Ch8 Flashcards
(93 cards)
1
Q
how does power operate in negotiation
A
the probability that a negotiator will influence a negotiation outcome in the direction of his or her ideal outcome
2
Q
for dual conerns model look at ch1 end subsection
A
3
Q
2 perspective on pwoer
A
DISTIRBUTIVE: power used to dominate and control the other
INTEGRATIVE: power used to work together with other
4
Q
why do people seek power
A
- negotiator believes they currently have les spower than other
- negotiator believes they NEED more power than other to gain/sustain advantage
5
Q
3 different strategic paorcahes to negotion
A
INTERESTS: negts focus on this when they strive to learn about each others intersts to create value
RIGHTS: negts focus on rights when they seek to resolve a dispute by principles of law and fairness
POWER: focus on power when they use threats or other emans to coerce others to make concessions
6
Q
sources of power
A
expert power
reward power: being able to reward others for doing what needs to be done
coercive power: being able to punish
legiitmate power
referent power: being likeld
7
Q
5 differrent groupings of power
A
a. informational
b. personality and indiv differences:
c. position based power
d. relationship base dpower
e. contextual soruces of pwoer
8
Q
Personality and individual differencesPower derived from differences in
Psychological orientation (broad orientations to power use).
Cognitive orientation (ideologies about power). []
Motivational orientation (specific motives to use power).
Dispositions and skills (orientations to cooperation/competition).
Moral orientation (philosophical orientations to power use).
Moods and dispositions.
A
9
Q
Informational
Information: the accumulation and presentation of data intended to change the other person’s point of view or position on an issue.
Expertise: an acknowledged accumulation of information, or mastery of a body of information, on a particular problem or issue.
A
Power derived from expertise is a special form of information power. The power that comes from information is available to anyone who assembles facts and figures to support arguments, but expert power is accorded to those who are seen as having achieved some level of command and mastery of a body of information. Experts are accorded respect, deference, and credibility based on their knowledge, experience, or accomplishments. One or both parties in a negotiation will give experts’ arguments more credibility than those of nonexperts—but only to the extent that the expertise is seen as functionally relevant to the persuasion situation.6 For example, someone knowledgeable about cars may not be an expert on motorcycles. Thus, a negotiator who would like to take advantage of his or her expertise will often need to demonstrate that this expertise, first, actually exists and, second, is relevant to the issues under discussion.
10
Q
Position-based powerPower derived from being located in a particular position in an organizational or communication structure; leads to several different kinds of leverage:
Legitimate power, or formal authority, derived from occupying a key position in a hierarchical organization. However, legitimate power can also influence social norms, such as
Reciprocity, or the expected exchange of favors.
Equity, or the expected return after one has gone out of one’s way for the other.
Dependence, or the expected obligation one owes to others who cannot help themselves.
Resource control, or the accumulation of money, raw material, labor, time, and equipment that can be used as incentives to encourage compliance or as punishments for noncompliance. Resource control is manifested
A
The second way that power can be created is through individual differences—stable tendencies and personality traits that affect how individuals acquire and use power. Individuals have different psychological orientations to social situations. We focus here on three such orientations that guide behavior in situations where power matters: cognitive, motivational, and moral orientations
11
Q
Relationship-based power
Goal interdependence—how the parties view the interrelatedness of their goals
Referent power—based on an appeal to the other based on common experiences, group membership, status, etc.
A
12
Q
Contextual powerPower derived from the context in which negotiations take place. Common sources of contextual power include
Availability of BATNAs.
Organizational and national culture.
Availability of agents, constituencies, and audiences who can directly or indirectly affect the outcomes of the negotiation.
A
13
Q
cognitive orientation
A
Cognitive orientation refers to how individuals perceive and interpret power dynamics, influenced by three ideological frames:
Unitary Frame: Believes society is a cohesive whole, with individual and collective interests aligning. Power is seen as manageable, often used benevolently for the common good.
Radical Frame: Views society as a battleground of conflicting social, political, and class interests, where power is fundamentally imbalanced. This perspective is often associated with Marxist ideology.
Pluralist Frame: Assumes power is distributed fairly equally among various groups, leading to competition and negotiation for influence. This view is prevalent in liberal democracies.
These frames shape how individuals understand and engage with power dynamics in their environment.
14
Q
motivational orientaiton
A
A second orientation focuses on differences in individual motivations—that is, differences rooted more in needs and “energizing elements” of the personality rather than in ideology. Several authors have suggested that orientations to power are broadly grounded in individual dispositions to be cooperative or competitive (e.g., the dual concerns model, Chapter 1).9 Competitive dispositions and skills may emphasize the “power over” approach and suggest that people with these dispositions maintain skills such as sustaining energy and stamina; maintaining focus; and having high expertise, strong self-confidence, and high tolerance for conflict. Cooperative dispositions and skills are more allied with the “power with” approach, emphasizing skills such as sensitivity to others, flexibility, and ability to consider and incorporate the views of others into an agreement.
15
Q
moral orientation towards power
A
Individuals differ in their moral views about power and its use. The general belief among negotiation researchers is that negotiators dominantly act on the basis of self-interest, doing only what is best for themselves. In Chapter 5, we discussed how differences in the pursuit of self-interest broadly affect the use of ethical and unethical tactics in negotiation. But recent research has shown that there is a strong relationship between an individual’s self-interest and “moral identity”—that is, a broader commitment to act on behalf of the broader common good. Individuals with a strong moral identity are less likely to act in their own self-interest, even when they have more power than the other.10 Thus, the notion that “power corrupts” and leads power holders to abuse their power in a negotiation is not always true; a strong moral identity can moderate this tendency.
16
Q
power based on positon in an org (structureal power)
A
In contrast to power based on personality characteristics and qualities, power is also shaped by the “structural” characteristics of an organization—that is, how a group or organization is designed so that some individuals have more power or authority than others. We discuss two different approaches to structure that can influence negotiating power. The first way relies on traditional approaches to organizational structure—that is, a hierarchy of boxes or organizational jobs and positions that form a traditional organizational chart. The second way involves an alternative approach to organization structure that thinks of these structures as networks, showing how a negotiator’s location in a network can also contribute to bargaining power.
17
Q
elgitimate power
A
Legitimate power is derived from occupying a particular job, office, or position in an organizational structure. In this case, the power resides in the title, duties, and responsibilities of the job itself, and the “legitimacy” of the officeholder comes from the title and duties of the job description within that organization context. Thus, a newly promoted vice president acquires some legitimate power merely from holding the title of vice president.
Legitimate power is at the foundation of our social structure. When individuals and groups organize into any social system—a small business, a combat unit, a labor union, a political action organization, a sports team, a task force—they typically create some form of structure and hierarchy. They elect or appoint a leader and may introduce formal rules about decision making, work division, allocation of esponsibilities, and conflict management. Without this social order, groups have difficulty taking any coordinated action (chaos prevails), or everyone tries to participate in every decision and group coordination takes forever.
People can acquire legitimate power in several ways. First, it may be acquired at birth. For instance, the King of England may control a great deal of the personal wealth of the monarchy, but has little actual power in terms of his ability to run the day-to-day affairs of Britain. Second, legitimate power may be acquired by election to a designated office: The U.S. President has substantial legitimate power derived from the constitutional structure of the American government. Third, legitimate power is derived simply by appointment or promotion to some organizational positions, such as a corporate director, general manager, or CEO. Finally, some legitimate authority comes to an individual who occupies a position for which other people simply show respect. Usually, such respect is derived from the intrinsic social good or important social values of that person’s position or organization. In many societies, the young listen to and obey older adults. People also listen to college presidents or the members of the clergy. While clergy members, college presidents, and others in prestigious roles may have precious little they can actually give to individuals as rewards or use against them as coercive punishments, they still have considerable legitimate power.11
Page 186
The effectiveness of formal authority is derived from the willingness of followers to acknowledge the legitimacy of the organizational structure and the system of rules and regulations that empowers its leaders.12 In short, legitimate power cannot function without obedience or the consent of the governed. If the president’s cabinet members and key advisers are unwilling to act on presidential orders, then the president’s effectiveness is nullified. When enough people begin to distrust an authority or discredit its legitimacy, they will begin to defy it and thereby undermine its potential as a power source.
Although we have been talking about organizational structures and positions as conferring legitimacy, it is also possible to apply the notion of legitimacy to certain social norms or conventions that exert strong control over people.13 Examples include the following:
The legitimate power of reciprocity, a very strong social norm that prescribes that if one person does something positive or favorable for the other, the gesture or favor is expected to be returned (“I did you a favor; I expect you to do one for me”).
The legitimate power of equity, another strong social norm, in which the agent has a right to request compensation from the other if the agent goes out of his or her way or endures suffering for the other (“I went out of my way for you; the least you could do for me is comply with my wishes”).
The legitimate power of responsibility or dependence, a third strong social norm that says we have an obligation to help others who cannot help themselves and are dependent on us (“I understood that the other really needed help on this and could not do it alone”).
18
Q
resource power
A
People who control resources have the capacity to give them to someone who will do what they want and withhold them (or take them away) from someone who doesn’t do what they want. Resources can be many things. Particular resources are more useful as instruments of power to the extent that they are highly valued by participants in the negotiation. In an organizational context, some of the most important resources are:
Money, in its various forms: cash, salary, budget allocations, grants, bonus money, expense accounts, capital appropriations, and discretionary funds.
Supplies: raw materials, components, pieces, and parts.
Human capital: available labor supply, staff that can be allocated to a problem or task, temporary help.
Discretionary time: free time, the ability to meet deadlines, the ability to control a deadline.
Equipment: machines, tools, access to complex technology, computer hardware and software, vehicles.
Critical services: repair, maintenance, upkeep, procurement, delivery, installation, technical support, and transportation.
Interpersonal support: verbal praise and encouragement for good performance or criticism for bad performance. This is an interesting resource because it is available to almost anyone, it does not require significant effort to acquire, and the impact of receiving it is quite powerful on its own.
Page 187
The ability to control and dispense resources is a major power source in organizations. Power also comes from creating a resource stockpile in an environment where resources appear to be scarce. In his book Managing with Power, Pfeffer illustrated how powerful political and corporate figures build empires founded on resource control.14 To cite one example, during his early years in Congress, President Lyndon Johnson took over the “Little Congress” (a speaker’s bureau for clerical personnel and aides to members of Congress) and leveraged it into a major power base that led him to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senate majority leader, and eventually president.
To use resources as a basis for power, negotiators must develop or maintain control over some desirable reward that the other party wants—such as physical space, jobs, budget authorizations, or raw materials—or control over some punishment the other seeks to avoid. Successful control over resources also requires that the other party deal directly with the powerholder. Finally, the
19
Q
power based on location in a netwrok
A
A second major type of structural power also comes from location in an organizational structure, but not necessarily a hierarchical structure. In this case, power is derived from whatever critical resource flows through a particular location in the structure (usually information and resources, such as money). The person occupying that position may not have a formal title or office; their leverage comes from the ability to control and manage whatever critical resource flows through that position. For example, individuals such as secretaries, office workers, or technology workers—who have access to a large amount of information or who are responsible for collecting, managing, and allocating vital resources (money, raw materials, permissions and authorizations)—may become very powerful.15
Understanding power in this way is derived from conceptualizing organizations and their functioning not as a hierarchy but as a network of interrelationships. In a network diagram, key individuals are represented as circles or nodes and relationships between individuals as lines of transaction. Figure 8.1 presents an example of a network as compared with an organizational hierarchy. In the network shown in the figure, the lines (ties) represent flows and connect individuals or groups (nodes) who actually interact or need to interact with each other in the organization. In a formal hierarchy, authority is directly related to how high the position is in the vertical organization chart and how many people report to that individual from lower levels. In contrast, power in a network is determined by location within the flows (of information, resources, transactions, etc.) that occur across that node in the network. For instance, the more information that flows through a node, the more power that node has because the person knows more, and can choose to regulate flows to other parts of the network.
20
Q
3 key aspects of networks shape power
A
tie strength: the srength of ties with the others
tie content: resources that pass along the tie to other person
netwrok structure: centrality [the mroe central a node, the more power] critcality/relevance [what does flow may be essential ord mission makor task and key product] flexibility, visibility, ebmership in a coalition
Flexibility. A position’s flexibility is the degree to which the individual can exercise discretion in how certain decisions are made or who gains access. Flexibility is often related to criticality and relevance from the previous section. A classic example of flexibility is the role of gatekeeper (Figure 8.1), the person in a network who controls the access to a key figure or group.
Visibility. Nodes differ in their degree of visibility—that is, how visible the task performance is to others in the organization. Visibility is not necessarily the same thing as centrality or criticality. A person who negotiates with the other side while in full view of his or her constituency (e.g., in the same room) has high visibility; if the negotiator gains significant concessions from the other party while being watched, the team will give that negotiator a great deal of affirmation. A node with high centrality and criticality may not necessarily be visible, but if it is not, it is much less likely to be recognized and rewarded.
Membership in a coalition. Finally, as a node in a network, you can be a member of one or more subgroups or coalitions. Coalitions often act together to represent a point of view or promote action or change; the more coalitions you belong to, the more likely you will be to find allies who can help you meet key people, obtain important (often “inside”) information, and accomplish objectives.
21
Q
power based on relationships
A
3 types: goal interdependance, refeerent power, social capital
22
Q
goal interdependance
A
How the parties view their goals—and how much achievement of their own goal depends on the help received from the other party—has a strong impact on how likely parties will be to constructively use power. Goals consistently affect negotiators’ attitudes and behaviors by influencing the disposition parties take toward power. Cooperative goals tend to shape the “power with” orientation, inducing “higher expectations of assistance, more assistance, greater support, more persuasion and less coercion, and more trusting and friendly attitudes.”17 In contrast, competitive goals lead the parties to pursue a “power over” orientation; to reinforce or enhance existing power differences; and to use that power to maximize one’s own goals, often at the expense of the other.18 For example, relationships and goal interdependence are key sources of power in salary negotiations
Salary and negotiation expert Paul Barada points out that power is one of the most overlooked but important dynamics in negotiation. He says that power relationships aren’t like blackjack, but there is one parallel: Power will determine who has the better hand. The employer often has the better hand because he or she has something the candidate wants—the job opening—and there are probably many candidates who want the job (employer probably has a good BATNA). But if the candidate has unique skills that the employer wants, or if there is a shortage of talent in a particular field, the candidate can have a lot more power (and hence a good hand). A job candidate can increase his or her power as follows:
Determine what skills one has, and which ones can be transferred to the job one has applied for.
Do homework on the demand for those skills in various jobs and industries.
Know what is a fair and reasonable salary for this job, given the market conditions and the geographic area in which the job is located.
Be prepared to make a convincing set of arguments for the value one will bring to one’s new employer.
Determine a fair compensation rate (target) and a threshold below which one will not go (walkaway point).
If the candidate determines that he or she does not have the appropriate skills, education, or experience, he or she should consider how to gain those skills or experience to give him or her more power in job negotiations.
Source: Adapted from Paul W. Barada, “Power Relationships and Negotiation,” Monster.com, 2008.
23
Q
referent power
A
Referent Power
Referent power stems from the respect and admiration one commands through personal attributes like integrity and interpersonal style. It fosters identification and connection, often based on shared experiences. However, negative referent power can arise when individuals create division, as seen in political contexts where labels are used to undermine opponents.
Culture
Culture shapes the meaning systems within social environments, influencing how power is perceived and exercised. It establishes norms around interaction and decision-making. For instance, in some organizations, public agreement may mask private dissent, undermining collaborative decisions. Cultural dimensions, such as “power distance,” distinguish how cultures accept or reject hierarchical power structures, influencing relationships and negotiation dynamics.
Agents, Constituencies, and External Audiences
Negotiations become more complex when representatives, multiple parties, or observers are involved. The presence of external audiences can alter power dynamics and pressure negotiators, emphasizing the role of social capital. Strong networks that share common goals enhance collective negotiation power through mutual support and information sharing.
Contextual Sources of Power
Power is not only individual but also context-dependent, influenced by the negotiation environment. Recognizing short-term conditions can help negotiators leverage temporary power bases, especially when feeling powerless.
BATNAs (Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement)
A strong BATNA provides negotiators with significant power by offering alternatives to the proposed deal, allowing them to negotiate from a position of choice. Studies show that having a viable BATNA increases the likelihood of making the first offer, enhances outcomes, and boosts confidence in negotiations.
In summary, power in negotiations is derived from referent qualities, cultural contexts, external dynamics, and strong alternatives, all of which shape negotiation effectiveness.
24
Q
dealing with others who have more power
A
Here’s a numbered list with the first sentence of each point:
- Never do an all-or-nothing deal. Relying on a single opponent and creating a make-or-break deal with him or her leaves the low-power party highly vulnerable.
- Make the other party smaller. In dealing with a high-power party, particularly if it is a group or an organization, attempt to establish multiple relationships and engage in multiple negotiations.
- Make yourself bigger. Similarly, low-power players should attempt to build coalitions with other low-power players so as to increase their collective bargaining power.
- Build momentum through doing deals in sequence. Early deals can be done to build a relationship, strengthen the relationship with the high-power party, and perhaps acquire resources.
- Use the power of competition to leverage power. This is a variation on the power of a BATNA.
- Constrain yourself. Tie your hands by limiting the ways that you can do business or whom you can do business with.
- Good information is always a source of power. Seek out information that strengthens your negotiating position and case.
- Ask lots of questions to gain more information. Research shows that negotiators with less power asked more diagnostic than leading questions.
- Do what you can to manage the process. If the high-power party controls the negotiation process, they can assure outcomes they want.
25
INFLUENCE IS POWER IN ACTION
Thus far in this chapter we have discussed power as the potential to alter others’ attitudes and behaviors. We now turn to power’s complement, influence—the actual strategies and messages that individuals deploy to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioral change. Negotiators frequently need to convince the other party that they have offered something of value, their offer is reasonable, and they cannot offer more. Negotiators may also want to alter the other party’s beliefs about the importance of their own objectives and convince the other party that their concessions are not as valuable as they first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the other party’s positions, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence. Effective influence is not just a way for negotiators to claim more value for themselves; it can also help to persuade the other party to see possibilities for joint benefit and to increase the other party’s satisfaction with the deal that does ultimately result.29
Page 194
People differ widely in their ability to use influence effectively. Some believe the ability to persuade is something with which people are born—you either have it or you don’t. Although the natural persuasive abilities of people do differ, persuasion is as much a science as a native ability; everyone has the opportunity to get better at it. Our aim in this chapter is to discuss a variety of influence tools that are available to the savvy negotiator. To set the stage, we begin with an organizing framework that defines influence seeking in two broad categories that correspond to two different social–psychological avenues for achieving influence.
26
2 routes to influence
One way to think about how people are influenced by others is to assume that effective influence occurs when a person is exposed to, pays attention to, comprehends, retains, and acts in accordance with the content of a message. Researchers came to understand, however, that people can be influenced—their attitudes and behaviors can be changed—without their having to understand, learn, or retain the specific information contained in a message. In fact, people can be influenced even when they are not actively thinking about the message itself.30
Accordingly, there are two general paths by which people are persuaded:31
The first path occurs consciously and involves thinking actively about an influence-seeking message and integrating it into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual frameworks, etc.). This path to persuasion is called the central route, which “occurs when motivation and ability to scrutinize issue-relevant arguments are relatively high.”32
The second route to persuasion, the peripheral route, is characterized by subtle cues and context, with less active thought and cognitive processing of the message. Persuasion via the peripheral route is thought to occur automatically (i.e., out of conscious awareness), leading to “attitude change without argument scrutiny.”33 Because the information is not integrated into existing cognitive structures, persuasion occurring via this route is likely to last a shorter time than persuasion occurring via the central route.34
For clarity of presentation, elements from both paths are represented in a single diagram (Figure 8.2). Many of the common elements used to increase leverage are part of the central route: the structure and content of the message or the relationship between sender and receiver. However, several influence strategies are designed to persuade through the indirect, or peripheral, route, such as enhancing the attractiveness and credibility of the source, invoking the principle of reciprocity (you should do something for me because I did something for you), or drawing on appeals to popularity (you should think this way because many others do).35 The remainder of this chapter addresses the approaches to influence presented in Figure 8.2. We organize this discussion according to the distinction between central and peripheral routes to influence.
27
The Central Route to Influence: The Message and Its Delivery
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), the structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
28
message content
When constructing arguments to persuade the other party, negotiators need to decide what topics and facts they should include. In this section, we discuss three questions negotiators need to consider when constructing persuasive arguments:
how to make offers attractive to the other party,
how to frame messages so the other party will say yes, and
how to make messages normative.
29
Make the Offer Attractive to the Other Party
In structuring the message, negotiators should emphasize the advantage the other party gains from accepting the proposal. Although this may seem obvious, it is surprising how many negotiators spend more time explaining what aspects of their offer are attractive to themselves than identifying what aspects are likely to be attractive to the other party. Experienced negotiators ensure that the other party understands what they will gain by accepting an offer. To do this well, negotiators need to understand the other party’s needs. A good salesperson will identify a customer’s needs and requirements before getting down to the details of what a particular product or service can do for the purchaser. Labor negotiators often have preliminary, unofficial meetings with management at which both parties discuss the upcoming deliberations and signal the high-priority issues for the year. The better a negotiator understands the other’s real needs and concerns, the easier it is to formulate a proposal the other party will find genuinely attractive (even if that other party is reluctant to admit it) and to package the proposal with arguments that anticipate the other’s objections.
30
Frame the Message So the Other Party Will Say Yes
Advertisers discovered long ago that people who agree with one statement or proposal, even though it may be minor, are likely to agree with a second, more significant statement or proposal from the same person or on the same topic.36 Hence, if you can frame your message in a way that gets the other party to agree to something—almost anything—then you have laid the foundation for subsequent agreement. (We discussed framing in negotiation at length in Chapter 6.) The task is to find something that the other party can agree with that puts them in the mindset of saying yes. A real estate salesperson who gets potential buyers to agree that the house they are visiting is in a nice neighborhood or has a nice yard for their children has made the first step toward getting them to say yes to buying the house (even if it is not the ideal size, layout, or price).
31
make the message normative
It is easy to assume that people are driven by simple and direct self-interest. There is plenty of evidence, however, that people are motivated to behave consistently with their values—that is, their religious, social, or ethical standards. A standard is normative when it involves actions that people think they should do as a form of right or appropriate behavior. Normative standards become part of people’s self-image, a concept in their mind of what they are really like. A powerful argument in negotiation is showing the other party that by following a course of action (your proposal), they will be acting in accordance both with their values and with some higher (more noble, moral, or ethical) code of conduct. At times, the simple statement “This is the right (or proper) thing to do” may carry considerable weight as a normative influence appeal, especially when a negotiator is trying to induce the other party to act in a way that is contrary to a narrow reading of that other party’s self-interest.
32
Message Structure
People are influenced not only by the substance of what negotiators say but also by how they arrange the words. How should arguments be arranged? Should counterarguments or opposing ideas be mentioned at all? Surprisingly, many of those elements that you might expect to have an important impact, such as the structure of logic in the message, have not been clearly shown to be important. Here we discuss three aspects of message structure that help to explain when and how persuasion occurs through the central route:
one- and two-sided messages,
message components, and
conclusions.
33
one- and Two-Sided Messages
When negotiators try to persuade the other party, it is because they believe that the other holds an opinion different from theirs. Many people deal with this problem by ignoring arguments and opinions that might support the other party’s position—a one-sided approach. An alternate
pproach is to mention and describe the opposing point of view, and then show how and why it is less desirable than the presenter’s point of view—a two-sided approach. The question then arises: Which of these approaches is most effective?
One-sided messages can backfire: Just because the person making an argument doesn’t mention the other side’s counterarguments doesn’t mean the other party won’t think of them and consider them. This is especially risky when the one-side argument you are making is easy to refute, which one study found leads negotiators to make smaller concessions.37 In general, they are more effective, working best
when the other party is well educated,
when the other party initially disagrees with the position,
when the other party will be exposed to points of view different from the position advocated, and
when the issue discussed is already familiar. In addition, two-sided arguments work best when the preferred argument is presented last.38
But there is a drawback: Research has shown that a change in someone’s attitude is more likely to produce a corresponding change in behavior when that person has been exposed to a one-sided message rather than a two-sided message.39 This link between attitude change and behavior change matters because a negotiator isn’t just trying to persuade the other party to think more favorably about the offer; they want the other party to act on that attitude by making a concession or agreeing to a deal.
34
Message Components
Big ideas or large propositions are hard to grasp and accept, especially when they are significantly different from your own. Negotiators can help the other party understand and accept their arguments by breaking them into smaller, more understandable pieces—a process known as “fractionating.”40 It is even better if one can show that the component parts contain statements that the other party has already accepted or agreed with. For example, a company that is having trouble getting a union to accept a whole package of rule changes could break its presentation down into separate discussions of specific rules: transfers between departments within a plant, transfers between plants, temporary changes in work classifications, and so on. It is possible that breaking down complex arguments into smaller parts will lead the parties to see the possibilities to logroll, bundle, and trade off across issues (see Chapter 3) because the issues will be seen in sharper focus. If the goal is to find and capitalize on integrative potential, however, it is important that the parties not let splitting up of issues into smaller pieces lead to separate and final settlements on those piecemeal issues. In order to succeed as mechanisms for achieving mutual gains, logrolls, bundles, and trade-offs require that multiple issues be on the table and in play.
35
Persuasive Style: How to Pitch the Message
When negotiators select a delivery style for the message they have constructed, they set the emotional tone and manner of their presentation. We now consider four major elements of persuasive style and how they affect successful persuasion:
active participation versus passive responding,
use of vivid language and metaphors,
use of threats to incite fears, and
violation of the receiver’s expectations.
36
Encourage Active Participation
People are more likely to change their attitudes and beliefs for the long term when they are actively involved in the process of learning new material.43 Good teachers know this—rather than lecture, they ask questions and start discussions. Teachers are even more effective when they can get students both intellectually and emotionally engaged. Negotiators who use active approaches are generally more persuasive than those who don’t because an active approach requires the receiver to exert effort, which leads to involvement, which leads to attitude change.
It can be helpful to precede negotiations with a friendly and engaging dialogue. This extends beyond simple politeness; inquiring about an individual’s day or mood and then responding accordingly can spark cooperation; moreover, when a request is preceded by a pleasant dialogue rather than simply a pleasant monologue, subjects were more willing to concede to the request.44 Furthermore, these findings generalized across a variety of interactions and settings, even holding up when the subject declared being in a bad mood. As we mentioned in our discussion of communication in Chapter 7, the development of rapport between negotiators has a number of positive benefits for avoiding impasse and achieving integrative outcomes.
37
Consider Vividness and Intensity of Language
The vividness and intensity of the language negotiators use have a major effect on their persuasiveness. Saying “This is certainly the best price you will get” is more compelling than saying “This is quite a good price.” Similarly, the statement “I don’t feel like going out tonight” is not as intense as “You couldn’t drag me out tonight with a team of horses.” The intensity of language can also be increased through the use of colorful metaphors, swear words, or a change in intonation—from quiet to loud or loud to quiet.45
Page 199
You might think that the most intense language would also be the most persuasive. On the contrary, language of relatively low intensity is at times more effective. Research has shown that the effect of intense language depends in part on who uses it. Sources with high credibility can use more intense language than those who are not seen as credible.46 It is also the case that effective influencers will match their emotional fervor to the ability of the target of influence to receive and interpret the message.47 Bottom line: Although there is a strong temptation to use intense language to make a point, it is often wise to moderate this impulse.
38
Use Threats; Incite Fears
Messages that contain threats—threats of strikes by unions or lockouts by management, threats to harm the other party’s reputation, or threats to break off negotiations—can be useful when a negotiator needs to underscore the absolute importance of a point being made. In essence, threats are if–then statements with serious negative consequences attached: “If you do X, then I will be forced to do Y.”
Because of their dramatic nature and the emotional responses they can evoke, threats may be tempting to use (see Chapter 2). In fact, threats are probably used less frequently than one might expect, for several reasons. First, the other person’s reaction to a threat is hard to predict. A second reason is that it is hard to know how menacing the threat appears to the other party. Often threats appear more powerful to the people who make them than they do to those on the receiving end. Third, a threatened party has the option to “call the bluff,” forcing the negotiator who made the threat to carry it out. Often, following through on a threat will cost more than negotiators are willing to pay,48 and not following through can make a negotiator lose credibility. Finally, threats may produce compliance (a short-term change in behavior to avoid the consequences), but they do not usually produce commitment (a genuine and lasting change in attitude or belief).
One way to understand the effects of threats is to view them as a variation on the strategic expression of anger in negotiation. In a series of experiments, researchers found that threats elicit more concessions from one’s opponent than anger. They also found that anger as a tactic is often construed by the target of the anger as conveying an implied threat.49 The moral of the story seems to be that actual threats are more effective at extracting concessions than implied threats.
39
Violate the Receiver’s Expectations
People who argue positions that seem to be counter to the arguer’s self-interest are generally more persuasive because they violate the receiver’s expectation about what the sender should be advocating.50 For instance, an automobile mechanic recently suggested that one of the authors of
this book should use higher octane gas in his car to reduce maintenance and save money. This message was persuasive because the mechanic was arguing against his own self-interest (future auto repair revenue) when he suggested the change in fuel (his business does not sell gasoline).
Another way that receivers’ expectations can be violated occurs when they expect one style of delivery from the speaker and then experience a very different style. For example, when one expects to be subjected to intense language (loud, volatile, provocative, etc.), one prepares defenses and counterarguments. If instead the speaker is moderate, casual, and reasonable in tone, the listener can relax their defenses, listen to the message less critically, and be more open to being persuaded.51 Great orators such as Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King Jr. used this style, frequently modulating the intensity of their voices to hold the audience’s attention. Although this is not a stylistic tactic that everyone can use, skilled orators have a valuable tool at their disposal.
Page 200
There are, no doubt, limits to the effects of violated expectations as a way to elicit compliance. After all, the extent to which we trust other people is rooted in part in our ability to predict others’ behavior. While the occasional expectation violation may get one’s attention, communication behavior that frequently violates expectations may tend to erode trust rather than increase the likelihood that a person will be persuaded by the communicator. Accordingly, strategies that violate expectations should be used strategically and sparingly.
40
Peripheral Routes to Influence
Thus far, we have focused on organizing the structure, content, and style of the message to create leverage through the central route to influence (refer back to the left-hand side of Figure 8.2). In this section, we consider ways that a person can influence others through the peripheral route (the right-hand side of Figure 8.2). In such cases, the receiver attends less to the substance of persuasive arguments and is instead susceptible to more “automatic” influence through subtle cues. As we suggested earlier, persuasion that occurs through the peripheral route is less likely to bring about real attitude change, more likely to last a shorter time, and more vulnerable to counterinfluence.52 In our discussion of peripheral routes to influence, we draw in part on the work of psychologist Robert Cialdini, who spent many years investigating why people comply with requests that upon further reflection, they would rather not have agreed to.53 The insights that emerge are useful not only for achieving successful influence in negotiation and other contexts but also for avoiding being a victim of these persuasive traps.
Our discussion of peripheral routes to influence considers three aspects: message characteristics, attributes of the persuader (the message source), and elements of the influence context.
41
Aspects of Messages That Foster Peripheral Influence
When targets of influence are unmotivated or unable to pay close attention to the influence seeker’s message, they are susceptible to being influenced by message elements that exist apart from the actual arguments involved. We discuss three such elements here: the way the influence seeker chooses to order those arguments, the format through which arguments are conveyed, and the use of distraction to interfere with the target’s ability to think effortfully about the arguments in play.
42
Message Order
In preparing a persuasive argument, negotiators often have one major point, piece of information, or illustration that is particularly important or compelling. Where should it be placed in the message? At the beginning? In the middle? At the end? Research tells us one thing clearly—do not place the important point in the middle of the message.54 So when the goal is persuasion, should important information be at the beginning or the end? Listeners presented with a list or sequence of things typically form impressions on the basis of a primacy effect, giving more favorable attention to what comes first.55 But sometimes people do pay more attention to information that comes later rather than earlier. When the topics are familiar, interesting, or controversial to the receiver, the important points should be made early: the first item in a long list of items is the one most likely to be remembered. In contrast, when the topic is uninteresting, unfamiliar, or not very important to the receiver, the most critical point should be placed at the end of the message to take advantage of the recency effect: the tendency for the last item presented to be the best remembered.
43
Format
n our discussion of communication (Chapter 7), we addressed how negotiation is affected by the communication channels through which it can occur (face-to-face, phone, email, texting, videoconference, etc.). The same goes for influence, where certain arguments or appeals may be more or less effective depending on the channel in use or the format of the presentation.56 One way that a choice of message format can induce peripheral influence is by triggering a snap judgment regarding the legitimacy of the argument. For instance, some contend that written rules carry more weight than those given verbally.57 Thus, a principle might be seen as more credible or believable, and hence more likely to be adopted, if it is in a policy manual or the fine print of a contract than if it is merely expressed orally.
44
Distractions
Persuasion efforts are more effective if they can reduce the other party’s efforts to develop defensive counterarguments. One way to do this is to have a distraction occur at the same time the message is sent. Distractions apparently absorb the effort that the other party normally would put into building counterarguments and leave the listener less able to engage in issue-relevant thinking, and hence more susceptible to peripheral (rather than central) influence.58 Distractions seem to inhibit the receiver’s subvocalization (what people say to themselves as they hear a message). Sometimes subvocalizations are counterarguments, which occur when the receiver is opposed to or cautious about the message, but they can be supportive arguments as well.
45
Source Characteristics That Foster Peripheral Influence
When recipients of a persuasive message are unmotivated or unable to attend closely to the substance of the persuasive appeal, they become vulnerable to source effects. In other words, someone who is not paying close attention to the message may be unduly influenced by thecharacteristics of the person or organization delivering the message. A wide variety of source effects can have an effect on the recipient of a persuasive message. We group them here into three broad categories: credibility, attractiveness, and authority.
46
Source Credibility
During a negotiation, both parties exchange information, opinions, and interpretations. What, and how much, should be believed? On the one hand, there may be incentives for negotiators to mislead each other (see also Chapter 5 on ethics). On the other hand, negotiators have to accept and believe at least some of the information they are given, or successful negotiation is impossible. As a negotiator, you cannot check every fact and statement. The more information you are willing to accept from the other party without independent verification, the easier the task will be. The reverse is also true—the more credible you are to the other party, the more persuasive you will be.
A sense of the importance of source credibility dates all the way back to ancient Greece-—to Aristotle’s notion of “ethos,” capturing the credibility and legitimacy of a persuasive message giver.59 Many factors contribute to source credibility. Here we discuss several that negotiators can control, beginning with the most important ones: qualifications, trustworthiness, and self-presentation.
47
1. Qualifications and Expertise
When people are determining how much to believe another person, they often ask, “Is this person in a position to possess the information they claim to have? Are they competent and qualified?” The stronger the person’s perceived qualifications and expertise, the higher the credibility.60 Judgments about qualifications can substitute for judgments about the quality of the arguments that source is delivering—that’s what makes source credibility a peripheral route to influence. Research studies have shown that when people are not motivated to think deeply about the arguments they are hearing, they will let the qualifications of the source of the argument determine whether or not to be persuaded, even when the arguments are weak.61
48
2. Reputation for Trustworthiness and Integrity
As the target of a persuasion attempt, it is natural to wonder, “Is this person reporting accurately what they know? Are they personally believable or trustworthy? Is this a person of integrity?” Integrity is character—the personal values and ethics that ground your behavior in high moral principles. Integrity is the quality that assures people that you can be trusted, you will be honest, and you will do as you say. If people trust you with confidential information, you will not disclose that information to others. Finally, if you make an agreement, you will abide by its terms and conditions and follow through on it.62 Conversely, people with a reputation for being dishonest or insincere have an extremely difficult time in negotiations—they tend not to be believed, even when they tell the truth. A reputation for being dishonest is very difficult to change or overcome, so it is not surprising that professional negotiators work very hard to protect their reputations.
49
3. Self-Presentation
others. Someone who seems hesitant, confused, or uncertain when giving information is not as convincing as a person who appears calm, confident, and comfortable. A friendly, open person is easier to converse with (and easier to believe) than someone who is distant, abrasive, or haughty. A person with a dynamic vocal style and a strong delivery is often more persuasive than one without these attributes. Communicators can create a favorable presence in several ways. It is not an earth-shaking revelation to note that how you dress, speak, and behave will influence how credible you appear to others. What may not be as obvious is how you should adjust your appearance and style to increase (or avoid eroding) your credibility. Should you wear a suit for an interview, even if you usually wear jeans and a T-shirt? Should you speak with the informal demeanor and slang that you customarily use in interactions with friends, or should you adopt a more professional tone and use of language? In general, researchers have found that it is best to be “normal,” meaning to act appropriately, naturally, and without affectation
50
4. Status Differences
Status is signaled by a variety of criteria: occupation, age, education level, the neighborhood where a person lives, dress, type of automobile, and the like. A president of a major corporation, for example, may have more status than a university professor but less than a Supreme Court Justice. Status confers credibility, which in turn can make someone influential, in several ways. First, status gives people visibility, which allows them to get attention and be heard. It also confers prestige, lending the image that certain people are worth listening to.64 However, a status difference may also increase resistance because listeners may expect to be persuaded by a high-status communicator and, therefore, may focus their defenses against the effort.
51
5. Associates
The choices you make about those you associate with also can influence how you are perceived, in terms of both status and expertise. Judicious name dropping (i.e., mentioning well-known people who are also credible and prestigious) and even arranging for introductions or endorsements by people who can add to your reputation can be useful steps. There is, of course, a downside to invoking associates if it isn’t done skillfully: The line between being perceived as admirably well connected and as a shameless name-dropper can be a fine one indeed.
52
source Attractiveness
Here’s a condensed version of the text on the influence of personal attractiveness in negotiations:
People respond more positively to persuaders they like, and attractive negotiators are perceived as less likely to be dishonest. Personal attractiveness enhances persuasiveness for several reasons, including increased trust and the tendency for others to imitate attractive individuals. Here are ways to enhance personal attractiveness in negotiations:
1. **Friendliness**: Establishing personal relationships through warmth and empathy makes the other party feel comfortable, fostering a better negotiation atmosphere.
2. **Ingratiation**: Enhancing the other’s self-image through flattery can make them more receptive to persuasive arguments, but excessive or insincere praise may lead to skepticism.
3. **Helping the Other Party**: Assisting the other party—such as providing valuable information or favors—can build goodwill and facilitate smoother negotiations.
4. **Perceived Similarity**: Finding common ground (shared backgrounds, interests) strengthens bonds, making both parties more open to each other’s perspectives.
5. **Emotion**: Expressing genuine emotion can enhance a negotiator's attractiveness and credibility, contrasting with the typical expectation of a rational negotiation process. Emotion can be a powerful tool in swaying opinions and mobilizing support.
53
Authority
The principle of authority is quite simple: People with authority have more influence than those without authority. Researchers have long been interested in the effects of authority figures on human behavior. Milgram’s classic studies of obedience to authority suggest that people will go to great lengths when their behavior is legitimized by an authority figure.74 Most people will obey the orders of a person wearing a uniform, even if there is no war or apparent emergency. This, too, is an effect of the principle of authority.
Page 205
In negotiation, the principle of authority can be used in many ways. For example, the use of a title, such as doctor or professor, gives the user more authority and thus more influence.75 Authority is more than position; it can also lead to attributions of expertise.
Authority can take different forms and yield different outcomes. Researchers have distinguished between two broad uses of authority in influence seeking:
authority based on a person’s personal expertise or credibility and
authority based on a person’s legitimate position in an existing social hierarchy.76
Research indicates that establishing your personal expertise is preferred to highlighting differences in positional power, especially if the goal is not just short-term compliance, but longer-term relational benefits as well.77
In his seminal book on social influence, Cialdini offers the following advice for dealing with authority figures who may have influence over you.78 Ask two questions: “Is this authority truly an expert?”
54
Aspects of Context That Foster Peripheral Influence
reciprocity
commitment
social proof
scarcicty
In this section, we examined several ways that persuaders can use the peripheral route to achieve influence. We discussed factors related to the message itself, characteristics of the message source, and aspects of the influence context that can result in influence. That last piece—context—is especially important because it complicates the influence situation, requiring the effective influence seeker to attend to additional social factors beyond just their relationship with the individual influence target.
Influence targets are particularly susceptible to peripheral forms of influence to the extent that they are unmotivated and/or unable to pay careful attention to the argumentative substance of the influence seeker’s message. Effective negotiators realize that a big part of their task is persuading the other party to view the situation as they do. Strategies that underlie peripheral routes to influence are an important part of a negotiator’s arsenal for doing just that.
T
55
The Role of Receivers—Targets of Influence
We close our exploration of influence with a brief discussion of the person who is the target of influence. Influence targets should not think of themselves as passive recipients who merely “consume” a persuasive message and then make an up-or-down decision whether to “buy” it or not. There are two prominent aspects to the influence target’s role and options. First, targets should direct their energy instead toward ways to gain a great understanding of the goals and interests driving the other party’s influence attempts. Second, there are a number of ways that negotiators who find themselves on the receiving end of persuasive messages and strategies can resist the attempts at influence. We discuss each of these two aspects of the target’s role in turn.
56
Understanding the Other’s Perspective
Negotiators on the receiving end of influence-seeking gambits will be much better equipped to make sound decisions about whether or not to be persuaded—and less likely to dig in and become Negotiators on the receiving end of influence-seeking gambits will be much better equipped to make sound decisions about whether or not to be persuaded—and less likely to dig in and become
57
explore the Other’s Point of View
Negotiators frequently give very little attention to the other party’s opinions and point of view. This is unfortunate because it is very much to your advantage to understand what the other party really wants, how things look to them, and how they developed their position. We can explore the other party’s perspective with well-crafted questions designed to reveal their needs and interests.84 For instance, “Why are those important objectives for you?” “What would happen if you did not get everything you have asked for?” and “Have your needs changed since the last time we talked?” bring out more detailed information about the other party’s position and interests. Exploring the other person’s outlook not only provides more information, which can lead you to design solutions to meet both sides’ needs, but helps you understand why the other party is trying to persuade you to think or act in a particular way
58
Selectively Paraphrase
Paraphrasing ensures that both parties have understood each other accurately. If you haven’t understood the other party, it gives them an opportunity to correct you. It is important to restate your understanding after being corrected, to make sure you have gotten it right. In addition, vocalizing the other person’s ideas helps you remember them better than simply hearing them. Avoid literally repeating the other person’s words; restate the message in your own words, starting with “Let me see if I understand the point you just made.” When people have an important message to get across, they may talk vigorously and at length, often emphasizing the same point over and over. Once your paraphrasing indicates that the other person has been understood, they will usually stop repeating the same point and move on; hence, paraphrasing can be very helpful in moving a discussion forward.
59
Reinforce Points You Like in the Other Party’s Proposals
Negotiators are frequently ineffective because they respond only to what they dislike in the other party’s statement or proposal and ignore the things they like. Responding in this way ignores a powerful means of shaping and guiding what the other party is saying. Classical theories of behavior (e.g., learning and reinforcement theory) make the same basic point: People are more likely to repeat behavior that is rewarded than behavior that is not rewarded.85 The simplest way to reward people for what they say during a negotiation is to acknowledge and support a point they have made: “That’s an interesting point” or “I hadn’t heard that before.” Nonverbal signals work as well—for example, a simple “mm-hmm” or a nod of the head. Statements and actions like these isolate a key remark from other points the speaker has made. Second, compliment speakers when they make points you want emphasized, and express appreciation to them for considering your interests and needs. A third approach is to separate parts of a statement that you like from those parts you don’t like, and encourage the other party to develop the favorable points. In negotiating the sale of a house, the buyer might say, “Let me focus on one of the points you made. An adjustment in price to cover needed repairs is a good idea. What repairs do you have in mind?”
60
Here’s a condensed version of the text on resisting influence in negotiations:
**Resisting the Other’s Influence**
Listeners can resist influence efforts in three main ways:
1. **Have a BATNA, and Know How to Use It**: A negotiator’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) provides leverage and the option to walk away. To be effective, the other party should be aware of your BATNA, which can enhance your position if communicated carefully.
2. **Make a Public Commitment**: Getting the other party to make a public commitment to a position increases their likelihood of sticking to it. This can be achieved through inviting statements that express mutual goals. However, it's also important to allow the other party to back off from ill-considered commitments in a face-saving way.
3. **Inoculate Yourself Against the Other Party’s Arguments**: To prevent being swayed by the other party's arguments, negotiators can prepare counterarguments. The most effective strategy involves developing arguments for and against your position, along with counterarguments to refute both sides. Engaging in this process and publicly supporting your position also increases resistance to opposing arguments.
61
3 types of power experiment examples
ASCHs conformoity
milgram obedience
zimbardos standford prison
62
asch
50 male students
participated in a “vision test”
* 1 “participant” and 7
“confederates” in the room
* Which line is the same siz
63
milgram experimetn
Looked at how willing people were to follow authority figures
* The “teacher” was to administer electric shocks to the “learner”, the
“experimenter” gave the orders
* If the learner got a list of words wrong, the teacher would shock him
* Shocks progressed from 15 volts to 450 volts
* Learner would cry out in pain, experimenter would encourage more shocks
* No teacher stopped before 300 volts, 65% of teachers gave the full
level of shock!
64
stanford
Mock prison situation where 24 students from Stanford were
randomly divided into “Guards” and “inmates”
* Prisoners from “Cell Block 1” actively revolted
* Set up “privileged cell” – prisoners showed solidarity
* After 36 hours one inmate “went crazy” – was sent home
* Guards became increasingly cruel
* “Experiment” was called off after 6th day (guards wanted to keep
going).
* The experimenter's girlfriend objected to the conditions of the prisoner
65
info power slides
Information is the most common
source of power
* The negotiator’s ability to
assemble and organize data to
support his or her position
* A tool to challenge the other
party’s position or desired
outcomes
* Do your homework
(preparation) to increase your
power in a negotiation!
66
postion power slides
legitimate power -grounded
in the title, duties, and
responsibilities of a job
description and “level” within
an organization
* You do something because
your boss, government,
police tell you to do
67
Resource power - based on the
control of resources associated
with that position
* Money, labour, time,
supplies, interpersonal
support etc...
* Admin can be gatekeepers
to senior people
* Whoever has the gold makes
the rules
Position
68
network power slides
Centrality - Access to
information in a
communication network.
Power is accrued via
horizontal and vertical
relationships of one’s location
in the network
69
what is power based on?
context@
power is based in the context, situation or environment in
which negotiations take place
* BATNAs
* An alternative deal that a negotiator might pursue if she
or he does not come to agreement with the current
other party
* Society
* Public opinion, ethics, morals, activism (slacktivism)
* Agents, constituencies, external audiences
Context
70
persuasion in negotion
actual strategies and messgges that infivisuals selpoy to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioural chang
71
2 routes to persusaison
central rotu
peripheral route
72
central route s
Three issues to consider when constructing a message:
* The content of the message
* Facts and topics that should be covered
* The structure of the message
* Arrangement and organization of the topics and facts
* The delivery style
* How the message should be presented
The Central Route
73
content- central route s
Make the offer attractive to the other party
* Emphasize what the other party has to gain, not lose
* Frame the message so the other party will say “yes”
* Get them to say yes to something (anything) – future
agreement will follow more easily
Make the message normative
* By doing this you will be acting in accordance with a moral
or ethical code of conduct
* Suggest an “agreement in principle”
* Get the parties to agree to a ceasefire – then sort out the
details
74
structure-central route
One-sided messages: ignore arguments and opinions that
might support the other party’s position
* Two-sided messages: mention and describe the opposing
point of view and show how and why it is less desirable
* Message components
* If you have a complex or difficult to understand position –
break it down into smaller “bite size” pieces
75
central route delivery
se vivid language
* Change in tone/volume
* Use metaphors
* “colourful language”
* Repetition, repetition,
repetition...
The Central Route -
Delivery
76
the peripheral route
he receiver attends less to
the substance of persuasive
arguments and is instead
susceptible to more
“automatic” influence through
subtle cues
* Usually occurs when the
target of influence is either
unmotivated or unable to
attend carefully
The Peripheral Route
77
peripheral route message orders s
Message order
* Primacy effect – people remember the first items on a list
* Used when the information is familiar, interesting or
controversial
* Never put important information in the middle
* Recency effect – people also remember the last items on a list
* Used when the information is uninteresting, unfamiliar,
not importan
78
peripheral route districations
Distractions
* When receivers are distracted,
they are less able to engage in
issue-relevant thinking
* Less able to form
counterarguments
* Use lots of charts and keep
talking!
The Peripheral Route
79
peripheral route source credibiltiy
Source credibility - We can’t possibly check all of the facts of
every statement, so we rely on the credibility of the source
* Qualifications
* Perceived expertise
* Trustworthiness
* Reputation for integrity
* Self-presentation
* First impressions
The Peripheral Route
80
peripheral route attractiveness
Personal attractiveness
* Friendliness
* Ingratiation
* Likeability
* People you like have more
influence over you
* Perceived similarity
* The more similarity the
more I feel at ease
The Peripheral Route
81
conflict resoultion paradox
Boulding (1964)
* Groups of managers to
solve complex problems
* Half of the groups had a “devil’s
advocate”
* Groups with DA performed
better
* More alternatives, higher
performance
* In all groups, the DA was
asked to leave!
A Classic Paradox
82
there is an optimal amount of conflict that creates positive org outcomes
83
The challenge is to encourage
members of teams to argue
without destroying their
ability to work together
* The task of a team/workgroup
leader is to maintain an
optimal level of conflict while
keeping conflicts focused on
productive purposes
84
dual concerns model
Top left [ASSERTING AND UNCOOPERATIVE]: Competing- Being hyerassertive, this is bad but not always bad (parents, project managers)
- This is an unpopular decision but it is important to take control at times
- Not about getting friends! Its about getting your own needs met
Bottom left[UNASSERTIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE]:: Avoidance- When can we be avoidant? When we want to preserve the relationship
- In interpersonal relationships smetimes there are issues that are more important
- Confrontation might hurt the relationship
- You don't have enough information! Or you’re not the right person
Bottom Right [UNASSERTIVE AND COOPERATIVE]:: Accommodation- when you value harmony or stability, and the issues are not important
- Maintaining the relationship, minimizing losses in situations
Middle: Compromising- meet in the middle, sometimes it is like SATISFICING! A good ENOUGH solution
- Often a lose/lose strategy because everyone remains unfulfilled
- Lazy problem solving
Top Right[ASSERTIVE AND COOPERATIVE]:: Collaborating (Assertive/Cooperative) Trying to create optimal value or WIN/WIN SITUATION
- Takes time, effort, and resources
- Integrative negotiation
85
URYS breakthrough approach steps 1-5
1.Don’t React – Got to the Balcony
2. Disarm them- step to their side
3. Change the game: dont reject reframe
4. Make it easy to say yes- build a golden bridge
5. make it hard to say no- bring to sense not kenes
86
step 1 ury breakthrough
Natural tendency to strike back or break off negotiations
* “Go to the balcony” – Psychologically remove yourself from
the interaction
* Provides emotional distance
* Creates breathing room
* Understand the issue from a broader perspective
87
step 2 ury breakthrough
Disarm the person through positive, constructive
communication
* Come to their side of the table – Listen and acknowledge
their legitimate points & concerns
* Active listening
* Acknowledging points – not conceding truth/accuracy
* Recognize points of overlap!
* Allow the other party to vent frustrations
88
step 3 ury breakthrough
Step 3: Change the Game – Don’t Reject, Reframe
* Proactively reframe counterparts tactics
* Ask open, problem solving questions
* If attacked, recast the action in less confrontational terms
* Highlight common goals/interests
* Negotiate directly and openly the rules of the negotiation
process
89
step 4 ury breakthrough
Make it Easy to Say Yes – Build a Golden Bridge
* The four most common objections from the other party to
your proposals:
* They’re not my idea
* They don’t address my interests
* They might cause me to look bad
* They require too much adjustment for me
90
step 5 ury breakthrough
Make it Hard to Say No – Bring Them to Their Senses,
Not Their Knees
* Pay attention to your BATNA – make it stronger and let the
other party know what it is
* Consequences of not reaching an agreement
* Refer to attractive parts of the deal – maintain focus on
advantages
* Fashion a lasting agreement – plan for implementation
91
92
video notes
https://quizlet.com/ca/861133504/obhr-647-final-textbook-flash-cards/?funnelUUID=d9ab35b2-f6ed-4d60-b237-7bde51ad2ee1
93
