Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Business Negotiations Reflection/lessons, Day 3 Power and persuasion, Day…

- - - - when relationship is not long term and negotiator wants to maximise value
    - - when the relationship could be important and value needs to fit a certain range
- - - - Examples:job interview: always another job.
        car dealer: can always go to another dealership
      - Your BATNA tells you when to walk, the better yours is the more power you have and the less you need to concede. Their batna tells you what target you should set and how aggresive to be
      - be classy when you walkaway dont damage the relationship
- - - - If they make the first offer: you should aggesively cunter based on the same information you would have used to make your first offer
        
        lighten the mood with a joke
- - - - what we feel greatly influences the things we think
- - - - attributtion theory, when we explain the behaviours of others we look for internal attributes such as jelousy or shyness or hot temper)
        but we explain our own behavior using external attributions such as the situation or environment
      - fundamental attribution error overestimating impact of personality and underestimating impact of the siutation in analysing behaviour of others
        someone may be shy in a siutation but we can wrongly assume they are always shy when they might be so loud around close friends.
        and if we are quiet we may put that to being in a new environment or being tired due to an early start.
- - - - Pareto efficient fronter:
        
        agreement is pareto efficient if neither party can get any moe value without hurting the other
        
        (optimal middle ground equilibrium)
- - - - split the difference - works better for small differences or if both sides lowball
      - Deal sweeteners bonuses, furnishings for apartments, upgrades for a car
      - Provide alternatives - finding alternatives that meet both parties needs
      - Assume the close: start the paperwork
      - Ratification - action of signing or giving formal consent to a contract or agreement making it officially valid
      - exploding offers: incorporate scarcity, expires in 24 hours reducing ability to get other alternatives.
        likely to anger other party
      - Final offer: an ultimatem (take it or i walk)
  - - - Why hardball tactics can be negative
        Negotiators who fall back on hard-bargaining strategies lack understanding of what can be gained with intergrative bargaining
        
        negotiators tent to respond in the way they are treated (viscious cycle of threats)
        
        overall, its a quick way to spiral the negotiation and damage the relationship.
        
        prevention: dont play hardball if you dont want it
        Dealing with hardball tactics:
        
        ignore them
        
        discuss them
        
        respond in kind
        
        co-opt ithe other party befriend them
        
        ask them to explain themselves
        
        Defusing hardball tactics
        
        when intentional
        
        explicityly acknowledge that the other part is tough and you can be tough too
        
        Make the first small concession and ask for one in return
        
        when unintentional
        
        iprove the accuracy of communication - take their perspective and invite them t otake yours
        
        control issues - reduce the number of substative (most important) issues, state issues concretely rather than as a principle, restrict precedents
        
        agree on rules and procedures
        
        estabilish commonalities
        
        Offer to change to more productive methods
- - - - Pros:
        increased productivity/creativity (at moderate levels)
        
        divergent view points
        
        more critical eval of alternatives
        
        more communication and problem solving
        
        more task focus
        
        greater sense of challenge increases effort)
      - Cons:
        Reduces satisfaction and consensus
        
        increases anxiety and tension
- - - - Ethical blind spots
        
        defined: people's tendancy to not recognise when we are activing unethically
        
        good people do bad things when they arent aware they are doing anything wrong
        
        Motivational blindness: tendancy to not notice the unethical actions of others when it is against our own best interests to notice.
        
        the "want" self is that part of us that acts on self interest without regard for morals, is silent during planning stage of a decision but dominates at the actual time of the final decision (think a guy deciding last minute its not right to rob this house).
        
        Common rationalisations for unethical conduct
        
        "the tactic was unavoidable"
        
        "the tactic was harmless"
        
        "the tactic will help avoid negative consequences"
        
        the tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic was altruistically (belief that others wellbeing is equal if not more important thena wellbeing or survival of self) motivated.
        
        "they had it coming" , "they deserve it", "im getting my due"
        
        "they were going to do it anyway, so i will do it first"
        
        the tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
        
        Overcoming ethical blindspots
        
        acknowledge the reality of bias and biases
        
        build in system of checks and balances at all levels in order to address this fact...starting with ourselves
      - Moral disengagement
        
        when individuals convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply to them within a particular reason or context.
        
        Diffusing responsibility is when people behave in an inhumane manner by aggregating peoples behaviour which by themselves is harmless.
        the person is less likely to take responsibility for action when others are present.
        
        Dehumanising occurs when the person convinces themselves that the person receieving the behaviour is less than human and doesnt deserve the same treatment as others (debasing the others individuality)
        
        Reconstructing immoral conduct is when a person depicts an otherwise morally bad behaviour as having some sort of moral purpose.
        eg: tracking down a pedo and beating him up with the excuse that he did something bad so its ok.
        
        Misrepresenting occurs where the individual attempts to avoid admitting to themselves that their conduct is wrong by ignoring personal reflection on what the negative consequences of their behaviour might be
  - - - Impacts the self:
        
        mental energy cost
        
        self perception, guilt
        
        (you get thingsy ou dont want when you lie about priorities)
      - Impact on negotiation
        
        incites desire for vengeance in the betrayed
        
        prevents beneficial agreements
        
        affects long-term relationship
      - Impact on organisation and society
        
        increases general suspiciousness
        
        free rider: wanting the benefits of lying without the costs of being lied to.
    - - Advice on Lying
        
        dont do it
        
        read contracts carefully before signing
        
        in addition to ensuring that you behave legally, govern your behaviour according to what you believe (personal norms) is, or will be perceived to be (social norms), right or wrong
        
        make sure to consult with your legal department
- - - - deliberate
        
        conscious
        
        introspective (self analysing)
        -slow/cold
    - - automatic
        
        non-conscious
        
        associative (things that you think of because you saw or heard something that reminds you of the things you associate with them
  - - - In-group favourtism: people prefer (and have affinity for) one's in group over the out group (or anyone viewed as outside the in group)
        
        wanting friend to get the job over more qualified stranger
    - - Out group derogation: an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-group
        when i sat on the middle seat of the plane i was seen by dom as blocking the goals of then ingroup (dom and alissa)