferes  with  the  transmission  of  a  message.    
• Perceptions  -­  influence  all  of  our  communication  choices  and  they  are  activated  
by  our  senses;  hearing,  seeing  and  smelling.  We  are  constantly  bombarded  by  
these  stimuli  and  therefore  do  not  attend  to  all  of  them.  We  usually  attend  to  
those  who  are  useful,  meaningful,  relevant,  familiar,  intense  or  moving.  Schemata  
or  mental  models  are  mental  structures  or  frameworks  that  organize  
information,  ideas,  thoughts  and  behaviours.    
• Sources  of  Noise  in  Communication  and  Negotiation-­  physical  distractions  
(things  we  hear  and  see),  language  barriers,  cultural  differences  (low  context-­‐
high  context,  individualism-­‐collectivism),  Status  differences  (how  we  speak  to  
authority,  say  what  they  want  to  hear),  Perceptions  (attitudes,  beliefs,  values,  
experiences,  needs),  communication  styles,  nonverbal  expression,  context  
(where  the  communication  takes  place,  may  not  be  affected  by  it).    
• Communication    styles  –  Directors  are  direct,  avoid  small  talk,  focus  on  
outcomes  and  make  quick  decisions.  Expressers  are  direct,  and  relationship  
oriented  communicators,  animated  and  emotional  storytellers  who  think  out  
loud.  Tinkers  are  task  oriented  and  indirect  communicators.  They  are  detailed  
oriented  problem  solvers,  ask  lots  of  questions  and  postpone  decisions  until  they  
have  considered  all  the  facts.  Harmonizers  avoid  conflict  and  try  to  please  
everyone,  indirect  and  relationship  oriented.    
• Offers  and  counteroffers  –opening  offers  anchor  the  negotiation  and  therefore  
define  the  bargaining  range.  It’s  a  dynamic  and  interactive  process  that  reflects  
reciprocal  influences.    
• Preferences  –  The  messages  negotiators  exchange  often  reveal  their  
preferences.  Strong  affiliation  motives  reflects  concern  for  friendly  relations  and  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

cooperative  bargaining.  Verbally  aggressive  negotiators  prefer  competitive  

bargaining  and  their  motives  involve,  prestige,  and  reputation.    
• Concessions  and  other  tactical  choices  –  A  negotiator’s  willingness  to  offer  or  
accept  concessions  depends  upon  the  balance  of  power  and  affiliation  motives  
contained  in  the  message  he  or  she  receives.  The  negotiator  will  make  fewer  
concessions  if  you  issue  threats  or  ultimatums  and  refuse  to  offer  concessions.    
• Alternatives  –  Negotiators  with  attractive  alternatives  tend  to  establish  stronger  
aspirations  and  reservation  prices,  and  they  achieve  better  outcomes.  A  
negotiator  who  knows  you  have  an  attractive  BATNA  is  more  likely  to  lower  his  
or  her  aspirations  and  reservation  prices,  make  less  demanding  offers,  disclose  
more  truthful  information  and  settle  for  lesser  outcomes.    
• Explanations  –  also  called  social  accounts.  They  are  particularly  important  if  you  
must  communicate  bad  news  or  negative  consequences.  Some  explanations  imply  
that  the  situations  left  the  negotiator  with  no  choice  but  to  engage  in  chosen  
action.  Explanations  work  best  when  they  are  adequate  or  sufficient,  for  example  
job  applicant  are  more  accepting  rejections  that  are  logical.  Explanations  and  
apologies  imply  that  the  negotiator  is  willing  to  resolve  the  problem,  and  this  
helps  the  other  party  save  face.  Giving  commands  and  communicating  negative  
emotions,  on  the  other  hand,  attack  face.  This  triggers  conflicts  and  reduce  
likelihood  of  agreements  being  reached.    
• Patterns  of  communication  –  The  first  half  of  a  negotiation  is  a  better  predictor  
of  the  outcomes  than  the  second  half  because  issues  are  commonly  defines  
during  these  early  discussions.  If  the  words  used  by  a  negotiator  are  reasonably  
balanced  between  people  and  things,  he  or  she  is  more  likely  to  discover  
integrative  outcomes  because  this  balance  reflect  variable  sum  perceptions-­‐the  
strong  concerns  for  both  the  substance  on  the  negotiation  and  the  relationship  
reflects  collaborative  approach  in  the  Dual  Concerns  model.      
• Problem  solving  and  questions  you  should  ask  –  asking  the  right  questions  
and  pertaining  to  the  subject  will  prompt  responses  that  move  your  negotiation  
forward.  Ask  why.  Asking  why  the  negotiator  wants  what  he  wants  will  help  you  
identify  his  or  her  interests.    
• Craft  open  ended  questions  neutrally  -­  Remaining  neutral  when  you  ask  open-­‐
ended  questions  will  enhance  your  understanding.  To  secure  reflective  and  
thoughtful  responses,  ask  questions  that  are  open  ended  and  neutral  rather  than  
closed  and  opinionated  (can  lead  to  attack  and  defend  questions  instead).  This  
should  turn  your  conversation  from  exchange  of  demands  to  discussion  of  
interests.    
• Ask  targeted  questions  –  After  asking  your  open-­‐ended  questions,  neutrally,  
you  must  ask  more  targeted  questions  that  probe  and  explore  important  parts  of  
his  or  her  initial  answer.    
• Ask  for  advice  –  When  you  ask  the  negotiator  for  advice,  you  convey  humility  
rather  than  arrogance.  Moreover  most  people  like  giving  advice  and  are  likely  to  
volunteer  their  ideas.  Calling  on  the  other  party’s  expertise  should  lead  to  a  good  
outcome.    
• Active  listening  –  empathising  verbally  and  non  verbally  encouraging  the  
person  to  continue  talking  with  silent  pauses,  nodding  your  head  and  making  
comments  such  as  okay,  let’s  see  –  restating  and  paraphrasing.  Encourages  the  
other  negotiator  to  expand  upon  what  he  or  she  just  said.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• Paraphrase  –  entails  restating  what  the  other  negotiator  said,  in  your  own  
words.    
• Inquire  –  Ask  the  negotiator  to  elaborate  to  enhance  your  understanding  if  
something  is  confusing.  You  are  looking  for  clarification  or  detail.    
• Acknowledge  –  This  is  about  letting  the  negotiator  know  that  you  understand  
his  or  her  message.  People  like  the  feeling  that  they  are  being  heard.    
The  channels  used  by  negotiators  to  exchange  messages:  (Table  6,2-­170)  
• Which  medium  you  use  matter  because  it  influences  your  social  awareness  –  the  
degree  to  which  you  are  conscious  of  and  attend  to  the  other  party.  Face  to  face  
involves  high  synchronous  and  involve  multiple  channels,  and  have  high  efficacy.  
Email  has  a  low  synchronicity  (the  numbers  of  different  channels  involved),  text  
only  channel.  Face  to  face  richer  information  than  email.  Text  negotiation  hinders  
effort  to  build  rapport  and  trust.  E-­‐communications  are  less  polite  and  they  
employ  more  aggressive  tactics.    
Communicating  without  words:  
• Non-­‐verbal  communication  or  body  language  –  pertain  to  the  transfer  of  message  
using  any  means  other  than  spoken  word.  We  attach  meaning  to  all  of  them  we  
need  to  remain  conscious  of  context.    
• Evidence  suggest  that  80-­‐90%  of  messages  are  communicated  nonverbally.    
• Many  people  believe  that  nonverbal  messages  are  more  spontaneous  and  harder  
to  fake  than  verbal  messages.    
• Women  are  better  than  men  at  sending  non-­‐verbal  messages  because  they  are  
generally  more  expressive.  They  are  also  better  at  decoding  non-­‐verbal  messages  
then  men.    
• Men  and  women  are  both  ineffective  at  detecting  deception  (bedrägeri).    
• Types  of  non-­verbal  communication  –  Artefacts/symbolic  (clothes,  cars,  
eyeglasses,  makeup,  tattoos),  Chromatic  (use  of  color),  Chronemics  (use  of  
time),  Haptics  (bodily  contact),  Kinesics  (facial  expressions,  posture,  hands,  
feet),  Paralanguage  (how  tings  are  said,  accents,  fluency,  volume),  Proxemics  
(Use  of  physical  space).    
• Body  language  is  constant,  if  someone  else  is  present  we  are  communicating  non-­‐
verbally.    
• Non-­‐verbal  messages  may  repeat,  contradict  and  complement  or  substitute  for  
verbal  message.  P.173.  
• When  visual  and  auditory  nonverbal  messages  conflict,  we  generally  rely  more  
on  the  visual  cues  because  they  seem  harder  to  fake.    
• First  impressions  –  Within  1/10th  of  a  second  after  seeing  you,  even  before  a  
word  has  been  spoken,  the  person  with  whom  you  are  interacting  with  for  the  
first  time  has  made  a  judgement  about  how  attractive,  trustworthy,  competent,  
and  likable  you  are.  These  judgements  influence  the  quality  of  your  subsequent  
interactions  with  him  or  her.  If  the  matches  found  in  our  brains  are  elicit  positive  
feeling,  our  first  impression  will  be  positive,  and  the  other  way  around.    
• Building  rapports  –  engenders  more  information  sharing,  trust,  and  respect,  
reduces  threats  and  creates  a  sense  that  you  and  the  other  party  are  in  sync.  You  
do  enhance  this  by  reinforcing  your  interest  in  what  he  is  saying  and  by  sharing  
appreciation  for  his  success.  Maintain  soft  eye  contact  for  3-­‐5  seconds,  but  avoid  
staring.  Repeat  the  eye  contact  and  occasionally  tilt  your  head  to  the  side  and  nod  
at  appropriate  times.  Use  smiles  and  vocal  facial  expressions.  Mirror  the  other  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

party’s  behaviour  to  build  rapport  (except  for  aggressive  behaviour,  and  avoid  
mocking).    
• Positive  -­  Dress  appropriately,  smile,  good  posture,  purposeful  walk,  lean  
forward,  good  eye  contact,  firm  handshake,  keep  your  hands  at  your  side.  
• Negative  –  Exhibiting  jewellery  and  tattoos,  fake  smile,  walking  aimlessly,  
invading  personal  space,  tapping  feet  and  drumming  fingers,  biting  lips,  looking  
distracted,  limp  handshake,  keeping  hands  in  pocket.    
• Structuring  conversations  –  Body  language  –  a  system  of  cues  that  help  us  with  
structuring  conversations.  Turn  requesting  (we  want  to  talk,  rapid  head  
nodding,  interrupting),  Turn  maintaining  (we  want  to  continue  talking,  increase  
volume  of  speech),  Turn  yielding  (when  we  want  the  other  person  to  talk,  ask  
questions),  Turn  denying  (when  we  do  not  want  to  talk,  demonstrate  continuing  
interest  by  smiling,  nodding  and  shaking  your  head).  Rough  transitons  
demonstrate  that  the  other  party  is  rude.    
• Detecting  deception  (bedrägeri)  –  The  most  ethical  concern  negotiators  face  
involve  truth  telling,  the  withholding  information  and  deception.  Reasons  for  not  
telling  the  truth:  greed,  competition,  face  saving.  Accuracy  rate  of  telling  if  
someone  is  lying  are  less  than  50%.  People  are  least  successful  in  detecting  
deception  if  you  see  their  face,  we  are  vulnerable  to  manipulation  by  others  faces.  
Facial  expressions  are  loosely  coupled  with  emotions,  the  face  is  a  tool  of  self-­‐
presentation  and  social  influence,  we  want  to  create  a  desirable  image  of  
ourselves.  People  seek  mutual  gazes  to  signal  trust,  liking  and  honesty.  Listeners  
judge  people  who  gaze  longer  to  be  more  persuasive,  truthful,  informed  and  
credible.  Gazing  can  be  fakes.  People  who  are  opportunistic  (high  Machiavellians)  
seek  only  to  achieve  desirable  outcomes  for  themselves  continuing  gazing  longer.  
Those  who  are  less  proficient  may  stare  instead  if  merely  gazing  or  avoid  aye  
contact  all  together.  People  with  attractive  sounding  voices  (less  monotonous,  
lower  pitch  of  males)  are  believed  to  be  more  war,  powerful  open,  less  neurotic,  
honest  than  those  with  less  attractive  voices.    Behavioural  cues  suggesting  
deceit:  Facial  expressions,  Less  smiling  (smiling  at  inappropriate  times)  and  
less  excessive  blinking.  Speech  and  vocal  cues  (stammering,  higher  pitch,  
extreme  and  offensive  language,  less  forthcoming,  slower  speaking  rates,  more  
defensive.  Gestures  (tense,  anxious).  Cognitive  difficulties  (Stories  with  less  
details,  more  uncertain,  less  direct,  fewer  self  references,  more  hesitations)  
Conclusion  
• Perceptions  directly  influence  our  communications  choices.  How  to  overcome  
communication  problems  and  enhance  effectiveness:    
1. Minimize  noise  to  ensure  communication  is  effective.  Find  a  secluded  place  to  
negotiate  where  you  will  not  have  people  walking  by,  telephones  ringing.  
Suspend  judgements  based  on  extraneous  factors,  cultural  and  language  
differences,  accents,  do  not  stereotype.  Adapt  your  communication  to  fit  the  other  
party.    
2. Meaning  is  influenced  by  context  and  schemata  can  result  in  inaccurate  
interpretations  of  messages.  A  single  behaviour  could  mean  many  different  
things  (culture  influence  how  people  sit,  stand  and  act).    
3. Keep  in  mind  that  individuals  differ  in  how  much  they  believe  verbal  and  non-­‐
verbal  messages.  People  who  are  familiar  with  the  language,  rely  on  nonverbal  
cues  more  than  verbal  content,  while  verbal  messages  are  more  believable  for  
those  who  are  not  so  familiar  with  the  language.  Messages  that  are  more  logical  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

and  supported  by  objective  appearing  evidence  are  also  more  believable  than  
non-­‐verbal  messages  because  they  are  credible.    
4. When  you  are  not  sure  if  the  other  person  is  telling  the  truth,  look  for  signals  and  
ask  questions.  Questions  demanding  yes  or  no  or  other  one  words  answers  help  
to  eliminate  lies  of  omission  (utlämnande)  but  may  increase  lies  of  commission.  If  
the  person  give  similar  answers  repeatedly  there  are  more  likely  of  telling  the  
truth.  Look  for  congruence  between  non-­‐verbal  and  verbal  messages.  
5. Listen  actively.  This  includes  paraphrasing  or  restating  what  you  hear  and  
checking  for  understanding  after  you  do  so.  This  will  help  you  clarify  the  meaning  
of  what  the  other  negotiator  is  saying  (this  eliminates  many  conflicts).  Focus  on  
speaker;  assume  he  or  she  has  something  useful  to  say.    
   
Chapter  7  –  Decision  making    
• Decision  making  errors  –  Good  information  is  the  essential  ingredient  in  
decision  making.  Truth  be  told,  we  are  often  mistaken  about  what  we  are  feeling,  
not  to  mention  what  others  are  feeling.  This  leads  to  flawed  predictions  and  
subsequent  (efterföljande)  behaviour.    
• (table  summary  p.213)  Cognitive  biases  –  The  irrational  escalation  of  
commitment  (sometimes  we  fail  at  making  rational  decisions).  We  seem  to  
be  unable  to  ignore  sunk  or  unrecoverable  costs.  We  are  afraid  to  cut  our  losses  
for  the  simple  reason  that  they  are  losses.  We  would  obviously  like  to  avoid  them,  
bit  continuing  a  failing  course  of  action  engenders  even  greater  losses.  The  
confirmation  trap  and  selective  attention  also  contribute.  After  formulation  
hypothesis  or  making  even  tentative  decisions,  we  look  for  information  that  
supports  or  justifies  them.  When  we  encounter  information  that  conflicts  with  
disconfirms  our  hypothesis  or  decisions,  we  ignore  distort  (förvänder)  it.  
Impression  management,  our  desire  to  manage  others’  impressions  of  us,  also  
contributes.  Perhaps  we  refuse  to  admit  failure  to  defend  our  reputations.  It  may  
also  reflect  our  strong  desire  to  be  consistent.  Consistency  is  a  central  motivator  
for  many  people  and  inconsistency  is  viewed  negatively  –  we  wall  people  fickle  if  
they  change  their  minds.    
• How  to  manage  this  problem  –  Be  aware.  Cultivate  alternatives  and  set  limits,  
Having  alternatives,  and  understanding  their  value,  enables  you  to  walk  away  
when  your  chosen  course  of  action  is  no  longer  more  valuable  than  your  
alternative.  Cultivating  alternatives  allows  you  to  se  more  favourable  limits.  
Revaluate  your  course  of  action,  if  the  future  holds  no  greater  promise  for  
positive  outcomes,  it  would  be  prudent  to  abandoned  this  course  of  action  now.  
Establish  a  monitoring  system  by  involving  others  who  can  check  your  
perceptions  and  judgements  before  you  go  to  far  (people  you  trust).    
• Framing  –  Is  about  how  we  say  something.  Something  that  is  presented  as  a  gain  
versus  uncertain  gain,  the  certain  gain  will  always  be  picked.  If  something  is  
presented  as  a  certain  loss  versus  uncertain  loss,  the  uncertain  loss  will  be  
picked.    
• Implications  of  this  problem  –  Positively  framed  negotiators,  in  other  words,  
make  more  concessions,  reach  more  agreements  and  achieve  higher  overall  
profitability  and  are  more  satisfied  with  their  agreements  than  negatively  framed  
negotiators.  A  gain  or  a  loss  is  more  determinative  of  our  decisions  than  their  
expected  utility  of  value.  Weather  a  negotiator  views  a  proposal  as  a  gain  or  a  loss  
is  a  function  of  his  or  her  reference  point,  and  reference  points  can  be  influences.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• Availability  of  information  –  Information  that  is  vivid,  concrete,  familiar,  and  
emotionally  rich  is  more  easily  retrieved  from  memory,  and  more  influential  than  
pallid,  abstract,  unfamiliar,  and  emotionally  bland  information  –  even  if  it  is  less  
relevant.  We  also  tend  to  overestimate  the  probability  that  unlikely  events  will  
occur  if  our  memories  of  them  are  vivid  because  things  that  are  easier  to  
remember  seem  more  prevalent  and  more  important  to  us.    
• How  to  manage  this  problem  –  Consider  your  past  experience  with  what  the  
other  side  is  proposing  and  remember  that  this  information  will  unduly  influence  
your  decisions  if  you  let  it.  Consult  with  others  who  may  have  new  or  different  
information  that  is  relevant  and  objective.  Differentiate  information  that  is  
emotionally  available  from  that  which  is  reliable  and  relevant.    
• Anchoring  and  adjustment  –  Opening  offers  are  perhaps  the  most  common,  but  
prior  offers;  target  points  and  resistance  points  also  serve  as  anchors.  If  we  set  
anchors  rationally,  making  adjustments  from  these  positions  would  make  sense.  
Unfortunately  we  often  estimate  the  value  of  uncertain  objects  or  events  using  
information  that  is  irrelevant.  It  may  simply  be  easily  recallable  because  of  
availability  bias.  Just  as  first  impressions  are  formed  very  quickly  and  influence  
subsequent  interactions,  anchors,  even  those  set  arbitrary,  are  very  influential  
and  quite  persistent.  They  do  change,  but  not  easily.    Overconfident  or  lack  of  
confidant  both  set  their  anchors  too  low  and  outcomes  are  nonoptimal.  The  
endowment  effect  also  contributes  to  this  problem.  This  entails  artificially  
inflating  the  value  of  things  that  belong  to  us,  because  in  addition  to  market  
value,  we  add  premium  for  our  emotional  attachments.    
• How  to  manage  this  problem  –  Preparation  is  critical  because  it  helps  you  
determine  realistic  values.  An  opening  offer  near  the  other’s  resistance  pint  is  
optimistic  but  not  outrageous,  it  is  the  best  outcome  your  can  achieve.    
• Overconfidence/Overoptimism  –  Exaggerate  the  likelihood  that  the  other  party  
will  accept  their  offers  and  other  positive  events,  their  own  abilities,  and  the  
degree  to  which  they  cannot  control  events.  They  tend  to  ignore  the  other  party’s  
needs  and  concerns  and  are  likely  to  set  their  own  aspirations  levels  and  and  
reservation  prices  too  high,  make  unrealistically  high  opening  offers,  exaggerate  
the  value  of  their  BATNA.  Overconfidence  bias  may  come  from  personality  traits,  
insufficient  information,  and  our  tendency  to  exaggerate  our  talents  prior  to  
success.  Optimism  is  desirable  and  should  be  encouraged.    
• How  to  manage  this  problem  –  Through  preparation,  training  and  consulting,  a  
qualified  advisor  should  also  enhance  negotiators,  help  them  overcome  and  
minimize  this  bias,  and  counter  its  negative  effects.    
• (table  summary  p.217)  Perception  errors  –  While  some  frames  are  cognitive  
others  are  perceptual.  Negotiators  define  situations  along  one  of  three  
dimensions:  relationship  versus  task;  emotional  versus  intellectual;  and  
compromise  versus  winning.  These  perceptual  frames  affect  negotiators  
behaviours  and  outcomes.  When  both  negotiators  adopt  task  as  opposed  to  
relationship  frames,  they  achieve  higher  individual  and  joint  gains.  Negotiators  
who  frame  negotiations  in  emotional  terms  ten  to  make  apologies  or  talk  about  
how  negative  feelings  should  be  handled.  Negotiators,  who  adopt  power-­‐based  
frame  issues  threats,  make  ultimatums  and  use  other  aggressive  tactics.      
• Mythical  fixed  pie  –  At  times  respurces  are  truly  fixed,  there  is  no  way  to  aoid  
zero-­‐sum  negotiation  whereby  one  party  gains  and  the  other  loses.  If  however  
there  are  two  or  more  issues  and  negotiators  preference  differ,  integrative  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

potential  exist.  Fixed  pie  perceptions  are  problematic  because  they  lead  to  lower  
individual  and  joint  profits.  Focusing  on  one  issue  at  the  time  is  not  the  best  
approach,  because  it  produces  more  compromising  for  each  issue.    
• Expectations  –  If  we  believe  in  beforehand  that  something  good  will  happen,  it  
probably  will  (and  the  other  way  around).  This  is  why  placebos  work.  People  
who  believe  they  have  been  medicated  will  feel  better.  For  negotiators  this  means  
that  detailed  information,  explanations,  presentations  or  proposals  and  how  they  
will  help  the  other  party  should  induce  positive  expectations,  thus  better  chance  
they  will  be  accepted.  Evaluate  such  explanations  objectively.    
• Stereotyping  –  Every  time  we  encounter  a  new  situation,  we  draw  on  our  past  
experiences  to  understand  how  we  are  supposed  to  behave.  Similarly,  when  we  
encounter  a  new  person  at  the  bargaining  table  we  draw  on  stereotypes,  a  form  
of  schemata,  which  help  us  understand  him  or  her.  They  are  information  
processing  shortcuts.    
• Attribution  error  –  For  example  we  erroneously  attribute  others  tough  
bargaining  behaviours  to  their  difficult  personalities.  Tendency  to  attribute  
others  successes  externally  and  our  own  success  internally  and  failures  
externally.  A  cause  of  this  is  egocentrism,  faulty  assumptions  of  the  credibility  of  
information.  Fixed  pie  perceptions.    
• Perspective  taking  –  The  ability  to  consider  the  situation  from  another  person’s  
point  of  view.  Perspective  takers  stereotype  less.  Better  at  coordination,  problem  
solving,  and  creating  integrative  agreements.  Egocentrism.    
• Ignoring  others  cognitions  –  As  with  perspective  taking  bias,  ignoring  others  
cognitions,  such  as  their  interests  makes  it  very  difficult  to  achieve  integrative  
outcomes  that  maximize  joint  gain.  Inability’s  to  assess  another’s  thoughts,  
concerns,  and  perspectives.  Inability  to  consider  others  perceptions.  
• Illusion  of  transparency  –  Overestimating  the  extent  to  which  other  can  discern  
thoughts  and  objectives  tendency  to  overestimate  the  extent  to  which  others  can  
discern  our  thoughts  and  objectives.  Ignoring  others  cognitions.  Liars  
overestimate  the  ability  of  others  to  detect  their  lies.  
• Reactive  Devaluation  –  Discounting  offers  or  concessions  because  of  who  made  
them.  Distrust,  emotions.    
• Extremism  –  Escalates  conflicts  because  we  believe  out  own  perceptions  map  
onto  objective  reality-­‐  when  others  differ,  they  are  viewed  as  extremists.  Fixed  
pie  perceptions,  egocentrism.  We  initially  try  to  correct  his  or  her  mistake;  we  
think  our  perceptions  reflect  objective  reality.    
• Managing  perceptual  errors  –  Gather  accurate  information  about  ourselves,  
others,  and  the  situation.  Analyzing  the  other  party  by  asking  open-­‐ended  
questions,  testing  assumptions,  active  listening,  see  the  situation  from  the  other  
party’s  perspective.  Understanding  and  clarifying  all  of  the  issues,  the  interests  
associated  with  each.  Make  multiple  offers.    
• Emotional  biases  –  Mood  or  affect  engenders  emotional  biases  because  it  
influences  the  quality  and  depth  of  our  information  processing.  People  
demonstrate  better  information  processing  abilities  when  the  information  they  
are  processing  is  affectively  consistent  with  their  mood.  Good  moods  also  foster  
more  creativity  and  increase  the  likelihood  that  innovative  solutions  will  be  
negotiated.  Finally  negotiators  who  are  in  good  mood  make  more  concessions  
when  negotiating  face  to  face,  which  is  not  always  a  good  thing.  Positive  factors  
inside  or  outside  the  negotiation.  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

•Anger  –  Mood  refers  to  low  intensity,  diffuse  affect  and  it  may  derive  from  
factors  outside  the  negotiation.  Emotions,  on  the  other  hand  suggest  more  
intense  feelings  that  arise  during  the  negotiation  and  are  directed  at  the  other  
party.  Negotiators  who  are  angry  with  each  other  achieve  smaller  joint  gains  and  
have  less  desire  to  work  together  in  the  future  than  those  negotiators  who  have  
more  positive  emotional  regard  for  the  other  (preferences  also  become  self-­‐
centered).  Negative  factors  inside  the  negotiation,  directed  to  the  other  party  .  
• Competitive  arousal  –  We  routinely  miss  predict  how  much  pleasure  these  
events  will  bring  and  how  long  it  will  last.  More  often  we  exaggerate  our  
emotional  reactions  for  future  events.  As  a  consequence,  we  sometimes  work  to  
achieve  things  tat  do  not  maximize  our  happiness.  This  impact  bias  often  causes  
miswant.  This  error  suggests  that  negotiators  may  have  trouble  deciding  what  
they  are  negotiating  for,  and  how  hard  to  push  for  it.  If  we  thing  something  will  
bring  us  great  pleasure,  we  are  likely  to  pursue  it  vigorously,  or  else  we  fight  it.  
Why  are  often  mistaken  about  how  unhappy  or  happy  events  will  make  us?  One  
reason  involves  focalism  –  our  tendency  to  thing  overestimate  how  much  we  will  
think  about  this  event  in  the  future  and  underestimate  the  extent  to  which  other  
events  will  influence  our  thoughts  and  feelings.    
• Managing  emotional  biases  –  We  can  remind  ourselves,  or  ask  others  to  remind  
us,  to  consider  the  many  other  events  that  will  demand  our  attention  in  the  
future.  Cooling  periods  may  also  help.  Making  decisions  away  from  the  
bargaining  table,  may  make  it  easier  to  manage  emotions.  
Conclusions    
Be  aware  of  biases  problems  and  take  steps  to  avoid  or  correct  them  to  make  
more  rational  decisions  in  the  future.  Likewise  we  might  be  able  to  leverage  them  
to  influence  him  or  her.    
1. Preparation,  especially  cultivating  alternatives,  setting  limits  (resistance  
points),  analyzing  the  other  negotiator,  testing  assumptions  is  the  best  
way  to  avoid  these  errors.  Standing  in  the  other  negotiators  shoes  may  
also  help  understanding  hi  perspective.  Learning  the  other  negotiators  
reference  point  will  enable  you  to  frame  your  offers  as  certain  rather  than  
uncertain  gains  or  as  certain  rather  than  uncertain  losses,  both  which  
should  make  his  or  her  decision  easier.    
2. Gather  additional  information  that  is  contrary  to  your  existing  thoughts,  
and  beliefs,  use  it  to  guide  your  decision-­‐making.  Consult  with  colleagues  
and  associates.  Ask  them  to  monitor  (kontrollera)  your  decisions.    
3. Revaluate  your  chose  course  of  action  when  you  reach  your  pre  –  set  
limits  or  resistance  points.  Ignore  what  you  have  already  lost-­‐sunk  cost-­‐
and  determine  weather  future  benefits  outweigh  future  costs.    
4. Keep  in  mind;  information  and  explanations  that  are  vivid,  familiar,  and  
emotionally  rich  unduly  influence  our  decisions.  Attributions,  stereotypes  
and  other  shortcuts  simplify  information  processing.  These  qualities  all  
lead  to  decision-­‐making  errors.    
5. Maintain  your  focus  on  your  own  anchor  so  that  you  adjust  from  the  
favourable  end  of  the  bargaining  range.  Focus  your  attention  on  your  
target  point  if  someone  anchors  you.    
6. Avoid  rivals,  intense  time  pressures,  and  audiences  when  you  negotiate,  
this  will  make  more  rational  decisions.    
 

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter  8  –  Power  and  influence    

The  party  who  needs  the  other  the  least  has  more  power.    
Attitudes  –  Are  general  evaluations  people  hold  about  themselves,  others,  
objects  and  issues.  Influence  is  about  changing  these  attitudes,  beliefs  and  
behaviours.  How  much  power  we  amass  relative  to  the  other  party  will  probably  
influence  our  choice  of  which  strategy  to  use  and  how  effectively  we  can  execute  
it.  Having  more  power  enables  you  to  establish  more  ambitious  aspiration  levels  
and  reservation  prices.    
Myths  about  power  –  Power  is  not  a  person  with  a  suite  or  a  boardroom  
location.  Gathering  resources  or  cultivating  alternatives  to  improve  BATNA  can  
increase  power.  In  an  organization  it  is  not  necessarily  top-­‐down  power,  
possessing  special  expertise  also  exist.  People  with  more  power  do  not  gain  from  
using  it  against  someone.    
Where  power  comes  from  and  how  I  can  increase  my  own  –  Reward  power:  
The  ability  to  give  the  other  negotiator  items  that  he  or  she  values,  or  to  credibly  
promise  these  items  –  money,  information,  tangible  resources,  approval  or  other  
items  that  he  wants  or  needs.  Coercive  power:  The  ability  to  punish  or  threaten  
to  punish,  or  withhold  rewards  or  other  positive  outcomes  that  the  other  
negotiator  wants  or  needs  –  declining  offers,  withholding  coveted  offers,  
disapproval.  Legitimate  power:  Authority  derives  from  negotiators  age,  social  
status,  caste,  or  rights  derived  from  his  or  her  position,  role  or  title  in  an  
organization.  Expert  power  –  Power  from  negotiators  special  expertise,  
knowledge  and  understanding,  skills  or  competencies  or  technical  know  how.    
Referent  power  –  Power  derived  form  being  liked  for  who  you  are,  and  others  
want  to  be  like  you;  personality,  integrity,  attractiveness,  charismatic,  credible  
and  trustworthy.  Informational  power  –  Grounded  in  substantial  differences  in  
knowledge  of  two  individuals  on  particular  subjects,  this  reflects  the  negotiators  
ability  to  control  the  availability  and  accuracy  of  information.    
BATNA  –  The  ability  to  influence  others  because  of  quality  of  your  BATNA,  this  
also  makes  it  easier  for  you  to  set  ambitious  target  and  resistance  points,  which  
often  causes  others  to  reduce  their  demands  or  walk  away  if  good  outcomes  are  
not  forthcoming.    
Allies  –  The  ability  to  influence  other  because  your  supporters  are  respected  by  
them  or  possess  resources  (money,  information,  expertise)  that  are  needed  by  
them,  this  is  sometimes  considered  reference  power.  You  use  your  credibility  to  
influence  others  decision-­‐making.    
Influence,  using  power  to  negotiate  more  effectively  –Having  power  is  
important  because  it  gives  negotiators  the  potential  to  change  the  other  party’s  
attitudes,  belief  and  behaviours.  The  question  is,  what  makes  a  message  
influential?  People  are  influenced  in  two  fundamentally  different  ways.  
The  central  or  the  direct  route  –  Some  influence  happens  because  people  
consciously  and  actively  think  about  the  messages  they  receive  and  integrate  
them  to  their  existing  thoughts,  schemata  or  mental  models.  Recipients  must  
expand  their  mental  effort  required  to  identify  issues  and  gather  additional  
information.  Motivation  to  evaluate  messages  is  high  if  the  messages  are  
emotionally  rich  and  important  to  the  recipient,  he  or  she  is  accountable  for  
evaluating  them,  thinking  and  deliberating  about  various  topics  is  enjoyable,  and  
the  information  is  provided  by  multiple  independent  sources.  Any  kind  of  oise  
that  diverts  our  attention  away  from  the  message  inhibits  our  ability  to  evaluate  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

messages.  Our  ability  to  evaluate  messages  is  also  diminished  if  they  are  not  
comprehensible,  or  if  they  are  repeated  too  many  times  or  not  at  all.  For  example  
print  messages  are  evaluated  more  thoroughly  because  we  can  process  them  in  
our  own  pace.    
Message  relevance  –  Personal  relevance  –  Personally  relevant,  important  and  
interesting  messages  are  more  influential.  Framing  proposals  in  a  manner  that  
clarifies  how  they  satisfy  management  costs,  operational  and  other  interests,  for  
example,  would  enhance  the  persuasiveness  of  a  labour  union  negotiator’s  
messages.  Fear-­‐arousing  messages  or  threats  are  more  persuasive,  but  only  if  
they  are  coupled  with  officious  recommendations  for  dealing  with  them.  These  
messages  induce  attitude,  belief  and  behaviour  changes  if  threats  are  real  and  
personally  relevant.    
Message  organization  –  Message  sidedness.  Two  sided  messages  that  recognize  
the  opposing  viewpoint  and  refuse  it  are  more  persuasive  and  produce  more  
favourable  responses  from  the  other  party  than  one-­‐sided  messages.  For  
example,  acknowledge  the  positive  qualities  of  the  other  supplier’s  product  and  
then  refute  them  by  explaining  why  your  product  it  more  appropriate  for  the  
buyer.    
Message  scope  and  complexity  –  The  scope  or  complexity  of  a  proposal  or  
message  may  be  too  difficult  for  people  to  fully  grasp.  Breaking  up  the  proposal  
into  its  component  parts  and  sharing  them  one  at  a  time  is  more  influential.  
Explain  why  something  is  important  and  why  it  will  benefit  the  other  company  in  
the  future.    
Repetition  –  Moderate  repetition  (2-­‐3  times)  of  credible  messages  is  more  
influential  than  only  stating  them  once  or  too  many  times.  Extensive  repetition,  
even  if  the  message  is  credible  does  not  influence  the  receiver  more.  Make  sure  
your  message  does  not  lack  credibility-­‐it  will  enhance  weakness.    
Distractions  –  Distractions  like  noise,  inhibit  the  negotiators  ability  to  evaluate  
messages.    
Message  presentation  –  Powerful  language  is  likely  to  be  proceed  along  a  
central  route  because  it  creates  perceptions  that  messages  are  credible  and  that  
the  speaker  is  more  competent,  composed  and  attractive.  Asking  for  permission  
to  ask  questions,  “do  you  mind  if  I  ask  you”.    Language  intensity  Is  conveyed  
though  emotionality  and  specificity,  and  reflects  an  attitude  toward  the  subject  
that  is  not  neutral.  Threats  and  expressions  of  anger  are  example  of  intense  
language.  Implicit  (indirect)  threats  expressed  early  in  the  negotiation  and  
explicit  (direct)  threats  made  later  in  the  negotiation  elicit  more  concessions  than  
the  other  way  around.  Dialogue.  People  are  more  willing  to  concede  when  
request  is  preceded  by  a  pleasant  dialogue  rather  than  a  monologue.  In  other  
words  actively  engage  the  other  side  in  the  negotiation.    
The  peripheral  or  indirect  route  –  If  negotiators  are  not  motivated  or  able  to  
expand  the  mental  effort  required  to  process  information  along  central  route,  
influencing  them  is  still  possible.  We  change  our  minds  without  realizing  why,  
just  as  we  unknowingly  make  decision  errors.  This  happens  because  of  the  
mental  shortcuts  that  we  commonly  take  when  processing  information  and  
making  decisions.    
Explanations  –  When  we  ask  people  to  do  something  for  us,  they  are  more  likely  
to  comply  if  we  provide  them  with  a  reason.  Even  if  the  explanation  provides  
little  info,  the  word  because  seems  to  be  the  word  making  the  difference.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Contrast  Principle  or  Relativity  –  Exaggerating  the  difference  between  offers  or  
objects  often  influences  others  choices.  This  is  the  idea  behind  contrast  principle  
or  relativity.  Realtors  may  emotionally  show  houses  that  will  not  satisfy  the  
costumers  needs,  when  they  get  to  the  houses  that  do  meet  their  needs,  the  house  
will  look  even  better.  People  do  not  really  know  what  they  want  unless  they  see  it  
in  context.  When  the  issue  sis  multiple  offers,  is  to  place  the  offer  they  want  other  
party  to  chose  in  the  middle.  They  could  make  one  of  the  choices  decoy  –  similar  
to  the  one  the  negotiator  wants  the  other  party  to  chose  but  slightly  less  
attractive.    
Reciprocity  –  Returning  favours.  If  you  do  something  for  another  person,  even  
something  that  was  not  invited  or  wanted,  he  or  she  is  likely  to  return  the  favor.  
The  reciprocity  principle  is  why  concessions  usually  work  in  negotiations  –if  you  
make  one,  the  other  side  typically  reciprocates.  Can  involve  exchanging  
substantive  terms,  information  or  even  just  being  polite.    
Reject  and  retreat  –  If  you  make  an  extreme  demand,  the  other  party  is  likely  to  
reject  it.  If  you  then  ask  for  something  smaller,  he  or  she  is  more  likely  to  accept.  
That  is  the  contrast  principle;  the  second  demand  will  be  received  as  much  
smaller  than  if  you  had  opened  with  it  (also  appears  to  be  a  concession  from  your  
first  demand).    
Social  comparison  or  social  proof  –  When  we  encounter  novel  situations  and  
are  not  sure  how  to  behave  in  them,  we  often  look  to  others  to  determine  what  
we  should  do.  We  seem  to  believe  we  will  make  fewer  mistakes  if  we  emulate  
others’  behaviour  (if  other  are  laughing  we  do).  In  a  situation  where  the  second  
message  suggested  that  many  people  were  calling  so  others  should,  too.  In  short,  
the  change  introduced  social  proof  indicating  that  people  should  call  and  
purchase  the  product,  and  they  did.  Experts,  allies  celebrities;  and  other  
testimonials  all  increase  the  credibility,  in  other  words  social  proof.    
Scarcity  –  We  equate  quality  with  scarcity  and  we  believe  that  scarcity  limits  our  
freedom  of  choice.  If  we  believe  that  someone  or  something  interferes  with  our  
access  to  an  item,  we  will  react  against  the  interference  and  try  even  harder  to  
possess  it.    
Commitment  and  constancy  –  Once  we  make  a  decision  or  act  a  certain  way,  we  
are  motivated  to  behave  consistently  with  that  decision  or  action.  If  you  secure  a  
commitment  from  the  other  side  on  some  minor  but  relevant  point,  you  can  ask  a  
series  of  questions  or  make  a  series  of  request  that  require  responses  that  are  
consistent  with  id  or  her  responses  with  the  previous  questions  of  offers.  
Providing  small  rewards  for  these  will  help  (do  not  make  them  feel  manipulated),  
but  it  is  essential  to  keep  re  rewards  small  and  inconsequential  to  ensure  that  the  
other  negotiator  does  not  attribute  his  or  her  commitment  to  the  reward,  thereby  
jeopardizing  the  larger  objective.  Commitments  are  also  more  effective  if  there  
are  written,  made  publicly  and  owned  by  the  individual.      
Gains  and  losses  –  People  are  motivated  to  avoid  losses  more  than  they  are  to  
accrue  gains.  This  means  that  negotiators  who  frame  the  exact  same  set  of  
information  as  a  loss  will  be  more  influential  than  those  who  frame  it  as  a  gain.    
Reference  points  –  Determining  how  much  people  value  their  time  and  other  
interests  is  not  easy  and  straightforward,  as  it  seems.  In  fact,  it  is  something  you  
can  influence.  Rather  than  objectively  evaluating  the  cost  of  an  item  or  an  issue,  
we  seem  to  evaluate  then  relative  to  important  reference  points.  And  reference  
points  can  be  influences.  Encouraging  the  other  negotiator  to  focus  on  a  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

favourable  reference  point,  or  the  value  of  the  concession  you  are  demanding  
relative  to  the  entire  deal,  may  be  particularly  influential.    
Defending  against  others  ‘  attempts  to  influence  you  –  How  we  defend  against  
these  efforts  and  protect  ourselves  from  being  persuaded  to  do  something  we  do  
not  want  to.    
Preparation  –  Preparation  is  important  because  it  protects  us  against  being  
influenced  when  we  do  not  want  to  be.  This  happens  mostly  when  we  lack  
objective  information  about  the  value  of  an  idea  or  proposal.  Know  what  you  
truly  want  and  need,  and  know  what  it  is  worth  to  you.  Know  your  BATNA  and  its  
value,  cultivate  a  better  one,  and  express  your  willingness  to  exercise  it.  Set  limits  
(resistance  points)  to  determine  how  much  you  are  willing  to  concede.  Establish  
a  monitoring  system  with  people  you  trust  who  will  stop  you  to  agree  to  what  are  
unacceptable  demands.    
Gather  information  about  influence  tactics  and  decision  biases  –  Recognizing  
influence  tactics  and  when  they  are  being  used,  enables  you  to  avoid  falling  
victim  to  them.  
Attractiveness  –  research  suggest  that  attractive  negotiators  are  more  effective  
at  influencing  the  other  party  when  they  disclose  their  intention  to  do  so.    
Be  aware  if  he  is  attractive  and  honest  about  his  intentions,  and  if  the  
unattractive  claims  to  have  your  best  interests  in  mind.  
Process  influence  attempts  using  the  central  route  –  One  way  we  avoid  
automatic  response  we  direct  towards  these  influence  attempts,  is  to  force  
ourselves  to  process  them  against  the  central  route.  Slow  down  and  take  time  to  
process  the  party’s  ideas,  use  your  monitoring  system  for  help.    
Negotiating  with  inferior  power  –  If  you  are  the  party  with  the  less  power  (when  you  
negotiate  with  your  boss  etc),  there  are  ways  to  negotiate  even  with  inferior  power.  
• Improve  your  BATNA  by  cultivating  alternatives.  Make  sure  you  have  other  job  
offers  lined  up;  try  to  avoid  falling  in  love  with  one  product,  job  offer,  supplier.    
• Acquire  resources,  information  or  expertise  that  is  valued  by  the  other  party.  It  
will  make  him  more  independent  on  you  and  enhance  the  perceived  value  of  your  
BATNA.    
• Forming  coalitions.  Coalitions  is  a  group  of  two  or  more  parties  within  a  larger  
social  setting  who  merge  their  resources  and  work  together  to  achieve  mutually  
desirable  goals.  May  possess  certain  expertise  or  other  resources  that  makes  the  
other  party  pay  more  attention  to  your  ideas.  
• If  you  still  have  less  power  you  can  still  negotiate,  just  not  with  the  same  
approach  in  mind.  
• Preparation  is  critical  because  it  will  help  you  understand  your  own  situation  and  
the  other  party’s  situation.    
• Communicating  information  in  the  manner  that  he  or  she  wishes  to  receive  it  is  
essential,  because  it  will  be  more  appealing.  It  will  help  you  build  affect  (mood),  
reduce  noise  and  enhance  your  influence  attempt  along  the  central  route.  Active  
listening  is  always  essential  (especially  when  you  have  less  power,  because  it  
shows  your  concern  for  the  other  party).    
• Adopting  an  integrative  strategy  should  be  valuable.  Inventing  creative  proposals  
that  satisfy  the  others  party’s  interests  and  your  own,  should  be  hard  to  reject.  
Demonstrate  how  your  proposal  will  satisfy  his  needs.    
• Present  strong  and  credible  arguments.  Asking  questions  and  talking  about  them  
more  during  your  negotiation  should  serve  this  purpose.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

 
Conclusion  –  suggestions  for  increasing  power  and  capitalizing  on  it  when  you  
negotiate:  
1. Increase  power  so  you  can  enjoy  benefits.  It  will  increase  your  confidence  and  
allow  you  to  set  more  optimistic  target  and  resistance  points,  both  which  will  
help  you  achieve  better  outcome.  Cultivating  alternatives  to  improve  your  
BATNA,  building  relationships  with  respected  allies,  acquiring  resources  that  are  
needed  or  valued  by  the  other  negotiator  and  cultivating  referent,  legitimate,  
expert,  informational,  reward,  and  coercive  power  should  make  it  easier.    
2. Change  the  other  party’s  attitude  toward  your  interests,  ideas  and  proposals  to  
help  create  and  claim  value.  Your  influence  will  be  stronger  and  more  durable  if  
your  messages  are  credible  and  the  other  party  evaluates  them  along  the  central  
route.  They  should  also  be  presented  in  print,  comprehensible  and  repeated  two  
or  three  times  in  location  that  is  devoid  of  noise,  interruptions  and  other  
distractions.    
3. Try  to  discern  the  other  party’s  interests.  Include  interests  that  belong  both  to  
the  other  party  and  his  or  her  constituents.  Begin  to  identify  these  interests  
during  your  pre-­‐negotiation  preparations  and  continue  when  you  initially  meet  
with  the  other  party.  If  you  can  determine  things  like  career  goals,  how  the  
person  is  compensated,  length  of  service  for  the  principal  and  items  more  closely  
related  to  the  substance  of  your  negotiation,  you  may  gain  insight  to  what  really  
matters  to  this  person.  Weather  you  have  more  or  less  power,  learning  the  other  
party’s  interests  will  help  you  determine  what  is  personally  relevant  and  the  
kinds  of  proposals  that  might  be  acceptable.    
4. Use  your  understanding  of  the  nature  of  power  and  influence  and  of  influence,  
tactics  as  a  defence  manoeuvre.  It  should  enhance  your  ability  to  change  the  
other  party’s  attitudes  toward  your  information  and  proposals  and  your  ability  to  
recognize  when  these  tactics  are  being  used  to  persuade  you  to  accept  his  
unacceptable  proposals.    
5. Prepare  thoroughly  prior  to  the  negotiation.  Just  as  it  is  a  critical  way  to  avoid  
decision-­‐making  errors,  preparation  is  a  critical  way  to  minimize  the  
effectiveness  of  the  other  negotiator’s  influence  attempts.    
6. If  you  find  yourself  negotiating  from  a  position  of  weakness,  do  not  despair.  
Taking  steps  to  increase  your  power  and  assess  the  other  negotiator’s  BATNA  
will  help.  If  you  still  have  less  power,  adapt  your  communicative  style,  
understand  the  other  party’s  interests,  extend  offers  that  satisfy  all  of  hi  interests,  
and  your  own,  and  follow  the  others  steps  discussed  in  this  chapter  to  help  you  
achieve  acceptable  outcomes,  despite  your  inferior  power.    
 
Chapter  9  –  Ethics    
• What  is  ethics  -­    Since  ethics  is  a  study  of  interpersonal  or  social  values  and  the  
rules  of  conduct  that  derives  from  the,  manipulation,  truth  telling  and  
withholding  information  is  the  core  of  what  is  or  is  not  ethical  in  negotiation.  It  is  
not  easy  to  define  what  is  right  and  wring.  Negotiators  might  engage  in  the  
behaviour  of  withholding  information  and  truth  telling  because  they  have  to  win.  
How  much  we  value  out  personal  integrity  will  influence  our  ethicality  and  the  
tactics  we  use.    
• Negotiators  with  e  competitive  orientation  are  more  likely  to  mispresent  
information.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

• Negotiators  mispresent  or  omit  information  more,  if  the  other  party  appears  to  
be  trustworthy,  because  the  chance  of  being  caught  are  small,  and  the  costs  if  
they  are  caught  are  low.    
• Frameworks  for  assessing  the  Ethicality  of  negotiation  tactics:  
• Utilitarianism  –  One  that  produces  the  greatest  happiness  for  the  greatest  
amount  of  people.    
• Rights  and  Duties  –  One  that  confirm  the  universal  rights  and  duties.  They  must  
be  respectful  of  others,  not  preclude  others  from  using  them  and  be  accepted  by  
rational  people  acting  rationally.    
• Fairness  and  justice  –  One  that    treats  people  equitably  (rättvist).  From  behind  
the  “veil  of  ignorance”  (overlook  people  social  status  and  economic  position),  
similarly  people  must  be  treated  similarly.    
• Social  contract  –  One  that  conforms  the  community’s  social  norms/customs.  
They  must  comply  with  the  customs  or  social  norms  of  the  community  in  which  
we  are  negotiating.  But  is  this  hard  in  the  society  we  live  in  as  we  are  getting  
more  globalized.  Ex,  in  some  parts  of  the  world  bribery  is  considered  ethical,  
while  other  places  are  not.    
• Ethics  –  Ethics  are  about  what  is  right  and  wrong,  so  adhering  to  what  is  right  
should  trump  self-­‐interest.  It  is  hard  because  what  is  right  and  wring  various,  and  
negotiators  tend  to  focus  on  self-­‐interest.    
• Engage  in  self  assessment  –  Ask  others  of  their  assessment  of  your  approach  
before  you  implement  and  execute  it.  Consider  reading  9.2.  Ask  your  self  
questions  such  as;  Is  this  legal?  Is  it  right?  Who  will  be  affected  and  why?  How  
will  it  reflect  me  and  the  people  I  am  representing?  How  would  my  family  think  
of  me  if  they  knew  what  I  was  doing?  What  if  someone  used  these  tactics  against  
me?  
• Create  and  honest  negotiation  environment  –  Prepare  well  and  build  rapport.  
Share  your  true  interests,  preferences  and  priorities.    
• Frame  arguments  ethically  –  Look  at  table  9.4  to  frame  unethical  arguments.  
• Detect  and  call  out  a  negotiators  deception  (bedrägeri)  –  This  should  protect  
you  from  the  other  party  taking  advantage  of  you.  Calling  out  such  behaviour  lets  
the  other  party  know  you  are  aware  of  what  they  are  doing  and  inhibits  further  
use  of  these  tactics.  If  this  does  not  work,  stop  the  negotiation  and  negotiate  the  
process  (what  do  we  want  to  negotiate).    
• Do  not  stoop  (ta  efter)  another  negotiators  level  if  he  uses  unethical  tactics.  
Unethical  negotiation  will  harm  reputations,  and  make  future  negotiations  more  
difficult  because  you  will  encounter  other  who  will  use  aggressive  tactics  against  
you.    
• Do  to  outcome  bias  we  generally  do  not  believe  choices  are  unethical  unless  they  
instill  harmful  outcomes  on  others.  Nor  we  do  not  thing  they  are  unethical  unless  
they  harm  us,  and  instead  benefits  us.  To  avoid  these  unethical  lapses,  consider  
multiple  options  simultaneously.  Unethical  behaviour  that  occurs  in  small  
increments  rather  than  suddenly,  is  not  likely  to  be  noticed.  We  overlook  
unethical  behaviour  that  serve  out  best  interest.    
•  
• Clashing  systems  –  Legal  norm:  If  it  is  legal,  it  cannot  be  unjust.  Ethical  norm:  If  
it  hurts  somebody,  it  cannot  be  right.    
• Trust  –  People  are  extremely  trustful  when  they  enter  a  new  relationship.  Tust  
leads  to  info  sharing.  Cooperative  solutions.  Trustors  are  more  willing  to  trust  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

when  risk  is  low  and  reward  is  high.  Trust  is  the  assumption  that  the  other  party  
has  your  best  interest  at  heart.    
• Ethically  questionable  tactics  –  Bluffing,  mispresentation,  withholding  
information.    
 
Chapter  10  
 
 

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter 10 – Multiparty Negotiations: Managing the Additional Complexity

Challenges of multiparty negotiations

 Many people and organizations (principals) hire others to negotiate for them (agents)
 Many companies have self-managed work teams who don’t a formal leader you can negotiate with
directly
 The people who are not negotiating but are affected by it. They can influence the process and
outcome.
 Different parties forming coalitions and alliances to gain more power.

Informational complexity

Complex issues involve many facts, arguments and data, issues, interests, preferences, perspectives,
values and beliefs. If more than two negotiators are involved, the amount of data increases even more.

Social complexity

Multiple relationships, conversations and motives must be managed. With more parties, you also have
to worry about coalitions, subgroups and adding more people can change the dynamics of your
interaction. Influencing a certain negotiators motivational orientation is hard but possible. Changing
multiple negotiators orientations is significantly harder.

Procedural complexity

When you have two negotiators, you simply take turns presenting offers and making arguments etc.
Which multiple parties, you must organize who goes first and communicate these ideas in a fair way.

Strategical complexity

You must decide on whether to deal with each negotiator separately or all of them as a group. It can
also turn into multiple one-on-one negotiations while the other parties watch. In this scenario, you
must deal with audiences and audience effects. Negotiating the process itself is also required, for
example how to handle the large amounts of data, how information will be communicated and who will
be assuming which role. Negotiating one issue at a time can lead to lower-quality outcomes because it
leads to more justifying and compromising. Higher-quality outcomes can be achieved by raising and
negotiating multiple issues at the same time (integrative tradeoffs).

When we should use agents/representatives

 To get better outcomes: Because they are better negotiators and more skilled. Often you select
someone who is similar to you and can better represent your views, but there can be benefits
of selecting someone very different from yourself get a better outcome.
 To preserve relationships: Avoiding damaging your relationship to each other by having a proxy
in between who handles the negotiation.
 To separate the person from the problem: If you are too emotionally invested in the
negotiation.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Risks of using agents/representatives

They may be so committed to reaching an agreement, that they forget about the contents and may even
without information from the principal! If you give them too much authority, they may use tactics and
chances you don’t approve of, or don’t understand your viewpoint and go a different way.

Decision making in multiparty negotiations

 Voting on issues. Leads to majority rule and can be unfair.

 Participants fail to understand their tasks and others interests.
 Few people doing all the talking. Shy and quiet participants don’t contribute.
 Information is focused on common knowledge instead of gaining new knowledge.
 Disharmony and incompatibility among participants due to lack of respect or trust.

Six Thinking Hats

 Blue Hat: Managing the process. Control hat, organizes the thinking, sets agenda and focus,
summarizes and concludes. Ensures that rules and processes are observed.
 White Hat: Information. What info do we know and what do we need to know? How do we get it?
Determines accuracy and relevance. Looks at other people’s views.
 Red Hat: Feelings. Permission to express feelings and hunches, no need to justify, keep it short. Key
ingredient in decision making.
 Yellow Hat: Benefits and feasibility. The optimistic view, reasons must be given, needs more effort
than black hat, find benefits and advantages. Considers both short and long term perspectives.
 Black Hat: Risks and problems. The skeptical view, reasons must be given, points out what doesn’t
fit facts etc. Points out potential problems.
 Green Hat: New ideas, possibilities. Creative thinking, seeks alternatives, removes faults, doesn’t
need logic. Generates new concepts.

Audience and audience effects

Audience is defined as anyone at the table with you while you negotiate. If you represent others, then your
constitution is your audience. Media can also be an audience, and by extension the larger population too.
Audience effects change the behavior of the negotiator and raise our aspirations and cause us to try harder.
May also determine what tactics and ethics we use. Also influenced by how visible the audience is in the
process.

Coalitions

A coalition is a subset of a larger social group. They are formed with the purpose of advancing specific
issues. “Bigger is better”. We join coalitions to avoid being coerced into accepting undesirable offers.
Downsides can be that parties bringing greater resources may demand a larger share of the outcome.
Before joining a coalition, you must consider if it is organized enough to negotiate effectively with the other
side. What are the allocated resources, interests, ethical standpoints and how will the outcome be divided?

Interteam negotiations

When two or more from your team negotiate with two or more people from the other side. Consider the
size of your team (four to five is optimal), since adding more creates challenges with coordination and
communication. Choose people with good negotiation skills. Use Six Hats Thinking techniques. Cohesive

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

groups with good interpersonal relationships eases the effort. Don’t be afraid to step away from the
negotiation for a break and talk with each other to ensure you are still together on issues.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter 11: Individual differences. How our unique qualities affect negotiations

We make assumptions based on individual differences. We expect angry and loud people to be able to win
negotiations by bulling. Smart people can “wow” us with their understanding of complex ideas. And people
who are emotionally understanding can understand and deal with others effectively.

Gender stereotypes

 Male attributes: Strong, dominant, assertive, rational

 Female attributes: Weak, submissive, accommodating, emotional

The masculine attribute makes for a better negotiator than the feminine ones.

Gender differences

 Socialization. Boys are socialized to be less verbal, more aggressive, visual-spatial than girls. They
use arguments, persuasion and debate. Girls are socialized to understand dialogue is central to
problem solving. They frame, consider, resolve problems through communication.
 Self-construals. How men and women see themselves. Women define themselves in terms of their
relationships and show sensitivity to others needs and points of views. Men seek independence
through discussions and are more confrontational.
 Moral values. Women prefer to preserve integrity and relationships and keep both parties happy.
Men focus on principles and right and wrong with clear winners and losers.

Women lack self-confidence at the same. Men set higher goals before they begin negotiating. Women
adhere to stricter standards of what they think is fair and appropriate.

Gender expectations

Women suffer from the conundrum of choosing between being perceived as likable but incompetent
because they act in feminine ways. Or be unlikable but competent because they have in masculine ways.
Having power over others may seem alien to women, while it’s more natural for men because of their
inherit competiveness.
However, studies show that when men and women have equal power, their behavior is in fact comparable.
Women negotiate more submissively with men than they do with other women. Women are more
assertive and fare better, when they represent others at the table, rather than when they negotiate for
themselves.

Personality traits

 Face threat sensitivity. How sensitive people are to losing face (their good name, image,
reputation). Highly sensitive negotiators are more likely to complete and less likely to create value
that benefits all parties
 Machiavellianism. How cynical we are about others motives. High Mach’s are
unsympathetic/opportunistic. They will do anything to further their cause.
 Self-efficacy: A person’s assessment of how well they can perform in a situation. High self-efficacy
people are better at initiating negotiations and set higher goals. Also more collaborative and larger
outcomes.
 Self-monitoring. A person’s sensitivity to social cues. High self-monitors are attentive to these cues
and use them to decide what is appropriate behavior.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

 Social value orientation. A person’s preference for their own outcomes relative to others. Pro-selfs
choose options that maximize their own gain and are more competitive. Pro-socials choose options
that maximize joint gains and are more cooperative.
 High and low trust: High trusters believe others are trustworthy. Low trusters do not believe others
are trustworthy. This limits disclosure and encourages dishonesty and deception.

The Five-Factor model

 Introversion-Extraversion. Introverted people are reserved, timid and quiet. Extraverted are
outgoing, sociable and assertive.
 Agreeableness-Antagonism. Agreeableness reflects how cooperative and understandable, trusting
you are. Antagonists are harsh, insincere, untrusting.
 Conscientiousness-Undisciplined. Conscientious people are achievement-oriented, hardworking,
organized, and dependable. Undisciplined are lazy, unreliable, indecisive.
 Openness-Closeness. Open people are reflective, creative, and curious. Closed people are
conservative, narrow-minded, and practical.
 Emotional stability-Neuroticism. Emotional stable people are calm, self-confident, and patient.
Neuroticism people are tense, insecure, and irritable.

Myers-Briggs types:

 Introvert (I) – Extravert (E). How and where do people get their energy from. E’s get energized by
interacting with others and focus that energy on people and things. I’s are energized by being alone
and they focus it on thoughts and ideas.
 Sensor (S) – Intuitor (N). What kind of information we are naturally drawn to. S’s like facts and
details, they are linear thinkers. They only like new ideas if they are practical and trust their own
senses and experiences. Ns try to understand meanings, connections and implications. Imaginative
and like new ideas for their own sake. They do things differently than before and trust their gut
instincts.
 Thinker (T) – Feeler (F). How we make decisions or come to conclusions. T’s make decisions
objectively, carefully considering them and by logical ways. F’s make them based on how they feel
and are more sensitive and emotional.
 Judger (J) – Perceiver (P). How we organize our worlds. P’s like getting more info because they
don’t like making decisions. They are flexible and spontaneous and see all sides of an issue. J’s
make decisions fast and easily. They are organized, goal-oriented and punctual. They like control
and require less info.

Emotions and emotional intelligence

Negative emotions can divert your attention away from the important stuff or damage relationships.
Emotions are always present and we can’t block them out. Emotional intelligence is:

 Perceiving emotions – Detecting and identifying emotions in yourself and others

 Facilitating emotions – Using emotions productively for creativity, problem solving and reasoning
 Understanding emotions – Comprehending how they combine, progress or transition from one to
another
 Managing emotions – Coping with and regulating them in oneself and others in adaptive ways.

Emotionally intelligent negotiators have a more positive experience and can induce and influence others.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Addressing underlying concerns

 Appreciating – Some claim they don’t care what others think of them, but everyone wants to be
appreciated. It leads to positive emotions. Failing to do so inhibits appreciation and leads to
negative emotions.
 Affiliation – Assuming that the other party is an adversary. This creates negative emotions and
hinders beneficial outcomes for both. We negotiate to reach satisfactory outcomes and actually
work together.
 Autonomy – Having the freedom to have choices and make decisions. Exercising too much
autonomy can make the other party like they are being left out and not heard.
 Status – It’s your relative standing to where others stand (not zero-sum). It raises self-esteem and
ability to influence others. By treating others with respect, you raise their status and induce
positive emotions. And they become more open and receptive to your demands.
 Roles – Negotiators perform roles during the process. Fulfilling roles which are meaningful and
have a clear purpose induce positive emotions. Awareness and understanding of your role also
makes you perform better.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter 12: International Negotiations. Managing culture and other complexities

When you negotiate in your own country/culture, you can be certain that you both make similar
assumptions about social interactions, legal requirements and so on. However, when negotiating
internationally, you must take into account and understand that people operate with different cultural,
economic and ideological backdrops.

International monetary factors

Understanding different currency exchange rates and how fluctuations can affect the value of the deal. You
can negotiate with that in mind, with protections and trying to guess how the currency will be valued in the
future. Foreign exchange controls may also influence it, since there might be restrictions on certain goods
or large money transfers.

Legal pluralism

Different countries have their own set of laws and legal requirements that must be understood. Some may
have laws against certain types of goods being imported/exported, or requiring a joint venture. Bribes
might be expected in certain countries. Also laws against big mergers and acquisitions to avoid monopolies.
You must also consider if you’re protected by international law in case of any disagreements.

Political pluralism

Different political systems also play a role. All democracies do not operate in the same way, also there are
communist and socialist systems in large contries (China, India). Political goodwill against other countries is
also subject to change and can make doing business very difficult or impossible.

Role of foreign governments

Government policies can differ. Some governments may want to control entire industries or deny permits
to expand production. There can also be subsidizing in place. There can also be national interests in place to
avoid foreign control of important industries (telecommunication, energy). In some countries, businesses
are wholly owned and operated by the governments.

Instability and change

Negotiators must be prepared to war, social, political, and military coups and other social unrest. One way
of doing that is by carrying out political and risk analyses. Also consider cancellation clauses and arbitration
clauses to settle any disputes. You can also purchase foreign investment insurance.

Ideological differences

The body of ideas upon which the political, economic and social system is based on. You must avoid taking
this for granted and realize all countries are different. Examples are political freedom, gender equality, right
to own property.

How culture influences our conception of a negotiation

Americans consider it a competitive exchange of offers/counteroffers. Japanese people consider it an

opportunity for information sharing. Negotiation is informal for Americans, but English, French and
Germans think it’s formal. Sensitivity to time: Americans value showing up on time, while Asian and Latin

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

American culture focus on the task and relations. Americans are risk-takers compared to Asians and
Europeans.

Visible components of culture

How people greet others and physical closeness and expressiveness. Japan: bowing, USA: shaking hands,
Spain/Italy/France: kisses on each cheek. Interpreting these behaviors is more important than mastering
them. Misinterpretations occur because we decode these messages through the lens of our own culture.

Invisible components of culture

Values, beliefs, norms, assumptions and knowledge structures. They can help understand what and how
people in a certain culture negotiate. Schein, Hofstede ad nauseum

Dimensions of culture

 Individualism-Collectivism. Individualistic cultures promote autonomy, rights and accomplishments

of individuals (US). Collectivistic cultures cultures promote relations with families, work etc. Their
achievements reflect back on those relations (Japan, Mexico). Individualistic cultures are more
direct, confronting and favor distributive negation. Collectivistic cultures are more indirect, non-
confronting and favor collaboration.
 Power distance. In high power distance cultures, people accept more unequal distribution of power
(China, Egypt). Social status = social power. In low power distance cultures, social status is more
short-lived and variable across situations.
 Context. How directly people communicate. Low context people communicate directly and
explicitly (Canada, Scandinavia). They also tend to be individualistic. In high context cultures,
people communicate indirectly and meaning is determined by the words and the context of the
conversation, relations etc. These cultures tend to be more collectivistic. Communicating too
directly in high context cultures can be considering rude and cause the other party to lose face.

Culture and negotiation process

Some evidence shows that negotiators from collectivistic cultures achieve greater joint gains than
negotiators from individualistic cultures. Also, cross-cultural negotiations produce more modest outcomes
than intracultural negotiation.

Negotiators from low context/individualistic cultures use a reciprocal questioning approach. They ask
questions about interests and priorities and assume the other party is telling the truth. Negotiators from
high context/collectivistic cultures do not share information directly and often don’t believe the other
party.

 Negotiators from collectivist cultures plan for long-term goals. Individualistic ones plan for short-
term goals.
 Collectivistic negotiators frame some conflicts as breaches of social position
 Accountability to constituents leads to more competition among individualists, but to more
cooperation among collectivists.
 In cross-cultural negotiations, collectivist negotiators adapt to individualist behaviors and are more
willing to share information

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Chapter  13  -­  Difficult  negotiations    

There  are  techniques  available  for  unlocking  impasses,  countering  difficult  
tactics  and  changing  the  nature  of  the  game  that  maintain  relationships  and  
produce  good  outcomes  for  both  parties.      
 
Impasses  –  why  they  happen  
-­‐ Incompatible  frames  (the  words  chosen,  tone  of  voice)  
-­‐ Incompatible  negotiation  styles  (neither  will  give  in  without  a  fight)  
-­‐ Unrealistic  expectations  (goals  and  expectations  may  be  so  extreme  that  
neither  one  is  willing  to  back  down)  
-­‐ Dirty  tricks    
o Bogey,  good  cop/bad  cop,  intimidation,  lowball/highball,  nibble,  
snow  job.    
o Traditional  thinking  argues  that  you  should  name  the  other  
negotiator’s  use  of  these  tactics.  He  or  she  will  probably  stop  using  
them,  because  they  will  no  longer  have  the  desired  effect.    
 
Managing  difficult  negotiation    
The  Shadow  negotiation  and  changing  the  nature  of  the  game  are  alternative  
approaches  for  managing  difficult  negotiations.    
 
Shadow  negotiation    
-­‐ Deals  with  impasses,  dirty  tricks  and  other  counterproductive  tactics.    
-­‐ Since  full  disclosure  is  rare,  negotiators  must  make  assumptions  about  
the  other  party  –  what  he  or  she  wants,  weaknesses  etc.    
-­‐ In  the  negotiation  we  use  strategic  moves,  strategic  turns  and  
appreciative  moves.  
-­‐ Strategic  moves  and  turns  are  needed  for  true  problem  solving,  but  they  
are  not  sufficient.  Appreciative  moves  helps  with  establishing  connection  
with  the  other  party.    
Strategic  moves    
-­‐ Gives  the  other  party  encouragement  to  listen,  consider  and  negotiate  our  
ideas,  by  understanding  that  we  have  something  he/she  needs.    
-­‐  Build  a  platform  from  which  you  can  advocate  for  your  interests  and  
ensure  that  they  have  received  a  fair  hearing.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Strategic  turns  
-­‐ Is  used  to  reframe  the  conversation  when  it  turns  in  an  unproductive  
direction.  
-­‐ If  the  other  party  questions  your  abilities  or  motives,  threatens  you  etc.  
resistance  is  warranted.  It  is  critical  how  we  resist.  Even  if  it  feels  good  to  
respond  by  using  the  same  aggressive  tactics,  it  will  escalate  the  conflict  
or  create  impasses  that  can  be  hard  to  break.    
-­‐ The  way  to  react  is  to  interrupt  the  move  by  taking  a  break  (having  a  
drink,  make  a  phone  call  or  restroom)  –  this  will  give  you  time  to  think  
about  a  response.  OR  you  could  name  the  move  –  it  will  show  that  you  
understand  what  he/she  is  doing  and  it  clarifies  that  the  tactic  is  not  
working.      
Appreciative  moves  
-­‐ Creates  an  environment  that  will  enable  you  to  merge  ideas.  
-­‐ Helps  understand  the  other  party’s  perspectives  and  linkages  between  
these  perspectives  and  our  own.  
-­‐ Helps  managing  the  other  party’s  emotions  and  make  the  other  party  
more  receptive  to  your  ideas  and  arguments.  
 
Changing  the  nature  of  the  game  
 You  may  want  to  change  the  nature  of  the  game  when  the  other  party  is  being  
aggressive  and  using  distributive  tactics.  We  typically  give  in  or  quit  when  we  
are  being  attacked,  but  instead  of  quitting  we  should  go  to  the  balcony.  It  means  
that  we  can  distance  ourselves  from  the  stresses  and  unproductive  emotions  that  
the  negotiation  might  have  caused.  Going  to  the  balcony  allows  us  to  step  back  
and  collect  our  thoughts  and  see  the  situation  objectively.  It  is  also  important  to  
manage  your  own  emotions  –  think  thoughtfully  rather  than  emotionally  and  
avoid  making  an  important  decision  on  the  spot.    
Create  a  climate  that  is  conducive  to  problem  solving  –  creating  this  climate  
helps  us  manage  our  own  emotions  and  the  other  party’s.  We  should  not  ignore  
the  other  party’s  emotions.  Acknowledging  and  appreciating  his/her  ideas  and  
feelings  reduce  the  anger.  Use  “I”  instead  of  “you”  –  “I  feel  frustrated  when  this  
happens”  rather  than  “You  frustrate  me  when  you  do  this”.  
Problem  solve  –  after  creating  this  climate  it  is  time  to  change  the  nature  of  the  
game  and  solve  the  problem(s).  This  may  require  patience  and  self-­‐control  and  

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

maybe  more  wordsmith,  but  it  should  help  refocus  them  on  the  problem.  Ask  
questions  like  why  a  particular  position  important,  or  how  it  would  help..  etc.  If  
this  doesn’t  help  then  ask  “If  you  were  in  my  position  how  would  you  handle  
this?”    
-­‐ Reframe  the  negotiation  to  be  about  interests  and  not  positions.    
 
Managing  difficult  conversations  
Some  negotiations  are  difficult  and  elicit  anxiety  and  we  may  prefer  to  avoid  
them,  but  sometimes  it  is  not  possible  and  it  is  not  wise  to  avoid  them.  
Difficult  conversations  involve  3  separate  conversations:  
The  conversations  within  a  difficult  conversation  
-­‐ Your  story  of  what  happened  and  her/his  story  differ.  Do  not  assume  that  
you  are  right  and  he/she  is  wrong.  Our  stories  differ  because  or  
background,  personality  influence  our  choices.    
-­‐ Difficulties  may  also  arise  because  we  assume  that  we  know  what  the  
other  person  intended  to  do.  Blaming  the  other  party  stops  us  to  find  out  
what  really  caused  the  problem.  Blaming  looks  backward  and  problem  
solving  requires  us  to  look  forward.    
The  feeling  conversation  
-­‐ This  conversation  is  about  how  to  deal  with  feelings.    
-­‐ Ignoring  feelings  precludes  us  from  learning  important  things  about  each  
other  such  as  likes,  dislikes  etc.,  and  unexpressed  feelings  will  be  
expressed  in  unproductive  ways  if  we  wait  for  them  to  leak  into  the  
conversation.    
The  identity  conversation  
-­‐ The  most  challenging  conversation  because  we  need  to  look  deep  and  find  
out  what  this  conversation  is  saying  about  ourselves.    
-­‐ Identity  issues  makes  us  anxious  because  we  tend  to  consider  our  self-­‐
concepts  in  “all  or  nothing”  terms.    
How  to  manage  them  –  additional  steps  1-­8  (page  396)  
 
Say  “NO”  positively    
Say  “No”  respectfully.  Say  “Yes”  to  your  own  interests  and  “No”  to  the  opposite  –  
this  will  invite  the  other  party  to  reach  a  beneficial  agreement  with  you.  Avoid  
attacking  by  saying  “No”  to  the  demand  itself  and  not  to  him/her.    

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Third party negotiation - CHAPTER 14 - Alternative dispute resolution

• The essence of third party intervention:

You initially engaged in the negotiation because you thought you could do better with the other
party than you could on your own, so walking away does not make much sense unless you have
improved your BATNA. Suing does not make much sense either since it is very costly, and the
person who will be telling you what to do probably has little or no expertise within the field and no
concern for your interests. Walking away or suing is not likely to yield beneficial outcomes.
• Alternative dispute resolution (ADR):
Many have bought into ADR to because it is faster and less expensive and it yields solutions that
are more beneficial to you. The most common forms of ADR is arbitration or mediation - usually to
help with commercial and employment problems.
An American Arbitration Association survey found that some companies have adopted a strong risk
management focus that enables them to avoid minimize legislation and reserve disputes quickly
and inexpensively.
• When is ADR likely to be used:
Negotiators are most likely to seek third party assistance when emotions preclude them from
finding acceptable solutions.
• When ADR is likely to be used:
Negotiators are most likely to seek third party assistance when emotions preclude finding
acceptable solutions. Involve neutral third parties. Mediators lack direct outcome control, but they
influence outcomes appreciably by facilitating communication and problem solving. Arbitrators
have outcome control because they impose solutions on disputants that are, in most cases, final
and binding. Simply put, mediators facilitate negotiations by managing the process and arbitrators
listen to the information presented by the parties, apply it to their interpretations of the pertinent
legal, contactual or policy provisions, and then render decisions that are usually final or binding.
• Mediation:
A person who is acceptable to the negotiators intervenes to help them voluntary reach a mutually
acceptable solution to their problem. Mediators have no authority to make final outcomes decisions
- that is left to the negotiators. Mediators in other words var in how much they emphasize.
”Orchestrators empower negotiators to solve their own problems and make their own decisions,
they focus on developing better relationships between negotiators, assisting with the process.
”Dealmakers” are more directive on both substantive and process interests. They delineate the
problem-solving steps to be followed, determine who talks and when, decide weather the parties
meet jointly os separately, voice their opinions about the issues and assume a much more active
role in inventing in inventing options for or with other parties. Orchestras are more relationship
printed while dealmakers are more outcome oriented.
• When Mediation is most appropriate:
Mediation is most appropriate when the conflict is moderately intense, the parties are receptive to
assistance and motivated to settle, they believe in then mediation process and are committed to it.
The problem is more about creating terms of a new contract than interpreting an existing one.
Mediators help negotiators save face, enhance relationships, remove or reduce obstacles to
agreement and produce outcomes the negotiators desire and value. The may also help the parties
solve the true cause of the problem rather than the symptoms or the surface issues (overall their
success rate is above 60%). Mediators are most likely to enjoy this success if they gain the
negotiators acceptance, trust and confidence and the conflict is ripe. Acceptability is establishes by
demonstrating empathy trustworthiness and flexibility, and by remaining calm and friendly.
Ripeness or readiness means that the conflict has induced enough discomfort to motivate the
parties to settle, but not so much that they ar unable to do so. Mediators success also depends
upon how effectively they structure the discussions, follow an agenda and make sure they do not
embarrass the negotiators. Treats the parties fairly.
• How the mediation process works:
Negotiators are generally more satisfied with mediation that arbitration and the legal system
because it is less costly and time consuming, and because they participate directly in creating the
outcome. In general, mediators attempt to identify the issues or problems to be addressed,
determine what is causing them and their consequences, and then formulate plausible solutions. In

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

essence, it facilitates separate the people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than
positions, inventing options and using objective criteria to evaluate the operations that are
invented.
• Opening remarks:
Mediators begin by introducing themselves, the negotiators, the representatives. They explain that
the process explain that the process in voluntary, the negotiators may accept or reject whatever
solutions are proposed and they may leave the session if they decide it is not working well enough
for them. They also explain that the goal of the mediation is to find a mutually acceptable solution.
To accomplish this goal they discuss the roles that will be assumed by each of the participants.
The mediators role is to facilitate the negotiation to help the parties create ab acceptable solution.
The role of the negotiators is to create the solution. In these opening remarks, the confidentiality of
the process is discussed. Mediators explain what caucuses are and what they might be called.
Then they outline the process - the parties will share the perspectives of the situation, the issues
and interests revealed will be summarized to create an agenda, joint problem solving will follow,
and a written agreement will be prepared of an agreement is reached. Mediators close their
opening remarks by setting ground rules. Includes asking negotiators to be respectful and to avoid
interrupting each other while speaking. These opening remarks are valuable because they help to
clarify expectations and reduce uncertainty of fear about what will happen. Opening remarks allow
mediators to begin earning the negotiators trust and confidence, both of which enhance the
effectiveness of the process. Establishing behavioral guidelines or ground rules help mediators
manage emotions and other obstacles that may be elicited by tensions of frustrations. Opening
remarks are largely presented by the mediator and should be kept brief so the parties do not get
bored or overwhelmed. Involving negotiators may also enhance their trust and confidence in the
mediator.
• Sharing perspectives:
The stage of the process begins when the mediator starts asking open ended questions ”What are
important issues we need to address” (ask the questions objectively). This give him of her an
understanding of the situation and identify the parties issues and interests. It allows the negotiators
to express themselves productively and feel heard. The mediator may ask probing and clarifying
questions, and repeating what has been said. They may never have fully heard each others sides
before.
• Mediators summary:
Summarizing what he or she heard gives the mediator a possibility to create a final list of interest
and issues that should be addressed. Frame the issues neutrally to not arouse negative emotions.
Last the negotiators are asked to brainstorm mutually beneficial solutions. When a sufficient
number has been reached, the mediator and the negotiator will evaluate them relative the parties.
If a verbal agreement is reached a written document must be written clearly.
• Arbitration:
While mediation is an extension, elaboration or continuation of the negotiation process, arbitration
is a method for resolving failed negotiations by having a third party impose a decision on the
negotiators. It is usually used to settle disputes - violations of legal, contractual policy provisions.
To a lesser degree, it is used to finish negotiations that fail to produce a new contract. A person
who has no vested interest in the outcome listens to the evidence and testimony presented by the
negotiators, applies it to his or her interpretation of the legal, contractual policy provision at issue,
and renders a decision that is usually binding - legally enforceable. Arbitrators exert limited control
over what information is presented and how. Witnesses take an oath to perjure themselves.
Participants may object use of certain information, the arbitrator can agree to that or overrule them
and allow it. They weigh evidence when they make decisions and weigh it accordingly.
• When Arbitration is most appropriate an effective:
Arbitration is most effective when the negotiation is intense, and the parties are not motivate to
settle. The primary advantages of arbitration is that it provides a definite resolution to the problem,
and it is simpler, faster and less costly than litigation. This is a high profile from ADR because it is
used in labor management relations and professional athletes salary disputes. It also has a long
history in disputes between investors and investment companies in international disputes.
• Problems with Arbitration:

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

The biasing (unfair) effect (a pattern that systematically favors one side or the other creates the
perception that are biased). The chilling effect (Disputants who believe that achieving and
acceptable solution is unlikely and the arbitrator will simply split the difference between the final
offers are not likely to compromise or negotiate seriously to find solutions. The decision -
acceptance effect (People do not like to be told what to do. They are more likely to accept and
commit to decisions they help create. The half life effect (the more arbitration is used, the less
satisfaction the parties derive from both the process and the outcomes produced. The narcotic
effect (to avoid what will be an insufficient use of their time, disputant defer to the arbitration too
quickly.
• Interoperation cases: Custom and past practice (Past practice and well established habits of
action).. Industry practice (arbitrators interpretations reflect industry practice). Arbitrators view
documents in their entirely, not in isolated parts.
• Does a rule or performance standard exist: There must be a specific rule against a particular
act or a clear performance standard. Disciplining someone for violating a non existing rule or
performance standard is unjust. Is the rule reasonable? Was the rule communicated to the
party? Did the party actually violate the rule?
• Mandatory arbitration:
Requires clients, costumer and employees to arbitrate all disputes rather than pursue legal action.
Arbitration: Simpler, faster and cheaper than legal disputes.
• How arbitration works:
Arbitration is used to complete negotiation of new contracts. Commonly invoked when parties
believe that a legal, contractual or policy provision has been violated. Arbitration usually begin with
the claimant, and then the defendant, presenting their opening statements. Rather than introducing
facts and evidence the parties take this opportunity to briefly explain what they intend to provide
during the hearing - why they are right and why the other party is wrong. Witnesses who must take
on an oath, are called to present evidence and testimony in the second part of the hearing.
• Managers as third parties:
Dealing with employee conflict is a common problem managers faces. Helping employees or other
managers solve the problems is an important managerial competency to solve problems quickly
and privately.
• How managers should intervene
Inquisitors exert high outcome control and high process control - this is how most managers
intervene and is typical of the legal system in European countries. Arbitrators exert high outcome
control, but low process control. Mediators exert high process control, but low outcome control.
Motivators exert little outcome and process control.
• Determinants of which strategy should be used:
A variety of contingency or criteria must be considers before choosing a strategy. Goals of the
manager - effectiveness, efficiency and compliance (timely manner to not consume excessive
resources, and it must be congruent with the organizations goals). Characteristics of the conflict
(time pressure, intensity of the conflict, importance of the conflict). Characteristics of the parties
(power of the third party, the power of the negotiators, the ability of the negotiators to create good
solutions).
Look at the figure for intervention strategies on page 422.
Inquisitor - Managers should control the process and outcome but also make sure to be fair to the
disputants.
Mediation - Managers must intervene in this manner when the outcome must be effective, fair and
acceptable to all disputants. This engages in a long term relationship. The managers believe that
the disputants are able to create an effective solution.
Arbitration - Managers do not believe that the disputants can create an effective solution. Should
adopt this strategy when serious time pressure make efficiency important.
Motivation - The managers encourage the disputants to find a solution so they can move on.

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|2115468

Distributing prohibited | Downloaded by Muhammad Irfan Riaz ([email protected])