SOLUTION: Wichita State University Negotiating Across Cultures Principle Application Papers


Name: Abdullah Alghonaim
Date: 03/12/2020
Course: negotiation across culture
Negotiating with friends when the stakes are high
▪People in close relationships don’t make good deals
▪They usually compromise without exploring value-add creative options
▪Seek a third party’s help
I had to buy playstation and a television. When I checked online it was $700.00 online for the both of
them, so I started to explore my options for a while. I had mentioned to my friend what I was looking for
and he was getting rid of both his playstation and television as well and getting new ones. His starting
price for both was $600.00. I told him that for them both being used that price was too high. I explained
to him that it would only be 100 more if I went ahead and just bought them new and I might as well get
them new. He brought the price down to $550.00 and then I started negotiating that we were close
friends and all I had done for him so he finally brought the price down to $450.00.
Your Bargaining
Style
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Relationships
The Other
Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Preparing
Your Strategy
Exchanging
Information
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Your
Ethics in
Bargaining
Leverage
Negotiation
Style
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Competing
▪Collaborating
▪Compromising
▪Avoiding
▪Accommodating
Opening and
Making
Concessions
Closing and
Gaining
Commitment
Ethics in
Negotiation
Your Bargaining
Style
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Relationships
The Other
Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Preparing
Your Strategy
Exchanging
Information
Opening and
Making
Concessions
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Those who set goals in negotiations routinely
outperform those who only set reserve or “walk-away”
levels.
Closing and
Gaining
Commitment
Ethics in
Negotiation
Your Bargaining
Style
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Relationships
The Other
Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Preparing
Your Strategy
Exchanging
Information
Opening and
Making
Concessions
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Know the applicable standards and norms. Identify the
ones the other party views as legitimate.
Closing and
Gaining
Commitment
Ethics in
Negotiation
Your Bargaining
Style
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Relationships
The Other
Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Preparing
Your Strategy
Exchanging
Information
Opening and
Making
Concessions
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Relationships
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Gain credibility through relationship networks
▪Build working relationships with small steps such as
gifts, favors, disclosures, or concessions
▪Avoid reciprocity and relationship traps
Closing and
Gaining
Commitment
Ethics in
Negotiation
Your Bargaining
Style
Your Goals
and
Expectations
Authoritative
Standards
and Norms
Relationships
The Other
Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Preparing
Your Strategy
Exchanging
Information
Opening and
Making
Concessions
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
The Other
Party’s
Interests
▪Locate the decision maker
▪How might it serve the other party’s interests to help
you achieve your goals.
Closing and
Gaining
Commitment
Ethics in
Negotiation
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Leverage
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Which side has the most to lose from no deal?
▪For whom is time a factor?
▪Can I improve my alternatives or make the other
party’s worse?
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Preparing Your
Strategy
▪Situational matrix
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Exchanging
Information
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪Establish rapport
▪Obtain information (probe and disclose)
▪Signal leverage
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Opening and Making
Concessions
▪Open/Concession/Situation
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Closing and Gaining
Commitment
▪Bargaining/Closing/Situation Tactical matrix
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Ethics in
Negotiation
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪What are your ethics?
▪Use of relationships to avoid being taken advantage of
▪Probe, probe, probe. Don’t take things at face value
▪Don’t have to answer every question
▪Don’t lie. Use truth to your advantage
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Power
Distance
▪The extent to which less
powerful members within a
country expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Individualism
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
▪The perspective that the identity
of an individual is his or her own
vs. derived from his/her collective
group.
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Masculinity
▪Relatively strong form of societallevel sex-role differentiation
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Uncertainty
Avoidance
▪The extent to which one accepts
ambiguous situations and
tolerates uncertainty.
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
Long-term
Orientation
▪The extent to which emphasis is
placed on perseverance and
savings for future betterment.
Your Bargaining Style
Your Goals and Authoritative Standards
Relationships
Expectations
and Norms
The Other Party’s
Interests
Leverage
Opening and MakingClosing and Gaining
Preparing Your Strategy
Exchanging Information
Ethics in Negotiation
Concessions
Commitment
Power
Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-term
Orientation
High/Low
Context
HighLow
Context
▪The extent to which
communication relies upon the
face-value of what is said vs. the
unspoken underlying context.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
The master is not he who begins but
he who finishes.
–Slovakian Folk Saying

The scarcity effect is the powerful human tendency to
want things more when we think the supply is running
out
▪ Scarcity caused by many people wanting the same thing—
competition
▪ Astute negotiators emphasize that what they have is in great demand
and the supply is dwindling fast. They may discuss other offers or
opportunities
▪ Scarcity caused by time running out—deadlines
▪ Negotiators who set deadlines imply that time is running out on the offer
▪ Sometimes particular terms of an offer have an “exploding” deadline at
which time that term will expire if not accepted
▪ Scarcity caused by walkouts
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
Over-commitment comes from our human desire to
avoid admitting failure or accepting loss when we have
invested heavily in a prior course of action or decision.
The more time someone invests in an activity, the more
committed he becomes to seeing it through even
though the decision may no longer make sense.
 Some negotiators will “wait until the last minute” at
closing to spring some things upon the other side—
understanding that they will be reluctant to walk away
after getting so close to closing.

“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
Situation
Should I open?
How to Open?
Concession
Strategy
Closing Strategy
Transactions
When in doubt,
don’t. But OK if
you have good
information
Optimistically
(highest or
lowest figure
supported by
presentable
argument)
Firmness:
Concede slowly
in diminishing
amounts toward
expectation level
Deadlines;
walkouts; final
offer; split the
difference; 3rd
party appraisal
Balanced
Concerns
Same as above
Fairly (highest or
lowest figure
supported by
solid argument)
Big moves on
little issues, little
moves on big
issues;
brainstorm
options, present
several packages
at once
All of the above;
post-settlement
settlement;
Relationships
Yes
Generously
Accommodation
or fair
compromise
Split the
difference;
accommodation
Tacit
Coordination
Yes but avoid
conflict if
possible
Do whatever it
takes to solve
the problem
Accommodation
Accommodation
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006




Negotiations harness one of human nature’s most basic psychological drives:
our need to maintain (at least in our own eyes) an appearance of consistency
and fairness in our words and deeds.
We like to maintain consistency by appealing to established standards.
If we deviate too far from established standards, we may appear to be
unreasonable.
Examples of “established standards”
▪ Interest rates
▪ Car buying guides
▪ Real estate “comparables”
▪ Earnings multiples
▪ Profitability
▪ Efficiency
▪ ROI
▪ Others?
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
Must find the standards that apply in your negotiation
Be ready to respond to arguments the other side has
and the standards they will most likely use.
 If the standards are open to interpretation. Be prepared
to argue your range of the interpretation and argue
against the other sides interpretation.
 Humans have a psychological need to be perceived as
reasonable. This is the “consistency principle”
 We are more open to persuasion when we perceive a
proposed course of action as being consistent with a
course we have already adopted.


“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
The skillful use of standards, norms, and coherent
positioning to gain advantage or protect a position.
 You maximize your leverage when you use the
standards and norms that the other party views as
legitimate and relevant
 If you set up your own needs, standards, or entitlements
as the basis for the negotiation, you will not inspire
agreement.
 Anticipate the other side’s standards and frame your
proposal within them. (Use “their” words)

▪ If not possible to do this, prepare to argue for a special
exception from the other party’s standard.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

A consistency trap pre-commits you to a seemingly innocent
standard and then confronts you with the logical implications of
the particular case.
▪ “Would you like to save some money?”
▪ “Don’t you think a fair price for the company would reflect comparable sales of
similar companies?

How to avoid consistency traps…?
▪ Be alert to them. Slow the pace.
▪ Turn the table and ask the questions
▪ Qualify your answers. Use your own words and very broad definitions that leave
room for future interpretations.

If caught in an inconsistency…?
▪ A. Adjust your position to conform to the standard
▪ Admit that you made a mistake when you initially agreed with the standard

Use an audience or third party
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

A crisp memorable phrase or framework
that defines the problem that you are
attempting to solve in the negotiation.
▪ UPS and Teamster’s Union:
▪ “Part –time America won’t work”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Humans are inclined to defer to authority
▪ Some cultures are more this way than others

Negotiators use many ways to play on this
human inclination to defer…
▪ Long, authoritative-looking standard form contracts
in legalese
▪ “Company policy”
▪ “Standard procedure”
▪ “Industry standard” or “Industry norm”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Why is it so hard to see things from the other party’s
perspective?
▪ Common human limitation of seeing things through the lens of
our own interests –also known as “partisan perceptions.”
▪ We bring a competitive attitude to negotiations and assume
conflict of interest rather than shared interest.
▪ The dynamics of the negotiation become the end rather than
the means; i.e., we “bluff” about our true interests in order to
win concessions
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

1. Identify the decision maker
▪ Companies set policies but PEOPLE negotiate.
▪ Must find out the interests of the DECISION MAKER. They may not be the
same as the one doing the negotiating

2. Look for common ground: How might it serve the other party’s
interests to help you achieve your goals?
▪ Try role playing with role reversal
▪ As a consumer, what shared interests do you have? What conflicting
interests to you have? Are there shared interests that might trump the
conflicting interests?
▪ Two prices for things: The full price for those who are easy to satisfy who
dislike negotiation and the discounted price for those willing to ask for it.
Which price do you pay?
▪ “I would be a really satisfied customer if you could ………”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

3. Identify interests that might interfere with
agreement: Why might the other party say
“No”?
▪ It is often what you think but sometimes not

4. Search for low-cost options that solve the
other party’s problems while advancing your
goals.
▪ Example of Kelly Sarber and Oceanside, California
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

All of us negotiate, many times per day…
▪ As children, we negotiated for attention, for treats,
and for a bigger allowance
▪ As adults, we negotiate for…
▪ Attention
▪ Treats
▪ A bigger allowance
Negotiation is an interactive communication
process that may take place whenever we want
something from someone else or someone else
wants something from us.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

“Trades would not take place unless it were
advantageous to the parties concerned. Of
course, it is better to strike as good a bargain
as one’s bargaining position permits. The
worst outcome is when, by overreaching
greed, no bargain is struck, and a trade that
could have been advantageous to both
parties does not come off at all.”
–Benjamin Franklin
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Remember the conference table example that
rewarded with $1,000 the first 2 people who
could convince the person across from them to
come stand behind their chair? What would you
have done? Really?

Avoid
▪ Sit tight. Do nothing. Suspect a trick. Worry about
looking dumb.
▪ “I don’t like to negotiate and so I don’t do it unless I
have to…”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Compromise
▪ Offer to split the $1,000 with the other person if
they will run to stand behind your chair

Accommodation
▪ Immediately, without an agreement, get up and
run and stand behind your counterpart’s chair,
trusting that s/he will share the $1,000 with you
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Competitive
▪ Promise to split the money and then not do so;
Tell the other person you have a broken leg and
can’t run so they need to run behind your chair

Collaborative
▪ Both parties simultaneously run to get behind
each other’s chairs thus both getting $1,000
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Accommodating
▪ Derive satisfaction from solving other peoples’ problems.
▪ Good relationship building skills
▪ Sensitive to others’ emotional states, body language, and
verbal signals
Weakness:
May place too much importance on relationship
May be vulnerable to more competitive people
Low accommodators more concerned about being right
than being persuasive
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Compromising
▪ Eager to close the deal by closing the gap in negotiations
▪ Look for fair standards and formulae that will allow them to
close the deal quickly
▪ Perceived as a “reasonable person”
Weakness:
May rush the negotiations too quickly
Do not ask enough questions
May accept the “standard” offered too readily
Low compromisers are “men and women of principle”
More concerned with winning an argument than closing a deal
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Avoiding
▪ Adept at deferring and dodging the confrontational aspects of negotiation
▪ May be perceived as having graceful tact and diplomacy
▪ Possibly great team member on high conflict team
Weakness:
May become bottlenecks when conflict is part of the function of an
organization
Problems only get worse if not addressed
Miss many opportunities to get things that were never asked for
Low avoiders have no fear of conflict. They may even enjoy it. They can
fight hard all day against the other side and be friendly with them that night
over dinner. They may be perceived as tactless troublemakers. They have
little patience for bureaucracy or office politics.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Collaborating
▪ Enjoy negotiations because they enjoy solving tough problems in engaged
interactive ways
▪ Skilled at discovering basic interests, perceptions, and new solutions
▪ Honestly committed to finding the best solution for everyone involved
Weakness:
May make a simple issue overly complicated
May be taken advantage of if they don’t also have competing skills
Low collaborators want to stick to the agenda, the issues, and their prepared
plan. They may get frustrated at creative brainstorming. One way to deal
with this is to take breaks to allow a low collaborator to re-focus and adjust
to the new situation
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Competing
▪ Love to negotiate because it presents opportunity to win or lose
▪ They love to WIN
▪ Have strong instincts about leverage, deadlines, opening, closing,
ultimatums, etc. This is a game and they get to keep score.
Weakness:
May be hard on relationships
Might hurt the long-term potential of a deal
May put too much focus on things that can be counted
Low competors will be perceived as “non-threatening” which can be an
advantage. They look at negotiations as a dance rather than a game. When
high stakes are on the table, they may be at a disadvantage.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006


Critical skill that is practiced constantly
Anxiety about negotiating hurts us…
▪ Limits our ability to “think on our feet”
▪ Narrows our perspective of the problem

No single, one-size-fits-all strategy for negotiating
▪ Too many situations and variables for single effective
strategy that is best in all cases



Adapt to differences realistically and intelligently
Maintain ethics and self-respect
All deals that close are “win-win”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

You already have what it takes to be a competent negotiator
▪ Identify your own strength and weaknesses
▪ Plan carefully
▪ Sharpen your tools through practice

Learn to be yourself at the bargaining table
▪ Tricks and strategies that don’t feel comfortable won’t work for you
▪ No need to be tricky
▪ Great need to be alert and smart

The best negotiators…




Play it straight
Ask lots of questions
Listen carefully
Concentrate on what each side is trying to accomplish through the
negotiations
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Solid planning and preparation before you
start

Careful listening so you can find out what the
other side really wants

Attending to the “signals” the other party
sends once the negotiation has begun
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Involves zero (fixed) sum games
▪ One person’s gain varies inversely with another
person’s gain.

Almost directly conflicting interests
▪ Each party is attempting to maximize his/her share of
the fixed sum.

Simply dividing the pie
▪ However, parties do not generally know how large the
pie is.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
▪ What will you do if there is no deal?
▪ BATNA = Power
▪ Crucial preparation: Prior to the negotiation, develop the most
attractive BATNA you can

Reservation Point (RP): The bottom line; the point at
which a negotiator is indifferent between a negotiated
agreement and an impasse.
▪ Must determine the BATNA first, then can set the RP

Target: Each side’s goals or aspirations; the most each
party reasonably hopes to achieve in the negotiation
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

The bargaining zone is the space between the buyer’s
RP and the seller’s RP.

Positive Bargaining Zone
▪ If RP(s) RP(b), then a zone of possible agreement does
not exist.
▪ If cost of continuing is too high, walk away. If not, search
for way to bridge the gap.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

What is your BATNA?
Why?

What is your reservation price?
Why?

What is your target?
Why?
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

How did negotiations evolve?

What strategies and tactics were used?

How was the final price decided?
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Discovering the other party’s RP
▪ Assess other’s outcome values and costs of terminating
negotiations

Influencing the other party’s RP
▪ Manage other’s impression of outcome values
▪ Screening; selective presentation
▪ Modify other’s perception of outcome values
▪ Highlighting/concealing something overlooked
▪ Manipulate actual costs of delay or termination
▪ Disruptive action; manipulation of schedule

The key is INFORMATION: What do you know about
them? What do they know about you?
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
Leverage is having something the
other guy wants. Or, better yet,
needs. Or, best of all, simply cannot
do without.”
–Donald Trump
The most important factor of all those so far reviewed
 Leverage is your power to obtain agreement on your own terms.
 Leverage is the balance of needs and fears
 We pay close attention to the other party’s needs. However, the
purpose in doing so is NOT to help them achieve their goals but to
ensure that we obtain OURS.
 Leverage is DYNAMIC, not static. It can change moment to
moment
 The better your BATNA, the greater your leverage
 Which side needs the deal more to achieve its goals? That side
has less leverage.

“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006
Always ask and assess: Which side has the most to lose
from “no deal”?
 Three types of leverage:

▪ 1. Positive leverage—the relative ability of each side to provide things that
the other party wants.
▪ Every time the other party says, “I want” you can be gaining leverage.
▪ This leverage comes from not only being able to provide what the other side wants but also
in knowing their true needs
▪ 2. Negative leverage—the relative ability of each side to take away things
the other currently has.




Potential losses loom larger in the human mind than do equivalent gains.
Threats need to be carefully used. Hints are more effective than shouts.
Threats are like dealing with explosives. Everyone can be hurt
If threatened in negotiation, prepare to fight fire with fire.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Three types of leverage:
▪ 3. Normative leverage—leverage based on application of the consistency
principle
▪ Opportunities that will be lost if the parties fail to reach a deal
▪ Threats to each party’s status quo
▪ Loss of self-esteem should a party’s actions appear inconsistent with a prior or professed
standard


The party with the most to lose has the least leverage
The party with the least to lose has the most leverage
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Your goal is to alter the situation (or at least the other party’s
perception of the situation) so you have less to lose, the other
side has more to lose, or both.
▪ Gain more information about what the other side really needs
▪ Acquire credible power to make the other side worse off
▪ Frame your needs under principles and norms that the other side will have
difficulty walking away from
▪ Bind yourself to a course of action that forces the other side to concede
▪ Improve your BATNA by seeking alternative solutions to your underlying
problem that do NOT require the other party’s cooperation
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Group dynamics often favor those who first
achieve “others” buy-in and support
▪ Assemble coalitions before the meeting starts
▪ “Nemawashi” – “digging around the roots”


“Social Proof” – In ambiguous situations,
people take their cues from what other
people do
Coalitions can improve your position and
make the other party’s position worse
▪ Example: Northern Plains Premium Beef
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Misconception #1: Leverage and power are the
same thing
▪ Example: When your toddler doesn’t want to eat his
vegetables
▪ Bribes?
▪ Threats?
▪ Something else?
 Acknowledge the leverage, appeal to shared interest
▪ Regardless of how important you are, you had better treat
carefully those people who control the decision that you want
made.
▪ Ask:
“What do I control that the other side wants?”
“What do they control that I want?”
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Misconception #2: Leverage is a constant
that doesn’t change
▪ Leverage is dynamic, not static
▪ Leverage changes and negotiations proceed
▪ Therefore, there are some times that are better than
others for making needs known and insisting they be
met.
▪ Timing matters in negotiations
▪ Example: Negotiating salary, benefits, perks, etc.
▪ You improve your chances of success when you ask for
things at the time when your leverage is high
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Misconception #3: Leverage depends on the
facts
▪ Leverage depends on the other party’s perception of
the situation, not the facts.
▪ You have the leverage the other side THINKS you
have
▪ This can also work against you…
▪ You may think the other side has a stronger position than
they really do
▪ You may be in a good position but they may not believe y0u
▪ Example: Your ability as an employee
▪ Example: The quality of performance of your product/service
▪ You must do what it takes to let the other side know of your leverage
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Leverage works differently (or it should) within
families, firms, and organizations than it does in
competitive marketplaces
▪ Example: Better “walkaways” improve leverage in
competitive marketplace but does not work in families,
firms, and organizations
▪ Example: In families, firms, and organizations, we rely
more on normative leverage with the norms being the
values the group share
▪ Example: In the competitive marketplace, signs of
urgency decrease our leverage. However, in families,
firms, and organizations, this urgency and passion may
increase our leverage—especially if it is not often resorted
to.
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006






Which side has the most to lose from no deal?
For whom is time a factor?
Can I improve my alternatives or make the
other party’s worse?
Can I gain control over something the other
party needs?
Can I commit the other party to norms that
favor my result?
Can I form a coalition to improve my
position?
“Bargaining for Advantage;” G. Richard Shell; Penguin Books 2006

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

Source link