This document summarizes key negotiation concepts from a business course, including biases that can negatively impact negotiations, and strategies for principled negotiation. It discusses availability heuristic, confirmation bias, framing effects, and other cognitive biases. It then covers preparing for negotiations by understanding interests and alternatives. The core of principled negotiation is separating people from the problem, focusing on interests over positions, inventing options before deciding, and basing agreements on objective standards.
This document summarizes key negotiation concepts from a business course, including biases that can negatively impact negotiations, and strategies for principled negotiation. It discusses availability heuristic, confirmation bias, framing effects, and other cognitive biases. It then covers preparing for negotiations by understanding interests and alternatives. The core of principled negotiation is separating people from the problem, focusing on interests over positions, inventing options before deciding, and basing agreements on objective standards.
This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded or distributed.
BUS 485 Week 3: Grand Strand Agenda
Biases in Grand Debrief & Principled
Negotiation Strand Feedback Negotiation Biases in Negotiation Biases in Negotiation •Bias is a mental shortcut that unconsciously affects perceptions & conclusions •Can reinforce conflict and competition in negotiations Availability Heuristic and Confirmation Bias • Availability: tend to rely too much on readily available information, even if it is not most reliable or relevant • more vivid information • information that is unusual or more easily remembered • Confirmation Bias: we tend to seek out information to confirm our beliefs and hypothesis • ignore or discount other relevant information • attention can be primed to look for that information Framing & Endowment Effect • Framing: decisions can be impacted on how information is presented and the reference point • Framed of a “good deal” can lead you to value something more than you would have otherwise • Framing as a gain or a loss can change your risk tolerance • Tolerate less risk of losing potential gains as compare with potential losses, even if they are the same result • Endowment effect: when we own something, giving it up requires more from us than we would give to acquire it Fundamental Attribution Error • Tend to overestimate the cause of another’s behaviour in terms of personal or internal factors • i.e. they got this wrong because they are incompetent • Underestimate the role of situational or external factors • i.e. it was not incompetence, but they did not have time due to an emergency • Result: judge others more harshly than ourselves • Try to focus on objective facts, not attributions Illusion of Transparency • We tend to be too confident that others fully understand what we mean to communicate • What we say can take on many different meanings • Assume that others understand us so tend not to explain fully, leave message unclear • Don’t assume – ask others what they mean, and ask them to confirm your meaning Escalation of Commitment & Anchoring Escalation of Commitment • Many refuse to deviate from their initial approach even when it is failing • Counteract: • Recognize sunk costs cannot be recovered • Consider only future costs and benefits Anchoring Bias (last week) • Tend to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered. Overconfidence & Egocentrism • Overconfidence: Inflated confidence in our own judgments and choices • Egocentrism: Negotiators’ self-serving beliefs that their position is the most fair and right • Counteract with advice (neutral parties; third parties with expertise) • Ask yourself: “Why might this be the wrong decision?” Grand Strand Debrief Questions • Buyer’s BATNA? RP? Interests? • Seller’s BATNA? RP? Interests? • If you were a buyer, did you reveal your BATNA? • What other information did you choose to reveal or conceal? Why? • What makes a good agreement? • If you tried to make an objective valuation of the B&B, what was it? • What were your opening offers? • At what point during the negotiations were numbers discussed? • Did anyone turn down an offer to work at Swansea? Grand Strand – Seller Interests: • pay debt • change careers • 1-year spiritual retreat BATNA: weak because needs to sell immediately due to debt RP: $920 K • needs $800 K immediately for debt • needs $120 K for living expenses & kids’ tuition, but not immediately Grand Strand - Buyer Interests: • land & B&B (expansion) • full control of property • open to employing owner somehow • European quality furnishings BATNA: purchase larger property for $1.3 M RP: $850 K • $1.15 M – $300 K for neighbouring property ZOPA / Bargaining Zone Information Sharing What information should you conceal / reveal? • Useful to reveal information about your interests and priorities • vacation and job • forms a basis for creating value • builds trust • Not useful to share information that will reveal your reservation price • debt / marital problems Principled Concessions Accompany your concessions with a reason or explanation for making the concession • If there is no reason, other party will conclude your price is arbitrary • Will want to push for more concessions because won’t know if close to your RP Lessons from Grand Strand? • Creating value is an important negotiation technique • APPEARS to be negative bargaining zone, but getting behind positions to interests helps to “expand the pie” • Creative solutions can result in an agreement • Use preparation to help you find ways to create value • Distributive negotiating style (extreme opening offers) can make it more difficult to create value • May need to revisit issues/proposals Principled Negotiation Integrative Negotiation • Distributive vs. Integrative • Distributive: about increasing your share of the pie (competitive, value claiming) • Integrative: about increasing the pie as a whole so that you both get a larger share (cooperative, value creating) • Most negotiations involve both value claiming and value creating • More complex and difficult • Both competition and cooperation Interests vs. Positions Two people want one orange
Position: both say they need
ALL of it
Look at underlying interests:
• Rind • Fruit
Both can achieve 100% of their
interests, instead of settling for something less Positional Bargaining Each side takes a position, tries to persuade the other side, and makes concessions to reach a compromise. Problems: • People get locked into their position • Inefficient back and forth • Obscures true interests • Does not usually result in the best agreements • Can hurt relationships Principled Negotiation Identify INTERESTS and bargain over those • Helps define the problem – where is the conflict, and what are the potential solutions? Principled negotiation allows you to: • Decide issues on their merits • Create value and find mutual gains • Resolve conflicts through fair standards Be FIRM on your INTERESTS but FLEXIBLE on the SOLUTION • Don’t compromise just to compromise Interests: Selling a House After you identify the issues in the negotiation PRIORITIZE Identify your interests: • Profit 2 • Least amount of stress and hassle 3 • Done in time for wedding 1 Preparation Identify and try to improve your BATNA • Could you attract more buyers if you drop the price or wait for the busy seasons? Can you rent out your property? Do you have another purchaser? Assess the other party • BATNA: Interested in other properties? • Is there something else they have to offer? Or that you can offer? i.e. if purchaser is a wedding planner / caterer / has a wedding venue, they can add that as part of the exchange 4 Parts of Principled Negotiations 1. Separate the people from the problem 2. Focus on interests, not positions 3. Generate possibilities for mutual gain before your decision 4. Use objective criteria as a basis for your decision Separate People from the Problem Problem-solving instead of competing against people Likely to result in better solution & better relationship • Parties likely to accept jointly-developed solutions • Can address their concerns where possible to do so without unduly compromising your own interests Communication is key • Use active listening, ask questions, don’t assume! How to Deal with… Perceptual Differences • May see facts differently and have differing preferences on outcomes • Discuss and identify differing perceptions • Use active listening to confirm / demonstrate your understanding of their perspective Emotional Reactions • Emotions can run high and jeopardize an agreement • Recognize emotions and listen without blame • Try interacting outside of the negotiation (i.e. lunch) Focus on Interests • Use open questions to probe behind their positions and demands to discover their interests. • Ask “Why?” or “Why not?” • More likely to find solution than if you argue with them • Use active listening to confirm understanding of their interests • Try to deal with their interests as well as your own • Describe your interests/reasons first, then offer proposals • Be open to solutions that might satisfy your interests that you have not considered Inventing Options • In advance! • Look for lots of options • Avoid assuming that there is a fixed-pie; try to create value! • Try to help them solve their problem too • Find mutual interests - create a shared goal • Dovetail differing interests (orange example) • Trade off items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them (and vice versa) Objective Criteria Independent of each side’s will; should be legitimate and practical Objective standards • blue book value; past sales; similar contracts or other precedents; scientific or professional standards; efficiency Objective procedures • one cuts, other chooses; experts; arbitrator; court Be open to reason as which standards should be used Don’t give in to pressure when you can find a principled reason for your agreement. Objective Criteria Why? • Reinforces use of principled bargaining in the future •Reinforces the relationship •Helps counter biases
Frame a negotiation as a search for objective criteria instead
of trading positions • Both sides feel better about the agreement