Common misconceptions about negotiation
•
Most (untrained) Negotiators take
–
–
•
Angels vs. Devils perspective
Zero-sum distributional view
Implementing agreement is not considered,
–
Even if agreement is integrative, need to plan
how to implement it because of prior hostile
relationship
Example implementation of some agreements
• Make the bid together (rather than compete for the
bid so they could negotiate for a lower price).
• The savings from joint bid was used to pay for the
3rd party to separate the fruit and deliver the parts
to the different parties.
• Fruit would be delivered to one party who would
separate the parts deliver the other part to other
party
• Some would under-bid and over bid so that they
could jointly sabotage the bidding process to favor
each other and eliminate the competition
• Agreements and discussion were video recorded to
ensure implementation
Those reaching integrative agreement..
• Focus on interest vs. positions
• Position=I need all of the fruits
• Interest= I need the x part of all the fruit
• Exchange information
– Effective communication via good questioning or
good revealing
• e.g., Why do you need fruit? What do you need it for?
– Accidental disclosure
– Luck
How exchanging info leads to
integrative agreement
• When asked “what do you need the fruit for”, the
answer “I need the rind/flesh/pits” came…
– From further elaboration –
• Get really specific (e.g., not just ‘I need it to help people, but I need
x to create y).
• Info disclosure may be inhibited if parties are suspicious of each
other ‘stealing’ company secrets etc. Also, other party may not be
‘paying attention’ because of the stress of the hostile relations b/w
the two parties
• OR: Some asked “What part of the fruit do you
need?”
– This resulted in the solution
• OR Answer why questions from your side…
– Give detailed info to the same question from your own side
(rather than giving info in the abstract, or waiting for the
other party to answer ‘why’)
How to obtain integrative agreements
• Think about the situation in new ways, i.e.,
engage in creative problem solving
• e.g., think about prunes as 2 (or more) objects, rather
than as one object) i.e., think of the objects under
negotiation in a different way…
• Get progressive agreement on little issues, and
then move on to larger issues
How to obtain integrative agreements
• Make pie bigger
• In current exercise –
– >>
• e.g., House purchase (adding furniture into house
purchase; save broker fees)
• e.g., Mortgage broker (add aeroplan points instead of
lower interest rate)
• e.g., Salary negotiation (e.g., lower base vs. higher
bonus; vacation)
Examples of win-win solutions in real-life
• Franchise-franchiser agreements –
– one party gets local control whereas other party
benefits from national advertising
• TTC employee wage negotiation – negotiated
for a tax cut rather than a salary raise
• Some real-estate agencies offer higher
percentage of the sale price to the broker
whereas others offer perquisites as part of
completing sale instead of a higher percentage.
• 04-05 Raptor trade – Vince Carter traded to
NJ and money left over plus two more players
Examples of win-win solutions in real-life
• Governments persuade companies to be more
environmentally friendly by giving them tax-relief
• Army recruits low SES youth into low paying jobs by
promising to teach them skills and provide them with
work experience. In return, such recruits do defense
and humanitarian work.
• Government sells ‘immigration’ policy to the public
by arguing that migrant workers do jobs that no
citizen wants to do, at low wages. This benefits not
only the migrants who benefit from a job and from
living in the country but also the citizens of the
country who can purchase services/products of low
paying jobs.
Is this exercise realistic?
• Yes, issues would be the similar in real life in terms of
morality of positions
• Yes, party inequalities would be the same -- some will
have more or less power (e.g., provincial vs. federal
negotiations)
• Yes, parties negotiating will often have prior hostile
relationship and seemingly conflicting agendas
• Yes, parties have to negotiate because they are
accountable to their organizations e.g., constituencies
• Yes, parties perceive self-importance of their own
cause
Is this exercise realistic?
• No, not realistic bec. doctors would never
negotiate w/each other-- lawyers and
governing bodies would be involved –
• No, some parties would use a mediator
Sub-optimal agreements resulted when
•
•
Parties used their status e.g., “I am ??”
Rational arguments to persuade the other in the
abstract (e.g., loss of x lives is worse than loss of y ”)
Speaking of positions in abstract “e.g., I am saving
x vs. I am saving y ”
Answered ‘why’ question in the abstract rather
than in the concrete
•
•
–
•
e.g., need x to save y/z vs. I need the rind/pits/flesh to
make
Parties Engaged in ‘unethical’ behavior while
making agreements
–
e.g., one party offered the other negotiator a job if that
negotiator “gave in” to the first party’s wishes
For parties that didn’t come to agreement
• Prior hostile relationship between parties prevented
information exchange, although they understood
each other’s situation, their own priorities came first.
• Info exchange was mainly for own priorities (e.g.,
what the other party will be bidding) rather than to
come to an optimal agreement
Although there was open communication,
– the personality of one party (selfish, arrogance, inability to
look at the overall situation) prevented parties from coming
to a compromise/agreement,
– particular ways of viewing the negotiation situation (e.g.
made negotiation out to be about money & compromise)
– too stressed to listen to the other party’s detailed
communication
• Lack of trust because of prior hostile relationship
For parties that didn’t come to agreement
• Framed it as a moral dilemma: between x & y–
which cause is worth more?
• Deception/lying prevented optimal agreement
in that the person who lied had to compromise
in the end
• Both parties tried to exercise leverage on each
other – moral vs. information leverage
• Some parties did not compromise because they
felt they had a ‘legal/moral’ right (e.g., I’m
from X)
• Time pressure prevented agreement