Negotiation Strategies Flashcards
(36 cards)
Hard (Distributive) Bargaining
Hard bargaining is a negotiation approach often used when there is a limited amount of resources or conflicting interests. In this strategy, parties aim to maximize their own gains while minimizing
concessions.
Security point
Refers to the minimum a party is willing to accept in the negotiation.
Represents the bottom line, below which they are not willing to compromise
Optimal outcome
maxium a party is able to obtain in the negotiation. It represents the ideal result for the parrty, which they strive to achieve.
Bargaining space
also known as the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)
is the range between the security points of the parties.
It represents the area where negotiation can take place, and mutually beneficial agreement can be reached.
ZOPA/ Volutnary exchange zone
Zone of Possible Agreement
The range between the security points of the parties within negotiations.
It represents the area where negotiation can take place and a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached.
No overlap, no agreement
if the security points of the parties do not overlap within the bargaining space, it becomes challenging to reach an agreement.
Finding common ground and bridging the gap between the security points is crucial for succesful negotiations.
Integrative bargaining
Integrative or Interest-based bargaining is a negotiation strategy in which all parties collaborate to find beneficial outcomes for each. The strategy focuses on finding a ‘win-win’
Ways of integrative bargaining
- Reframing issue to find common ground
–> collaborative problem-solving - Exchanging information for reframing to be successful
- Creating value ( not the same as claiming value)
Creating value
- previously hidden joint gains
- not focusing on dividing a fixed pie
- finding ways to fullfil all parties’needs and interests
- avoiding zero-sum
Englightened self-interest
helping others to help oneself.
Pro/cons Hard (distributive) bargaining
Risks:
* deteriorating relationships+ reputation
* risk of creating deadlocks
* ineffective to address deep-stated interests: impedes value creation
Pro:
* Effective to defend vital interests + essential principles
Integrative bargaining –> collective problem-solving
Risks:
* creating unrealistic expectations
* time intensive
Pro:
* opens new perspectives: creates a new bargaining space
* improves deteriorated relationships
( looking through counterpart’s eyes)
* Effective for conflicts that deal with hard to quantify interests
Negotiation Jujitsu (Fisher & Ury)
concept of redirecting te oppontens force, akin to martial art, to gain control and achieve a more constructive negotiation process.
Negotiation Jujitsu 3 approaches
3 approaches to shift focus of counterparty:
1. changing game by concentrating on merits (verdiensten) oneself, rather of positional stances.
2. negotiation jujitsu –> counters the moves of positional bargaining + redirection of attention to merits
3. introducing third party as external mediation.
- can faciliate negotiation
Common tactics of negotiation
- Tit-for-tat
- inviting unreciprocated offers
- Extreme claims + but small concessions
- commitment tactics
- Take-it-or-leave-it offers
- Trying o make you flinch (power play)
- personal insults + feather ruffling
- Bluffing, puffing, and lying (deception)
- Threats (and rewards)
- belittling alternatives
- Good/bad cop
Modelling Strategic choices
Negotiation models based in game theory are an illustration of the real world.
Reveals the array of choices one actor has, as well s the independence of the outcome on the choices that both or all of the negotiation parties make.
2 main types of negotiation games
- Simultaneous games
- Sequential games
Simultaneous games
A game modelled so the player must make their decisions at the same time.
each actor must make a decision at the same time. → understanding of potential preferences of other side is extremely important,. This is why research and analysis became important parts of negotiation process: all parties work diligent to understand the incentives + disincentives (game pay-offs) of negotiation arena.
- Illustrating interdependence of choices, choices of other actors.
Sequential games
A game modelled so that each player makes a decision at a different point in time. Action-reaction processes reveal the ways actors react to issues + how reactions lead to other reactions by even more actors on the international playfield. → Arms-race cycles : security dilemma
- reveal mounting complexities inherent in action-reaction of decision-making.
Intention –> to get to the basic mechanisms of choice: explaining strategy.
main issue: decisions are always affected by possible decisions of the other one.
Prisoners dilemma + Climate change (example)
Environmental issues: comparison= that each country in theory wished to promote global environmental quality, however, no country entirely trusts the involvement of the others, or wants to bear the cost of regulations.
→ many business interests oppose strict limits on carbon emissions due to the cost of production.
→ nobody wants to bear the cost of environmental regulation + in effect, choose to squeal on others by polluting.
→ collective squealing results in negative outcome.
So → distrusts brings this global issue to the prisoners’ dilemma.
Chicken Game (2nd simultaneous game)
Game of survival, will + humiliation
2 drivers sit in cars facing each other half a mile away.
Someone of the side of the road swings a flashlight to signal both drivers to start driving towards eachother: as fast as possible.
Both drivers hope that the other will swerve off the road –> the chicken.
If neither swervers: cars both crash –> both killed. but they are both strong-willed: ‘‘winners’.
if one swerves: that one is a chicken, and the loser, even though that one spares both players live.
Decision-tree mapping
Provides a way to understand the progression of choices emerging from an initial one.
→ evaluate in reverse direction. Method: ‘Look ahead + reason back’’- approach.
Reciprocity
the practice by countries of making in-kind concessions to each other
Competitive negotiation
rational approach to international negotiaiton is a competive one