negotiations chapter10 (michalle)

Multiple party negotiations
Ways in which the multiple party increases the complexity three or more parties simultaneously engage in negotiation.
1. More parties involved in the negotiation, which increases the number of speakers, increases the demand for discussion time, and increases the number of different roles the parties may play.
2. More parties bring more issues and positions to the table, and thus more perspectives must be presented and discussed.
3. Negotiations become socially more complex, social norms emerge that affect member participation, and there may be stronger pressures to conform and suppress disagreement.
4. negotiation become procedurally more complex, and the parties may have to negotiate a new process that allows them to coordinate their action more effectively
5. Because the parties must monitor the moves and actions of several other parties in determining what each will do next?
6. Possibility of coalitions increases the likelihood that decisions will not be made by the comprehensive negotiated consensus, but by some subgroup that can dominate the discussion and decision making process.

Multiple communication

As you can see, the process for multiple party communication is very messy, because there are so many different people involved. This process can be lighten up by using some strategy. Just like any negotiation, a plan should be in place before going into negotiation to insure quality negotiation and to speed up the process.
Stages to forming a group
1. Forming – at this stage, group member are trying to figure out what role they play in the group, learn about each other.
2. storming – conflict surface and team member have to figure out a way to solve the problem to move into the next stage
3. norming – at this stage, group are working together. There is still some minor problem in the group dynamics but the teams are working together at this point.
4. Performing – When a team reaches this stage, they are performing at their best. Team member are working together with lots of productivity. Keep in mind, some group will never make it to this stage.

This process is continuous, team is always adjusting and changing their dynamics, there’s no definite order for this process. Some group can skip the storming and go directly from forming into norming. Sometimes group stay in storming and can’t never move on to the next stage.

What is an effective group?
1. test assumptions and inference
2. share all relevant information
3. focus on interests, not positions
4. be specific
5. agree on what important word mean
6. explain the reasons behind one’s statement, questions, and answers
7. disagree openly with any member of the group
8. make statement, then invite questions and comments
9. jointly design ways to test disagreements and solutions
10. discuss undiscussable issues
11. keep the discussion focused
12. do not take cheap shots or otherwise distract the group
13. expect to have all members participate in all phases of the process
14. exchange relevant information with non-group member
15. make decisions by consensus
16. conduct a self – critique





Negotiation
There are two basic situation from negotiation.
1. Win – Lose: Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption of a fixed "pie", that one person's gain results in another person's loss. This is only true, however, if only a single issue needs to be resolved, such as a price in a simple sales negotiation. If multiple issues are discussed, differences in the parties' preferences make win-win negotiation possible
2. Win – Win – when both group reach the out come they want. This can be ach


Managing Multiparty Negotiations
The three stage in multiple party negotiation
Pre-negotiation
Defining group member roles, these roles are (Coalition members, Veto players, Desirable coalition members, Leaders, Mediators, Record keepers)
Constructing an Agenda – Agenda is very important in multiple party negotiations because it helps to keep the negotiation on track and keeps everyone on track.


Actual formal negotiation
Chair man should be appointed. The chair man has many job to do, they are listed below
Introduce the agenda
Introduce necessary ground rules
Listen for interests and commonalities
Be an active gate keeper (making sure people have chance to speak and people have the same chance to speak their mind.)
Create and review decision standards and rules
Introduce external information
Summarize frequently

During the negotiation there are some strategies that may be used.
1. The Delphi technique – a moderator structures an initial questionnaire and sends it out to all parties, asking for input. Parties provide their input and send it back to the moderator. The moderator summarizes the input and sends it back to the parties. Parties then evaluate the report, make further input, and return it to the moderator. Over a number of rounds, through the questions and inquiries shaped by the moderator, the parties can exchange a great deal of information and share different perspectives
2. brain storming – in brainstorming, the parties are instructed to define a problem and then go generate as many solution as possible without criticizing any of them
3. Nominal group technique - the nominal group technique typically follows brainstorming. Once the brainstormed list of solution options is created, group members can rank, rate or evaluate the alternatives I terms of the degree to which each alternative solves the problem.
4. Free-wheeling is a plus. Wild and crazy ideas are welcome, and in fact they may help trigger other ideas from team members. Don’t worry about weather the idea you voice is good, bad, silly, or realistic; just say it.
5. Go for quantity. The more ideas you get from team members, the better this team effort will be.
6. Combine and improve ideas. It is certainly fine to build on someone else’s idea.




Tactics

Skilled negotiators use many tactics including:


· Analyzing the negotiation and conflict management style of their counterpart
· Setting pre-conditions before the meeting
· Declining to speak first
· Volunteering to keep the minutes of the meeting
· Presenting demands
· Time targets, i.e. Deadlines.
· Time manipulation: Delay
· Good guy/bad guy
· Limited authority/Mandated Authority
· Caucusing
· Walking out
· Concession patterns
· High-ball/low-ball
· Intimidation
· Getting it in your hands
· Fait accompli (what's done is done)
· Take it or leave it
· Rejecting an offer
· Planted Information
· Changing the location at the last moment
· Decoy
· Extreme Offers
· Plan discussions to avoid opponent becoming aware of alternatives to your offer
· Cherry picking
· Salami tactics




managing the agreement
This is the last stage in managing multiparty negotiations is the agreement stage. During the agreement stage, the group must select the alternatives that are out on the table. In this stage, party can encounter some last minute problem and issues. There are some steps to help solving this problem
1. select the best solution
2. develop an action plan
3. implement the action plan
4. evaluate the just – completed process

Finally when an agreement has been reached, the chair man should thank the teams for their hard work and time spends in the negotiation. Organize and facilitate the postmortem. Have group members discuss the process and the outcome, and evaluate what they might do better or differently the next time

Understand the costs and consequences of no agreement

negotiation chapter11 (Jacky)

International and cross- cultural negotiation
Environmental Context
The environmental context includes environmental forces that neither negotiator controls that influence the negotiation. The immediate context includes factors over which negotiators appear to have some control..
Salacuse’s (1988) description if the environmental factors that influence international negotiations:
(1)political and legal pluralism
there may be implications for taxes that an organization pays ,labor codes or standards that must be met ,and different codes of contract law and stands of enforcement. In addition, political considerations may enhance or detract from business negotiations in various countries at different times. E.g.
(2)international economics
the exchange value of international currencies naturally fluctuates, and this factor must be considered when negotiating in different countries. The less stable the currency, the greater the risk for both parties. In addition, any change in the value of a currency can significantly affect the value of the agreement for both parties, changing a mutually valuable deal into a windfall profit for one and a large loss for the other.
(3)foreign governments and bureaucracies
countries differ in the extent to which the government regulates industries and organizations. The governments of many developing and communist countries closely supervise imports and joint venture, and frequently an agency of the government has a monopoly in dealing with foreign organizations. Political considerations, such as the effect of the negotiation on the government treasury and the general economy of the country, may influence the negotiations more heavily than what western businesses would consider legitimate business reasons.
(4)instability
businesses negotiating within north America are accustomed to a degree of stability that is not present in many areas of the world. Instability many forms, including a lack of resources that Americans commonly expect during business negotiations; shortages of other goods and services; and political instability. Salacuse suggests that negotiation facing unstable circumstances should include clause in their contracts that allow easy cancellation or neutral arbitration, and consider purchasing insurance policies to guarantee contract provisions.
(5)ideology
negotiatiors within the united states generally share a common ideology about the benefits of individualism and capitalism. Americans believe strongly in individual rights, the superiority of private investment, and the importance of making a profit in business. Negotiators from other countries do not always share this ideology. Ideological clashes increase the communication challenges in international negotiations in the broadest sense because the parties may disagree at the most fundamental levels about what is being negotiated.
(6)culture
people from different cultures appear to negotiate differently. People from different cultures may also interpret the fundamental processes of negotiations differently. people in some cultures approach negotiations deductively whereas people from other cultures are more inductive.
Add(1) external stakeholders
we added one more environmental factor –external stakeholders-from phatak and habib. They have five immediate context factors were discussed next:
1 relative bargaining power
One aspect of international negotiations that has received considerable research attention is the relative bargaining power of the two parties involved. Several factors seem to be able to influence relative power, including special access to markets; distribution systems; or managing government relations.
2 levels of conflict
The level of conflict and type of interdependence between the parties to a cross-cultural negotiation will also influence the negotiation process and outcome. High-conflict situations-those based on ethnicity, identity, or geography- are more difficult to resolve. The important is the extent to which negotiators frame the negotiation differently or conceptualize what the negotiation concerns, and this appears to vary across cultures, as do the ways in which negotiators respond to conflict.
3 relationship between negotiators
Phatak and habib suggest that the relationships developed among the principal negotiating patties before the actual negotiations will also have an important impact on the negotiation process and outcome. Negotiations are part of the larger relationship between two parties.
4 desired outcomes
Countries often use international negotiations to achieve both domestic and international political goals. Ongoing tension can exist between one party’s short-term objectives for the current negotiations and its influence on the parties’ long-term relations.
5 immediate stakeholders
The immediate stakeholders in the negotiation include the negotiators themselves as well as the people they directly represent, such as their managers, employers, and boards of directors. Stakeholders can influence negotiators in many ways.
Each of these environmental and immediate context factors acts to make international negotiations more difficult, and effective international negotiators need to understand how to manage them. We concluded this section of the chapter with a discussion of how to make sense of international negotiation outcomes in light of the multiple factors that can simultaneously influence them.
Conceptualizing culture and negotiation
There are many different meanings of the concept of culture, but all definitions share two important aspects. 1 culture is a group-level phenomenon. 2 common element of culture is that cultural beliefs, values, and behavioral expectations are learned and passed on to new members of the group.
The next section of the chapter examines two important ways that culture has been conceptualized: 1 culture as shared values 2 culture as dialectic.
(1) Culture as shared values
Cross-cultural comparisons are made by finding the important norms and values that distinguish one culture from another and then understanding how these differences will influence international negotiation.
1 individualism/collectivism
The individualism/collectivism dimension describes the extent to which a society is organized around individualistic societies encourage their young to be independent and to look after themselves.
2 power distance
The power distance dimension describes the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.
3 career success/ quality of life
Cultures promoting career success were characterized by the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people.
4 uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either un comfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured are characterized by rapid change and novelty, whereas structured situations are stable and secure.
(2) Culture as dialectic
The culture as dialectic approach does not provide international negotiations with simple advice about ho to be have in a given negotiation. Rather, it suggests that negotiators who want to have successful international negotiations need to appreciate the richness of the cultures in which they will be operating.
The influence of culture on negotiation:
Managerial perspectives
We turn to a discussion of how to conceptualize culture. Then we examine two perspectives on how cultural differences can influence negotiations.
From the practitioner perspective, we discussed 10 ways that culture can influence negotiation:
(1)definition of negotiation
the fundamental definition of negotiation, what is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate can differ greatly across cultures.
(2)negotiation opportunity
culture influences the way negotiators perceive an opportunity as distributive versus integrative. Cross-cultural negotiations will be influenced by the extent that negotiators in different cultures have fundamental agreement or disagreement about whether or not the situation is distributive or integrative.
(3)selection of negotiators
The criteria used to select who will participate in a negotiation is different across cultures different cultures weigh these criteria differently, leading to varying expectations about what is appropriate in different types of negotiations.
(4) protocol
Cultured differ in the degree to which protocol, or the formality of the relations between the two negotiating patties, is important. American culture is among the least formal cultures in the world. Even the way that business cards are presented, hands are shaken, and dress codes are observed are subject to interpretation by negotiators and can be the foundation of attributions a person’s background and personality.
(5) communication
Cultures influence how people communicate, both verbally and nonverbally. There are also differences in body language across cultures; a behavior that may be highly insulting in one culture may be completely innocuous in another.
(6) time sensitivity
cultures largely determine what time means and how it affects negotiations
(7)risk propensity
Cultures vary in the extent to which they are willing to take risks. negotiators in risk-oriented cultures will be more willing to move early on a deal and will generally take more chances. Those in risk avoiding cultures are more likely to seek further information and take a wait an see stance..
(8)groups versus individuals
Cultures differ according to whether they emphasize the individual or the group. The united states is very much an individual-oriented culture, where being independent and assertive is valued and praised. group-oriented cultures, in contrast, favor the superiority of the group and see individual needs as second to the group’s needs.
(9)nature of agreements
Culture also has an important effect both on concluding agreements and on what form the negotiated agreement takes. Again, cultural differences in how to close an agreement and what exactly that agreement means can lead to confusion and misunderstandings.
(10)emotionalism
Culture appears to influence the extent to which negotiators display emotions. these emotions may be used as tactics, or they may be a natural response to positive and negative circumstances during the negotiation.

The influence of culture on negotiation:
Research perspectives
Now, we turn to examining research perspectives on how culture influences negotiation.
A conceptual model of where culture my influence negotiation has been developed by Jeanne brett. He suggests that cultural values should have a strong effect on negotiation interests and priorities, while cultural norms will influence negotiation strategies and the pattern of interaction. Negotiation strategies and the pattern of interaction between negotiators will also be influenced by the psychological processes of negotiators, and culture has an influence on these processes.
From the research perspective, we examined the effects of culture on negotiation outcomes, negotiation process, negotiator cognition, and negotiator ethics.
A negotiation outcomes
Research suggests that culture does have an effect on negotiation outcomes, although it may not be direct, and it likely has influence through differences in the negotiation process in different cultures. In addition, there is some evidence that cross-cultural negotiations yield poorer outcomes than intracultural negotiations. Considerable research has been conducted recently t understand why, and this has been done by examining the intracultural negotiation process.
B negotiation process
Culture has been found to have significant effects on several aspects of the negotiation process, including how negotiators plan, the offers made during negotiation, the communication process, and how information is shared during negotiation.
C effects of culture on negotiator cognition
Researchers have recently turned their attention to discovering how culture influences the psychological processes of negotiators, and researchers are working to understand how culture influences the way that negotiators process information during negotiation and how this in turn influences negotiation processes and outcomes. Several aspects of negotiator cognition are significantly influenced by culture and that negotiators should not assume that findings on negotiator cognition from western negotiators are universally applicable to other cultures.
D effect of culture on negotiator ethics and tactics
There has been considerable research on the effects of culture on negotiation in the last decade. findings suggest that culture has important effects on several aspects of negotiation, including planning, the negotiation process, information exchange, negotiator cognition, and negotiator perceptions of ethical behavior.
Culturally responsive negotiation strategies
Negotiators are advised to be aware of the effects of cultural differences on negotiation and to take them into account when they negotiate. Several factors suggest that negotiators should not make large modifications to their approach when negotiating cross-culturally, however:
1 negotiators may nor be able to modify their approach effectively.
2 even if negotiators can modify their approach effectively, it does not mean that this will translate automatically into a better negotiation outcome.
3 Research suggests that negotiators may naturally negotiate differently when they are with people from their own culture than when they are with people from other cultures.
4 research by Francis suggests that moderate adaptation may be more effective than acting as the Romans do.
Rubin and sander suggests that during preparation, negotiators should concentrate on understanding three things: a their own biases, strengths, and weaknesses; b the other negotiator as an individual; c the other negotiator’s cultural context.
Low familiarity
1 Employ agents or advisers (unilateral strategy)
2 Bring in a mediator (joint strategy)
3 Induce the other negotiator to use your approach (joint strategy)
Moderate familiarity
1 adapt to the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
2 coordinate adjustment (joint strategy)
High familiarity
1 embrace the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy)
2 improvise an approach (joint strategy)
3 effect symphony (joint strategy)

The chapter concluded with a discussion of how to manage cultural differences in negotiation. Weiss presents eight different culturally responsive strategies that negotiators can use with a negotiator from a different culture. Some of these strategies my be used individually, whereas others are used jointly with the other negotiator. Weiss indicates that one critical aspect of choosing the correct strategy for a given negotiation is the degree of familiarity that a negotiator has with the other culture. However, even those with high familiarity with another culture are faced with a daunting task if they want to modify their strategy completely when they deal with the other culture.