Tema 3. Information management and human factor (2012)

Apunte Español
Universidad Universidad Internacional de Cataluña (UIC)
Grado Administración y Dirección de Empresas (ADE) English Programme - 2º curso
Asignatura Negotiation theory and practice
Año del apunte 2012
Páginas 4
Fecha de subida 06/06/2014
Descargas 0

Vista previa del texto

Geraldine  Leirós   Resumen   Negotiation  Theory  and  Practice     Information  Management:   1. Receive  Information:   a. Must  be  done  before  the  negotiation   b. Research   2. Manage  Silence:   a. Silence  can  grant  you  benefits   b. Silence  might  be  an  advantage   3. Create  breaks:   a. Pedir  time  out  para  reenfocarte.   b. Ayuda  a  cambiar  el  rumbo  de  la  negociación   4. No  dar  información:   a. Revelar  solo  lo  justo   b. Hay  cosas  que  tenemos  derecho  a  guardarnos.   Human  Factor   1. Factor  cultural   a. Hoffstede:   i. Collectivism/individualism   1. Individualist  society  value  autonomy  over  interdependence   a. Behaviors  are  guided  by  attitudes,  personal  needs.   2. Collectivistic  society  cares  about  belonging  and  identifying  to  an  inner   group.   a. Behaviors  are  guided  by  norms,  obligation  and  duties.   ii. Power  Distance:  the  way  people  deal  with  inequalities  and  authority  in  a  given   society.  Societies,  which  are  high  on  power  distance,  show  more  tolerance  for   inequality,  higher  concentration  of  power  at  the  top  of  the  organization  and   unilateral  decision-­‐making.   1. It  is  the  degree  to  which  members  of  an  organization  or  society  expect   power  should  be  shared.   iii. Monochronic  vs.  Polychronic  Time:  people  are  schedule-­‐  dominated   1. Monochronic:  tend  to  be  less  flexible,  in  that  they  focus  on  the  level  of   priority  of  the  task  and  on  its  timely  achievement.   2. Polychronic:  tend  to  see  matters  in  a  constant  state  of  movement,  which   one  cannot  totally  control.   iv. High  /  Low  Context  Communication  pattern:  to  give  info.  About  the  context.   1. High  Context:  there’s  a  need  to  put  in  context  everything.  Societies  tend  to   give  great  importance  to  family,  relationships  and  tradition.   2. Low  Context:  are  societies,  which  place  less  importance  on  relationships.   v. Locus  of  Control:   1. Internality:  tendency  to  believe  that  he  or  she  controls  events  in  life.   2. Externality:  control  resides  elsewhere,  such  as  with  powerful  others.     Americans   Spaniards   Basic  Cultural  Values   Individualist   Collectivist  (changing)   Low  Power  distance   Culture:  asset   Info.  Focused   Low  Context   Monochronic   Internal  locus  of   Control       1.
High  Power  distance   Culture:  identity   Relationship  Focused   High  Context   Polychronic  time  mode   External  locus  of   control   Americans   Spaniards   The  objective  of  negotiation   Timely  closing  of   Developing  the  business   the  deal   relationship   Negotiation  Style   Direct   Indirect   Formal   Informal   Pragmatic   Emotional   What  trust  if  Function  of   Detailed  written   Relationship  and  honor   agreement   Americans   Spaniards   What  authority  is  Function  of   Delegation   Seniority  and  Status   The  balance  of  power  is  function  of   Authority   BATNA                   Bargaining  over  Positions   1   Geraldine  Leirós   Resumen   Negotiation  Theory  and  Practice     • There  are  three  criteria    To  produce  a  wise  agreement  if  possible.  It  should   o Meet  legitimate  interests   o Resolves  conflicting  interests  fairly   o Durable   o Take  community  interests  into  account    Efficiency    It  should  improve  or  at  least  not  damage  the  relationship  between  the  parties   • Most  common  form  of  negotiation:  taking  and  the  giving  up  a  sequence  of  positions.   • Positional  bargaining  fails  to  meet  the  basic  criteria  of  producing  a  wise  agreement,   efficiently  and  amicably.   • Arguing  over  positions  produces  unwise  agreements    They  tend  to  lock  themselves  into  those  positions.  The  more  you  clarify  your  position,   the  more  committed  you  become  to  it.    Your  ego  becomes  identified  with  your  position    you  have  an  interest  in  saving  face.    As  more  attention  is  paid  to  positions,  less  attention  is  devoted  to  meeting  the   underlying  concerns  of  the  parties.    Any  agreement  reached  may  reflect  a  mechanical  splitting  of  the  difference  between   final  positions  rather  that  a  solution  carefully  crafted.    Result:  frequently  less  satisfactory.   • Arguing  over  positions  is  inefficient    Process  takes  a  lot  of  time.    You  try  to  improve  the  chance  by:   o Starting  with  an  extreme  position   o By  stubbornly  holding  to  it   o By  deceiving  the  other  party  as  to  your  true  views   o By  making  small  concessions  to  keep  the  negotiation  going.    The  more  extreme  the  opening  positions  and  the  smaller  the  concessions    more  time   and  effort  will  take  to  make  an  agreement.    The  process  requires  a  large  number  of  individual  decisions    that  is  difficult  and  time-­‐   consuming.   • Arguing  over  positions  endangers  an  ongoing  relationship    It  becomes  a  contest  of  will    Anger  and  resentment  often  result  as  one  side  sees  itself  bending  to  the  rigid  will  of  the   other  while  its  own  legitimate  concerns  go  unaddressed.    More  parties    positional  bargaining  is  even  worse   o More  serious  drawbacks   o Reciprocal  concessions  are  difficult   • Leads  to  the  formation  of  coalitions  among  parties   • The  position  becomes  much  harder  to  change.   2.
Focus  on  interests,  not  positions   3.
Reconcile  interests,  not  positions   • Huge  difference  between  positions  and  interests    Interests  define  the  problem   o The  conflict  lies  between  each  side’s  needs.    Works  for  two  reasons   o For  every  interest  there  are  several  possible  positions.   o When  motivating  interests  are  looked  for,  alternative  positions  can  be  found   that  meets  both  interests.    We  tend  to  assume  that  because  positions  are  opposed,  interests  are  as  well    Agreement  is  often  made  possible  because  interests  differ.     2   Geraldine  Leirós   Resumen   Negotiation  Theory  and  Practice     • HOW  to  identify  interests?  Positions  are  concrete,  but  interests  underlying  are  hard  to  find.    Ask  WHY?    Put  yourself  in  their  shoes   o Make  clear  that  you’re  asking  because  you  want  to  understand,  not  to  get  a   justification.    Ask  WHY  NOT?  Think  about  their  choice.      To  understand  other  party  interests    means  to  understand  the  interests  he  need  to   take  into  account:   o Most  powerful  interests:  HUMAN  NEEDS   • Security   • Economics  well  –  being   • A  sense  of  belonging   • Recognition   • Control  over  one’s  life   • To  acknowledge  other  person  interests   o Basic  human  needs  are  easy  to  overlook   o What  is  true  for  individuals  remains  equally  true  for  groups  and  nations   • Talking  about  interests:  easier  to  serve  your  interests  when  you  communicate  them  (explain   them)    To  be  specific:  concrete  details  lead  to:   o More  credibility   o Add  impact   • Acknowledge  their  interests  as  part  of  the  problem:  people  listen  between  if  they  feel  that   you  have  understood  them.   • Be  hard  on  the  problem,  soft  on  the  people:    Advisable  to  be  hard    Commit  yourself  to  your  interests    Often  wisest  solutions  are  producing  by  advocating  to  your  interests.    Pushing  hard  for  interests  stimulates  creativity  on  each  party.   o Coming  up  with  mutually  advantageous  solutions.    Separate  people  from  the  problem.  Be  personally  supportive.   o Show  that  you’re  attacking  the  problem,  not  them   o Give  positive  support  to  the  human  beings  on  the  other  side  equal  in  strength  to   the  vigor  which  you  emphasize  the  problem   o Theory  of  cognitive  dissonance:  people  dislike  inconsistency  and  will  act  to   eliminate  it.   • To  overcome  this  dissonance,  he  will  be  tempted  to  dissociate  himself   from  the  problem  in  order  to  join  you  in  doing  something  about  it.   o Combination  of  support  and  attacks  works!   o Negotiating  hard  doesn’t  mean  being  closed  to  the  other  side’s  point  of  view.   Successful  negotiation  requires  being  both  firm  and  open.   4.
Invent  Options  for  Mutual  Gain:   • Skill  at  inventing  options  is  one  of  the  most  assets  a  negotiator  can  have.  All  too  often   negotiators  fail  to  reach  agreement  when  they  might  have,  or  they  end  of  with  one  that  isn’t   that  good.  WHY?   • Diagnosis:  obstacles  that  inhibit  the  inventing  of  an  abundance  of  options.    Premature  judgment:  inventing  options  does  not  come  naturally.   o Not  inventing  is  the  normal  state  of  affairs.    Searching  for  the  single  answer:  change  the  scope  of  a  proposed  agreement.   o Agreements  may  be  partial,  involve  fewer  parties,  cover  only  selected  subject   matters,  may  expire.   o Look  to  make  the  agreement  more  attractive.     3   Geraldine  Leirós   Resumen   Negotiation  Theory  and  Practice      The  assumption  of  a  fixed  pie:  “the  less  for  you,  the  more  for  me”    Thinking  “solving  their  problem  is  their  problem”.  In  order  to  overcome  these   constraints,  you  need  to  understand  them.   o Almost  always  exists  joint  gain.   o Identify  shared  interests:  but  they  might  not  appear  obvious.   • Creative  agreements  reflect  the  principle  of  reaching  agreement  through  differences.  Kinds  of   differences:    In  interests    In  beliefs:  agreement  to  submit  the  issue  to  an  impartial  arbitrator  might  be  applied.    Different  values  place  on  time:  you  may  care  about  the  present,  the  other  one  about  the   future.    Different  forecasts:  taking  advantage  of  these  different  expectations.    In  aversion  to  risk:  risk  can  be  traded  for  revenue.   5.
Insist  on  using  creative  criteria:  almost  always  interests  conflict.   • Deciding  on  the  basis  of  will  is  costly  (bargaining  over  position)   • Using  objective  criteria:  to  base  negotiations  on  market  value,  replacement  cost,  depreciated   book  value,  etc.    To  negotiate  on  some  basis  independent  of  the  will.      Be  open  to  reason  but  close  to  threats.    It  produces  wise  agreements  amicably  and  efficiently.    An  agreement  consistent  with  precedent  is  less  vulnerable  to  attack.    Reduces  number  of  commitments  that  each  side  must  make.   • Developing  objective  criteria:    Prepare  in  advance    Fair  Standards:  find  more  than  one  objective  criterion    An  agreement  might  e  based  upon:   o Market  value   o Precedent   o Scientific  Judgment   o Professional  Standards   o Efficiency   o Costs   6.
What  if  they  are  more  powerful?   • If  any  negotiation  there  exist  realities  that  are  hard  to  change.    Protect  you  against  making  an  agreement     4   ...