2. 1.1 Negotiation

3. Module One

5. There is a conflict of interest between them.

6. Parties negotiate because they think they can get a better deal than by taking what the other side will give them.

7. Parties prefer to search for agreement rather than:

8. Fight openly;

9. Capitulate;

10. Permanently break off contact;

11. Take their dispute to a third party.

12. Hay dos o más partidos.

13. Hay un conflicto de intereses entre ellos.

14. Los partidos negocian porque piensan que pueden conseguir un mejor trato que tomando lo que le dará el otro lado.

15. Los partidos prefieren buscar para el acuerdo en vez de:

16. Lucha abiertamente;

17. Capitule;

18. Interrumpa contacto permanentemente;

20. They expect both sides will modify or give in somewhat on their opening statements, requests, or demand.

21. Successful negotiation involves:

22. The resolving of tangibles (e.g., the price or the terms of agreement);

23. The resolution of intangibles (the underlying psychological motivations).

24. Los partidos cuentan con la concesión mútua.

25. Esperan que ambos lados se modifiquen o que den adentro algo en sus declaraciones iniciales, peticiones, o demanda.

26. La negociación acertada implica:

27. La resolución de los bienes materiales (e.g., el precio o los términos del acuerdo);

30. Principled negotiation uses joint problem-solving to attack the problem together;

31. Principled negotiation is soft on the people and hard on the problem .

33. Differences in national cultures and differences in political, legal, and economic systems often separate potential business partners.

34. Más compleja que la negociación doméstica.

36. interlocking goals

37. Mutual dependency is called interdependence;

38. Interdependent goals are important within negotiation:

39. Win-lose: I win, you lose;

40. Win-win: Opportunities for both parties to gain.

41. En la negociación, necesidad de ambas partes;

42. Metas conectado

43. Dependencia mutua se llama interdependencia;

44. Las objectivos interdependientes son importante dentro negociación:

45. Ganar-pierda: Gano, usted pierdo;

47. The other potential consequence of interdependent relationships is conflict.

48. Una consecuencia potencial de relaciones interdependientes es creación de valor.

50. Zero-sum or distributive. – one winner

51. Non-zero-sum or integrative – mutual gains situation.

52. La interdependencia y la estructura de la situación forman procesos y resultados.

53. Suma cero o distributivo.

54. un ganador

56. Negotiators should be aware that potential differences can be used to reach agreement:

57. Possible to create value through shared interests and through scale (task too big for one party to accomplish alone).

58. Sinergia: la noción el " el conjunto es mayor que la suma de su parts".

59. Los negociadores deben ser conscientes que las diferencias potenciales se pueden utilizar para alcanzar el acuerdo:

61. Concern about how much of the truth to tell the other party.

62. Dilemma of trust.

63. Concern about how much negotiators should believe what the other party tells them.

64. Dilema de la honestidad.

65. Preocupación por cuánto de la verdad para decir el otro partido.

66. Dilema de la confianza.

68. "sharp disagreement"

69. and includes "the perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously“.

70. Puede ser definido como a:

71. desacuerdo radical.

73. Conflict that occurs within an individual.

74. We want an ice cream cone badly, but we know that ice cream is very fattening.

75. Interpersonal Conflict.

76. Conflict is between individual people.

77. Conflict between bosses and subordinates, spouses, siblings, roommates etc.

78. Conflicto intrapersonal o intrapsíquico:

79. Conflicto que ocurre dentro de un individuo.

80. Queremos un cono de helado gravemente, pero sabemos que el helado muy está engorando.

81. Conflicto interpersonal.

82. El conflicto está entre la gente individual.

84. Within-group negotiation

85. Among team and committee members within families, classes etc.

86. Intergroup Conflict.

87. Conflict can occur within groups and among groups simultaneously.

88. Conflict between unions and management, warring nations, or community groups and government authorities.

89. These negotiations are the most complex.

90. Conflicto intragrupo.

91. Negociación dentro del grupo.

92. Entre miembros del equipo y del comité dentro de las familias, de las clases etc.

93. Conflicto de Intergroup.

94. El conflicto puede ocurrir dentro de grupos y entre grupos simultáneamente.

95. Están en conflicto entre las uniones y la gerencia, las naciones que guerrean, o los grupos y las autoridades gubernamentales de comunidad.

97. Promete el cambio y la adaptación de organización.

98. Consolida relaciones y aumenta moral.

99. Promueve el conocimiento del uno mismo y de otros.

100. Anima el desarrollo personal y psicologico.

101. Puede ser estimulante y diversión.

102. Discussing conflict makes organizational members more aware and able to cope with problems.

103. It promises organizational change and adaptation.

104. It strengthens relationships and heightens morale.

105. It promotes awareness of self and others.

106. It encourages personal and psychological development.

108. Parties compete because they believe that their goals are in opposition and that they cannot both achieve their objectives.

109. Misperception and bias.

110. As conflict intensifies:

111. Perceptions become distorted.

112. Thinking tends to become stereotypical and biased.

113. Emotionality.

114. Parties may become increasingly emotional and irrational as the conflict escalates.

115. Procesos competitivos.

116. Los partidos compiten porque creen que sus objetivos están en la oposición y que ambas partes alcanzan sus objetivos.

117. Falsa percepción y sesgo.

118. Como el conflicto se intensifica:

119. Las opiniones distorsionen.

120. El pensamiento tiende a llegar a ser stereotypical y en sesgo.

121. Emocionabilidad.

123. Parties communicate less with those who disagree with them, more with those who agree.

124. Blurred issues.

125. The parties become less clear about:

126. How the dispute started.

127. What it is “really about”

128. What it will take to solve it.

129. Rigid commitments.

130. Parties become more committed to their points of view and less willing to back down from them for fear of losing face.

131. Comunicación disminuida.

132. Los partidos comunican menos con los que discrepen con ellos, más con los que convengan.

133. Ediciones borrosas.

134. Los partidos se ponen menos claro a:

135. Cómo el conflicto comenzó.

136. Sobre cuál está “realmente”

137. Qué tomará para solucionarlo.

138. Compromisos rígidas.

140. This distortion leads the parties to believe they are farther apart from each other than they really are.

141. Escalation of the conflict.

142. Both parties attempt to win by:

143. Increasing their commitment to their position;

144. Increasing the resources they are willing to put up to “win”;

145. Increasing their tenacity in holding their ground under pressure.

146. Diferencias magnificadas, paracidas reducidas al mínimo.

147. Esta distorsión lleva los partidos a creer que son más lejanos aparte de uno a que están realmente.

148. Escalada del conflicto.

149. Tentativa de ambas partes de ganar cerca:

150. Aumento de su comisión a su posición;

151. Aumentando los recursos están dispuestos a poner hasta “triunfo”;

153. 1 Afirmación.

154. Los agentes persiguen para poseer resultados fuertemente, demuestran a poco la preocupación por el otro partido que obtiene sus resultados deseados.

155. 2 Rendimiento.

156. Los agentes demuestran poco interés adentro si logran para poseer resultados, están absolutamente interesados adentro si el otro partido logra sus resultados.

157. 3 Inacción.

159. 4 Solución de problemas.

160. Los agentes demuestran que la alta preocupación en la obtención posee resultados, así como la alta preocupación por el otro partido que obtiene sus resultados.

161. 5 Compromiso.

163. 24 Dysfunctions of Conflict Competitive, win-lose goals. Misperception and bias. Emotionality. Decreased communication. Blurred issues. Rigid commitments. Magnified differences, minimized similarities. Escalation of conflict. Competitivo, ganar-pierda las metas. Falsa valoración y diagonal. Emocionabilidad. Comunicación disminuida. Hechos borrosas. Comisiones rígidas. Diferencias magnificadas, semejanzas reducidas al mínimo. Escalada del conflicto.

164. 05/09/08 25 The Dual Concerns ModelEl modelo dual de las preocupaciones

165. Lewicki, Ch 1 Fisher and Ury, Part 1 and 2

166. Class 2

167. Class 1 Review Dysfunctions Competitive processes. Misperception and bias. Emotionality Decreased communication. Blurred issues. Rigid commitments. Magnified differences, minimized similarities. Escalation of the conflict.

168. The Dual Concerns Model 05/09/08 29

169. Discussion: Fisher Questions What are 2 standard negotiating strategies? According to Fisher, what is a wise agreement List 3 reasons and explain them why the author rejects arguing over positions as a way to negotiate. How can the human element help or harm negotiations? How will perception of the other side help in negotiations? How can your own perceptions influence negotiations? Why should you give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions and proposals later?

171. Presenting facts and data in logically sound ways in order to persuade someone to change belief or behavior.

172. Persuasion.

173. A delicate mix Of:

174. Rational argument;

175. Social forces;

176. Psychological forces;

177. Rhetoric.

178. Argumentación.

179. Presentación de hechos y de datos de maneras lógicamente sanas para persuadir alguien de cambiar creencia o comportamiento.

180. Persuasión.

181. Una mezcla delicada de:

182. Discusión racional;

183. Fuerzas sociales;

184. Fuerzas psicologicas;

185. Retórico. 05/09/08 31

186. Ting Toomy

187. El modelo dual de laspreocupaciones 05/09/08 33 Problem Solving Colaborador Accommodating Adaptarse Preocupación por otra Poco Mucho Compromising Compromiso Contending Competetivo Inaction/Avoid Evitar Poco Mucho Preocupación por yo mismo

189. You might work to save your own face.

190. You might work to help save another’s face.

191. Face is an important concept in conflict negotiations.

192. La ahorra cara está evitando la verguenza.

193. Usted puede ser que trabaje para ahorrar su propia cara.

194. Usted puede ser que trabaje para ayudar excepto cara de otra persona.

195. La cara es un concepto importante en negociaciones del conflicto.05/09/08 34

197. “we” oriented perspective that emphasizes relationships.

198. Individualism

199. “I” oriented perspective that emphasizes individualism.

200. Different ways of defining self, goals and duty.

201. Collectivism.

202. “nosotros" orientamos la perspectiva que acentúa relaciones.

203. Individualismo

204. "I" orientó la perspectiva que acentúa individualismo.

205. Diversas maneras de definir uno mismo, metas y deber.05/09/08 35

207. “Face restoration” is the facework strategy used to stake out a unique place in life, preserve autonomy, and defend against loss of personal freedom (individualism).

208. “Cara que da" es la estrategia del facework usada para defender y para apoyar la necesidad de otra persona de la inclusión (collectivism).

209. “Cara de la restauración" es la estrategia del facework usada para estacar fuera de un lugar único en vida, para preservar la autonomía, y para defenderla contra pérdida de libertad personal (individualismo).05/09/08 36

210. Revised Conflict Map 05/09/08 37

211. Negotiation Role Play Ronaldo wants to start a nightclub in an old warehouse near the edge of a residential area with several apartment buildings. Ronaldo has purchased the property and has all of the necessary permits to begin construction on his nightclub. The representative of the residents of the apartments is concerned that a nightclub will play loud music and the patrons of the nightclub might drink too much and become a nuisance in the neighborhood. Ronaldo arranges a meeting with the representative of the residents of the apartments to negotiate terms of an agreement so that he can build his nightclub without causing problems with the residents. Role 1: Ronaldo Role 2 Alfonso (Representative of Apartment)

212. Key Concepts 05/09/08 39

213. Perception Subjective. Always check your views, opinions and analysis of your position One’s view of fairness. (Barry Bond’s homerun). Be very careful of your client's (and your own) perception of fairness. Frames

214. Bias Perception: Fixed Pie the erroneous belief that the other party’s interests are directly opposed to one’s own interests when, in fact, they are often not completely opposed.

215. Bias Perception: Thompson and Hastie Explored the consequences for outcomes. They measured individual fixed-pie perceptions after just five minutes of negotiation They found fixed pie predicted individual and joint negotiation payoffs such that fixed-pie perceptions were associated with lower individual and joint profits. Negotiators with strong fixed-pie perceptions failed to identify interests that could be profitably logrolled or that were completely compatible.

216. Bias Perception: Why does this occur? Biased information search (negotiators’ faulty search for necessary information) Biased information processing (negotiators’ faulty processing of available information).

217. Bias Perception: Extremism Partisan perceivers believe that their own perceptions map onto objective reality. When they realize that the other side’s views differ from their own, they first attempt to “straighten out” the other side; when this does not work, they regard the other side as extremist. partisan perceivers tend to view the other side as having interests that are more opposed to their own than is actually the case.

218. Bias Perception: Problems with Extremism Exacerbates conflict Partisan perceivers ascribe more negative traits to their negotiating partner even when partisanship has been randomly assigned right before the negotiation Reduces the likelihood of reaching comprehensive integrative agreements during face-to-face negotiations

219. Bias Perception: Reactive Devaluation Bias Negotiators discount or dismiss concessions made by the other party merely as a function of who is offering them

220. Bias Perception: Stillinger, Epelbaum, Kelter, and Ross (1990) Experiment Participants negotiated with a confederate over the policy of their university regarding a political issue. Constant The antagonism of the negotiating confederate was held constant. During the negotiation, the confederate for a time adopted a stubborn position. Concession In two experimental conditions, however, the confederate ultimately made a concession; in the third (control) condition, no concession at all was made. Rating Subsequently, participants rated the attractiveness and significance of a number of different proposals, including the ones that had been offered in their negotiation session. Results Non-offered concessions were rated as more attractive and significant than offered concessions: The very fact that their counterpart offered them a concession diminished its value in the eyes of the participants.

221. Bias Perception: Fundamental Attribution Error People tend to view their own behavior as largely determined by the situation BUT B. regard other’s behavior as driven by chronic dispositions Larrick and Su (1999) Demonstrated this bias operated in negotiation. Negotiators erroneously attributed tough bargaining behaviors to difficult personalities rather than to situational factors. Fundamental attribution error often results from lack of sufficient information about the opponent’s situation.

222. Bias Perception: Coercion Bias People erroneously believe that A. coercive tactics will be effective in generating concessions when dealing with opponents BUT B. believe that these same tactics, when applied to the self, will have the opposite effect—that is, to increase their resolve not to concede. Rothbart and Hallmark (1988) in-group and outgroup members differed in the judged efficacy of coercion and conciliation as social influence strategies. Out-group members perceived coercion as more effective than conciliation when applied to others, In-group members perceived coercion as less effective than conciliation when applied to their own social or categorical group members.

223. Perceptions: Framing Framing: constructing and representing interpretations. Defining key issues and key problems. Perspective. Separates issue from other ideas. Aggregate and process information. Language we choose engage. notion of what we are doing: discussion, argument, fight Frames persist as long as they are useful. When people hold to their frames, conflict can occur. Frames can be transformative. Change frame, change conversation. Frames can be shifted.

225. Make the cost of obtaining goals appear higher.

226. Make demands and positions appear more or less attractive to the other party-whichever suits your needs.

228. Raise the costs of delay to the other party.

229. Form an alliance with outsiders:

230. Involve (or threaten to involve) other parties that can influence the outcome in your favor.

231. Manipulate the scheduling of negotiations:

232. One party is usually more vulnerable to delaying than the other.

234. Where will you start?

235. Opening Stance

236. What is your attitude? Competitive? Moderate?

237. Initial Concessions

238. Should any be made? If so, how large?

240. Perceptions: Three Views of Frames Categories of experience Interests, rights, power Process of issue development

241. Language Ohio negotiation. Environmentalist. Developers. Environmentalists. Called polluters developers. Conflict. Result of nonverbal looks and glances. Polarizing language.

242. Trust/Distrust Frame Trust distrust different frames. Main role of negotiator / mediator. Decide which you are doing: Building trust. Managing distrust. Marcos de la desconfianza de la confianza diversos. Posicion principal del negociador/del mediador. Decida cuál usted está haciendo: Confianza del edificio. Desconfianza de manejo.

243. Trust/Distrust Frame Trust Frame. Little step by step process. Reliability. Competence. Distrust Frame. Apologies. Reparation. Say vs Do. Marco de la confianza. Marcos de la desconfianza de la confianza diversos. Papel principal del negociador. Poco proceso paso a paso. Confiabilidad. Capacidad. Marco de la desconfianza. Apologías. Reparación. Diga contra hacen.

244. Managing Trust Creating positive expectations. Confident expectations about the other. Shape them by: Language. Clear exceptions. Manage expectation. Crear expectativas positivas. Expectativas confidentes sobre la otra. Fórmelas cerca: Lengua. Excepciones claras. Maneje la expectativa.

245. Managing distrust Tools. Boarders. Boundaries. Processes. Not trust building. Manages downside risk. Distrust binding. Prenuptial agreement. Herramientas. Huéspedes. Límites. Procesos. No edificio de la confianza. Maneja riesgo de baja. Atascamiento de la desconfianza. Acuerdo Prenuptial.

246. Frames as Categories of Experience 1 Substantive. What the conflict is about. 2 Outcome. The predispositions the parties have to achieving a specific result. 3 Aspiration. Predispositions the parties have towards satisfying a broader set of interests. 4 Conflict Management Process. How the parties will go about resolving their dispute. Substantivo. Sobre cuál el conflicto está. Resultado Las predisposiciones los partidos tienen que alcanzando un resultado específico. Aspiración. Predisposiciones que los partidos tienen hacia la satisfacción de un sistema más amplio de intereses. Proceso de la gerencia del conflicto. Cómo los partidos irán alrededor a resolver su conflicto.

247. Frames as Categories of Experience (cont.) 5 Identity. How the parties define “who they are”. 6 Characterization How one party defines the other party. 7 Loss-gain. How the parties view the risks of particular outcomes. 5. Identidad. Cómo los partidos definen “quién son”. 6. Caracterización Cómo un partido define el otro partido. Pérder-gane. Cómo los partidos ven los riesgos de resultados particulares.

248. Decision Trap: Frame Blindness Understanding Frames. Framing Traps. Boundaries. Reference Points . Yardsticks . Metaphors. Thinking/Cultural Frames. Dealing With Frames. Marcos de comprensión. Trampas que enmarcan. Límites. Puntos de referencia. Criterios. Metáforas. Pensamiento/marcos culturales. El ocuparse de los marcos.

249. Use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts Reduce tension and manage the de-escalation of hostility: techniques such as listening projects, study circles, and some forms of mediation. Perspective taking: techniques such as acknowledging critical identities, imaging of identities Reduzca la tensión y maneje el decapado de la hostilidad: técnicas tales como proyectos que escuchan, círculos de estudio, y algunas formas de mediación. Tomar de la perspectiva: técnicas tales como reconocimiento de las identidades críticas, proyección de imagen de identidades

250. Use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts Establish a common ground as a basis for agreement: techniques such as search for common ground and visioning/search processes enable reframing around a smaller set of issues. and characterizations, narrative forums, and listening circles allow disputants to understand the conflict and its dynamics. Enhance the desirability of options and alternatives: Several approaches exist that may enhance the desirability of alternative options when presented to parties with divergent frames. Establezca un terreno común como base para el acuerdo: las técnicas tales como búsqueda para los procesos del terreno común y el visioning/de la búsqueda permiten reframing alrededor de un sistema más pequeño de ediciones. y las caracterizaciones, los foros narrativos, y los círculos que escuchan permiten que los disputants entiendan el conflicto y su dinámica. Realce la deseabilidad de opciones y de alternativas: Varios acercamientos existen que pueden realzar la deseabilidad de opciones alternativas cuando están presentados a los partidos con los marcos divergentes.

251. Psychology Traps - Barriers to Resolution

252. Escalation Discovery makes us overconfident. We want to get more certainty. Negotiator wants all the info (legal:depos) before theycan decide We spend too much money on finding information (legal: discovery) It increases “loss aversion”. Try to settle early.