Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Negotiation Final
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Why is teaming important | Most negotiations are complex; need other expertise We think differently than our partners do |
| Teaming can help with? | Dealing with multiple complex issues |
| Teaming pitfalls | coordination and pooling of knowledge impasse more likely |
| Common knowledge effect | Teams seldom effectively pool individual knowledge. Instead, they tend to discuss information that all members/many members know (shared information) at the expense of discussing information that one member/few members know (unshared information). |
| Why does common knowledge happen | Mutual enhancement: we like people who think like us; who share our attitudes Uncertainty makes us look to others and follow the “norm” |
| Common knowledge interventions | Search for unique info Caution agianst making decision beforehand (confirmartion bias) Records facts that justify decision Decide on decision criteria and then evaluate options |
| Team negotiation findings | Teams are often better at maximizing joint value but… They more often reach impasses Being in a group can make individuals more competitive Group polarization effects which can lead to extreme first offers |
| Select team on basis | Skills & Abilities Motivation Diversity |
| Team Coordination issues | Infor Sharing- need to determine what unique infor we need Interaction Process- how do we comminicate |
| Coordination Remedies | Add time Clear and Explicit team goals & objectives Develop systematic ways of examining problems |
| Multiparty negotiation definition | Multi part negotiation is a process in which three or more persons or teams, with their own interests, decide how to resolve their conflicting preferences among issues. |
| Challenges of multiparty negotiations | Dealing with coalitions-> possible coalitions build exponentially with more parties Formulating trade offs-> circular logrolling |
| Distribution rules | Equity=proportional to inputs (how god wanted) Equality = everyone gets the same (communist cucks) Needs = those who need the most get the most (xxtra communist) |
| Why to use equity | Promotes contribution and performance God wants it |
| Why to use equality | Quick and easy Promotes cooperation and equal status |
| Why to distribute fairly | Used in relationships, promotes harmony but also neediness |
| Keys for distributing fairly | -identify distributions w/o knowning your share -engage in perspective taking (role play ((kinky)) -Identify objective sources and criteria |
| Trust def | accepting vulnerability based upon a belief in the expectation that another will behave as anticipated |
| Trust tips | -Build Rapport -Communicate an intent to cooperate -Gain public commitments -Signal interdependence |
| Process tips | -Build agenda -Assign: Faciliatator, time keeper, recorder, devils advocate -Discuss grround rules -Discuss how decisions will be made (majority, consensus, unanimity) |
| Majority decision | Easiest, however it can leave people out and may negatively impact implementation, vote can be swayed by powerful minority |
| Unanimity | everyone agrees, can be time consuming and not always feasible |
| Consensus | involve joint problem solving, groups memebers often more satisfied and committed |
| Coalitions are likely to form when | Decisions are made by majority rule, such as at the executive committees of the partners or in boards of directors |
| How to strengthen coalition | Emphasize cost of not joining build interpersonal relationships Select coaltion members for their reputatiion for honoring commitments prpose an allocation structure commensurate with the distribution of power or resources |
| Discouraging coalition formation | Powerful party negotiates with each party separately Capitalize on philosophical or strategic differences within the coalitions Offer to buy out coalition members |
| Dispute context | one party made a claim, other party has rejectaed it High levels of negative emotion Constrained communication channels Communication characterized by position, criticism, & blame Personalization of conflict Heightened perceptions of parties diff |
| Conflict counter intuitive | Do not push back Reframe as a problem to be solved Invite criticism for your proposals Ask "what ifs" |
| 3 ways to conflict resolutions | 1. integrate the interests underlying the dispute 2. determine who is right/wrong under some standard of contract/law 3. Determine who is more powerful, who has leverage |
| Rights based approaches | Who is right in this conflict, are there standards that can be applied Searching for an objective view |
| rights based strategies | legal standards- precedents, legal guides problem- which precedents are relevant Social standards- distributive justice, procedural justice Problem- can we ever view objectively |
| Rights based approach benefits | Interests based approach exhausted Your claim has moral standing that 3rd party would back up Effective claiming |
| Power based approaches | Ability to force other side to accept your claim in the dispute Ability to coerce or to inflict harm |
| Power and effective threates | 1. Magnitude of harm 2. Probability of being carried out |
| Use power when | -outcome more important than relationship -need for speed of implementation -previous efforts have failed |
| Costs of power approach | -can be viewed as aggresive -may create enemies, even when idea is adopted -lack of buy in -short term results, long term pain |
| Interest basis for resolution | -negotiation -mediation |
| Rights basis for resolution | -arbitration -court |
| Power basis for resolution | -dismissal/quit -bankruptcyu -strike |
| 3 types of third parties | mediator arbrirator agent |
| How can mediators help | -provide a controlled setting in which parties can vent their emotions -control the procedure so that each disputnt has a voice -Engage the disputants in searching for acceptable settlements -Motivate the parties to resolve the dispute |
| Caucusus def | Meetings by mediator with one side only |
| Shuttle diplomacy definition | sides do not meet very much - mediator caucusing with each side until agreement |
| Mediation vs Arbitration | -Mediation settlements have fewer problems -mediation cost much less -Arbitration system is biased in favor of defendants(def are repeat customers) |
| When to use rights or power? | -When the other party will not come to neg table -When the negs are at an impasse |
| Culture def | a group of people who share a common set of values, beliefs, norms, codes, rules, and customs |
| Layer 1 of culture | Visible/Visual reality: Behaviors, cloths, food, language Org chart, hr policies, and handbook |
| layer 2 of culture | Norms and values -what is wrong and right (norms) -what is good and bad (values) |
| Level 3 of cultuer | unquestioned, basic assumptions -way to reconcile dilemmas, problems we face |
| Egalitarianism | Low power distance -minimizes importance of wealth and status, seeks equality |
| Hierarchical | High power distance Guided by status, deference to social order; power connotes privilege, seeks obedience and respect |
| Achievement motivation types | Task-orientation vs relational-orientation |
| Task-orientation | Comfort w/ explicit messages, assertiveness, being competitve, action focused |
| Relational-orientation | Avoiding confrontations, politeness & solidarity, cooperation, harmony focused |
| 6 key ares of diff across cultures | -Individualism vs. collectivism -power distance -achievement motivation -comfort with uncertainty -use of time -level of formality |
| Desire for certainty types | -High risk orientation -Low risk/structure orientation |
| high risk orientation | values variety, flexibility & adaptation, pragmatic approach to rules |
| low risk/structure orientation | Values consistency, predictability' more support regarding structures and rules/procedures, experct adherence |
| Use of time differences | Cyclical or traditional Linear or modern |
| cyclical or traditional time | plentiful, circular, convenience |
| linear or modern time | Economic, scarc resource, segmented'; punctuality recognizes the value of the other sides time |
| Highly formal | use of tiles, proper channels, bureaucratic |
| informal | familiarity, variet, idiosyncratic |
| Ethnocentrism | -our culture serves as a benchmark -easy to view our own cultural tendecies as normal or right -Viewing out way of thinking as superior |
| Cultural trap competing values | People will negotiate -valuations -price -costs --timing, terms People WONT negotiate -values -core beliefs -traditions -moral standards |
| Best knowledge source for cross culture negs | People with direct experience with the target person, within that org, in that culture |
Created by:
jonbomb400
Popular Business sets