Samenvatting
Samenvatting Literature - Managing negotiations: getting to yes (E_BK3_MNGY)
Samenvatting Literature - Managing negotiations: getting to yes (E_BK3_MNGY)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 45 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 45 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Tsay & Bazerman - A Decision-Making Perspective to Negotiation: A Review of thePast and a Look to the Future
Introduction:
The 1990s brought a renewed interest in social factors, as work on social relationships,
egocentrism, attribution and construal processes, and motivated illusions was incorporated
into our understanding of negotiations.
The Decision-analytic approach:
The decision-analytic approach to negotiations described how “erring folks like you and me
actually behave”, rather than “how we should behave if we were smarter, thought harder,
were more consistent, were all-knowing”.
Individual biases in negotiation:
Behavioral decision researchers identified the systematic ways in which people depart from
rationality, to identify the barriers to the focal negotiator and to identify what could be
expected from other parties. Rationality did not make any assumptions about what the
negotiator valued, only that they optimally pursued their own objectives.
Competitive biases in negotiation:
We learned that negotiators tend to assume that negotiation tasks are fixed-sum, to miss
opportunities for mutually beneficial trade offs between the parties; to escalate commitment
to a previously selected course of action when it is no longer the most reasonable
alternative; to overlook valuable, available information by failing to consider the opponent’s
cognitive perspective and strengths and weaknesses; and to retroactively devalue any
concession made by one’s opponent.
Bringing social psychology back to the table:
While the behavioral decision perspective had a significant influence on the scholarship and
practice of negotiation, it was soon criticized for taking an overly narrow view of the
negotiation process. Namely, some argued that the perspective missed several key social
components that are critical to the practical task of negotiating more effectively.
Social relationships: in the 1990s, relationships returned as a variable that affects the
quality of negotiators’ decisions and the wisdom of the outcomes they negotiate. Disputants’
reported preferences for monetary payoffs were greatly influenced by payoffs to and
relationships with their hypothetical counterparts. Behaviors that appear irrational form the
individual perspective may be rational from the perspective of the dyad.
Egocentrism: when parties disagree about what fair is, each side assumes that the
other party is intentionally overstating its case. The motivational bias (parties overweight
views that favor themselves) results in that we look to what is fair through a self-serving lens.
Negotiators are egocentric and the more egocentric they are, the higher the likelihood of
impasse is.
, Motivated illusions: humans see themselves, their side of a negotiation, and the
future in a considerably more positive light than more realistic assessments would justify. We
perceive ourselves as being better than others on desirable attributes, and we make
unrealistically positive self-evaluations. Negotiators’ optimism can be traced to the
overestimation of their ability to control uncontrollable events. Positive illusions can also
have social costs: unsuccessful negotiators denigrate their more successful counterparts by
attributing their success to uncooperative and unethical bargaining tactics.
Attributional processes: negotiators play the negotiation game they perceive, rather
than some objective specification of a game. As a result, attributional processes are critical
to understanding the decisions of negotiators. Negotiators exaggerate the polarization
between two groups in conflict. When the basis for others’ behavior is ambiguous, people
will tend to attribute it to sinister motivations. The decisions in the prisoner’s dilemma game
could be influenced by the name assigned to that game and the presentation of it.
Where do we go next?
As the field of negotiation develops and expands, we believe the decision perspective will
continue to play a central role and that the areas of research reviewed above will continue to
expand. Some important new directions in negotiation research and practice:
● Ethics in Negotiation
● Emotions
● Negotiator intuition
● The natural Negotiator
Conclusion:
Even as it has transitioned from decision analysis to behavioral decision research to social
psychology, the decision perspective to negotiation has remained central to practitioners and
academics alike, offering both practical relevance and the foundation for exciting new lines
of research.
Sebenius - Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators
Wherever parties with different interests and perceptions depend on each other for results,
negotiation matters. There are as many specific reasons for bad outcomes in negotiations as
there are individuals and deals.
In any negotiation, each side ultimately must choose between two options: accepting
a deal or taking its best no-deal option – that is, the course of action it would take if the deal
were not possible. While protecting your own choice, your negotiation problem is to
understand and shape your counterpart’s perceived decision – deal versus no deal – so that
the other side chooses in its own interest what you want. Understanding your counterpart’s
interests and shaping the decision so the other side agrees for its own reasons is the key to
jointly creating and claiming sustainable value from a negotiation.
There are six common mistakes that keep negotiators from solving the right problem:
1. Neglecting the other side’s problem: it is good to know your own interests, but the
other side will say yes for its reasons, not yours, so agreement requires
understanding and addressing your counterpart’s problem as a means to solving
your own. At a minimum, you need to understand the problem from the other side’s
perspective. If you want to change someone’s mind, you should first learn where that
, person’s mind is. Then, together, you can try to build a “golden bridge”, spanning the
gulf between where your counterpart is now and your desired end point.
2. Letting price bulldoze other interests: negotiators who pay attention exclusively to
price turn potentially cooperative deals into adversarial ones. While price is an
important factor in most deals, it’s rarely the only one. Most deals are 50% emotion
and 50% economics. When a split feels too unequal to people, they reject the spoils
as unfair, are offended by the process, and perhaps try to teach the “greedy” person
a lesson.
People care about much more than the absolute level of their own economic
outcome; competing interests include relative results, perceived fairness,
self-image, reputation, and so on. Successful negotiators, acknowledging that
economic aren’t everything, focus on four important nonprice factors:
1. The relationship
2. The social contract
3. The process
4. The interests of the full set of players
3. Letting positions drive out interests: three elements are at play in a negotiation:
issues are on the table for explicit agreement, positions are one party’s stands on the
issues and interests are underlying concerns that would be affected by the resolution.
Despite the clear advantages of reconciling deeper interests, people have a built-in
bias toward focusing on their own positions instead. The trick is to recognize and
productively manage the tension between cooperative actions needed to create
value and competitive ones needed to claim it. The pie must be both expanded and
divided.
4. Searching too hard for common ground: conventional wisdom says we negotiate to
overcome the differences that divide us. So, typically, we’re advised to find win-win
agreements by searching for common ground. But, many of the most frequently
overlooked sources of value in negotiation arise from differences among the parties.
A host of other differences make up the raw material for joint gains. A less
risk-averse party can “insure” a more risk-averse one. If we were all exactly the
same, there would be little to negotiate. While common ground helps, differences
drive deals. But negotiators who don’t actively search for differences rarely find them.
5. Neglecting BATNAs: “the best alternative to a negotiated agreement”. A BATNA may
involve walking away, prolonging a stalemate, approaching another potential buyer,
making something in-house rather than procuring it externally, going to court rather
than settling, forming a different alliance, or going on strike. It sets the threshold that
any acceptable agreement must exceed. Both parties doing better than their BATNAs
is a necessary condition for an agreement. Not only should you assess your own
BATNA, you should also think carefully about the other side’s.
6. Failing to correct for skewed vision: you may be clear on the right negotiation
problem – but you can’t solace it correctly without a firm understanding of both sides’
interests, BATNAs, valuations, likely actions, and so on.
a. Self-serving role bias: people tend unconsciously to interpret information
pertaining to their own side in a strongly self-serving way.
b. Partisan perceptions: while we systematically err in processing information
critical to our own side, we are even worse at assessing the other side –
especially in an adversarial situation.
, The very best negotiators take a broader approach to setting up and solving the right
problem. With a keen sense of the potential value to be created as their guiding beacon,
these negotiators are game-changing entrepreneurs.
Haselhuhn - Support theory in negotiation: How unpacking aspirations and
alternatives can improve negotiation performance
Negotiators that address uncertainty by unpacking their positive alternatives and aspirations
judge these outcomes to be more likely to occur and achieve better negotiation outcomes
compared with negotiators who consider these same outcomes as a single package.
Unpacking potential negative outcomes leads negotiators to demand less in the current
negotiation and claim less value as a result.
Understanding how people respond to uncertainty in negotiations is important, both
in predicting negotiation outcomes and in constructing prescriptive advice for negotiators.
Alternatives and aspirations:
Negotiators’ perceptions of the range of potential agreements are a key factor in determining
negotiation outcomes. The combination of a negotiator’s own bottom line along with the
perceived upper limit of his or her counterpart defines the boundaries within which the
negotiation will occur. It is important for negotiators to consider their reservation point before
entering the negotiation, lest they reach an agreement that leaves them worse off than if
they reach an agreement that leaves them worse off than if they had walked away from the
bargaining table. Having strong alternatives is important, both because they protect
negotiators should a negotiation fall apart and because having stronger alternatives than
one’s counterpart gives a negotiator greater power in demanding a better deal in the current
negotiation.
Considering one’s alternatives and reservation point is key in defining the lower
boundaries of what one would accept in a negotiation. At the other end of the spectrum,
negotiators’ goals, or aspiration levels, define the upper boundaries of what they can hope to
achieve. These aspirations have powerful effects on negotiation outcomes as well.
Developing one’s reservation point or aspiration level typically involves uncertainty regarding
alternative opportunities or the potential value that can be claimed in the current negotiation.
Uncertainty in negotiation:
Uncertainty is inherent in the negotiation process and is relevant in several aspects of the
negotiation experience. The greatest source of uncertainty stems from one’s counterpart,
such as their intentions, goals, and whether they intend to abide by the terms of the
agreement. Negotiators must also account for potential uncertainty regarding their own
alternatives. Recognizing uncertainty is important, as negotiators’ judgments and goals may
change dramatically depending on how they consider these events.
An event is considered more likely to occur when it is unpacked into components,
compared with when it is considered as a single package. Unpacking an event increases the
judged likelihood of occurrence by reminding individuals of outcomes that they may have
otherwise forgotten and by increasing the salience of information that may be considered.
Applying support theory to the negotiation domain suggests that whether negotiators
consider their aspirations and alternatives as a comprehensive package versus an
elaborated set of options may have important implications for how they perceive the
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper farahvandenberg. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52510 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen