Ana Negotiation w6

8/17/2019 Ana Negotiation w6

1/28


2/28

Week 6

NEGOTIATION SUB

PROCESS:• PERCEPTION

• FRAING

© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !orauthori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any

anner.

5-2


3/28

PERCEPTION! COGNITION! AN"

EOTION IN NEGOTIATION

The basic building blocks of all socialencounters are:

• Perception

• Cognition Framing

Cognitive biases• Emotion

© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or

authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in anyanner. 5-$


4/28

PERCEPTION

Perception is:

• The process by which individuals

connect to their environment• ! comple" physical and psychologicalprocess

• ! #sense-making$ process


authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in anyanner.

5-%


5/28

T#E PROCESS OF PERCEPTION

The process of ascribing meaning to messages andevents is strongly in%uenced by the perceiver&scurrent state of mind' role' and comprehension ofearlier communications

& People interpret their environment in order torespond appropriately & The comple"ity of environments makes it

impossible to process all of the information & People develop shortcuts to process information

and these shortcuts create perceptual errors© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or

authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any5-5


6/28

PERCEPTUAL "ISTORTION

• Four ma(or perceptual errors: )tereotyping

*alo e+ects )elective perception

Pro(ection



5-'


7/28

STEREOT$PING AN" #ALOEFFECTS

• )tereotyping: ,s a very common distortionccurs when an individual assigns

attributes to another solely on the basisof the other&s membership in a particularsocial or demographic category

• *alo e+ects:

!re similar to stereotypesccur when an individual generali.esabout a variety of attributes based on theknowledge of

one attribute of an individual© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !orauthori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in anyanner.

5-(


8/28

SELECTI%E PERCEPTION

AN" PRO&ECTION

• )elective perception: Perpetuates stereotypes or halo e+ects

The perceiver singles out information thatsupports a prior belief but /lters out contraryinformation

• Pro(ection:

!rises out of a need to protect one&s own self-concept

People assign to others the characteristics orfeelings that they possess themselves



5-)


9/28


10/28

T$PES OF FRAES

• )ubstantive

• utcome

• !spiration

• Process

• ,dentity

• Characteri.ation• oss-5ain


anner.5-10


11/28

#O' FRAES 'OR( IN NEGOTIATION

• 6egotiators can use more than oneframe

• 3ismatches in frames between partiesare sources of con%ict

• Particular types of frames may lead toparticular types of arguments

• )peci/c frames may be likely to be usedwith certain types of issues

• Parties are likely to assume a particular

frame because of various factors© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !orauthori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any 5-11


12/28

INTERESTS! RIG#TS! AN" PO'ER

Parties in con%ict use one of threeframes:

• ,nterests: people talk about their#positions$ but often what is at stake istheir underlying interests

• 0ights: people may be concerned

about who is #right$ 7 that is' who haslegitimacy' who is correct' and what isfair

• Power: people may wish to resolve acon%ict



5-12


13/28

T#E FRAE OF AN ISSUE C#ANGES

AS T#E NEGOTIATION E%OL%ES• 6egotiators tend to argue for stockissues or concerns that are raisedevery time the parties negotiate

• Each party attempts to make the bestpossible case for his or her preferredposition or perspective

• Frames may de/ne ma(or shifts andtransitions in a comple" overallnegotiation

• 3ultiple agenda items operate to

shape© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or


5-1$


14/28

SOE A"%ICE ABOUT PROBLE

FRAING FOR NEGOTIATORS• Frames shape what the parties de/neas the key issues and how they talk

about them• 8oth parties have frames

• Frames are controllable' at least tosome degree

• Conversations change and transformframes in ways negotiators may notbe able to predict but may be able to

control•

© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or authori"ed instructor

use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any anner.

5-1%


15/28

COGNITI%E BIASES IN NEGOTIATION

• 6egotiators have a tendency to makesystematic errors when they process

information These errors' collectivelylabeled cognitive biases, tend to impedenegotiator performance



5-15


16/28

COGNITI%E BIASES

• ,rrationalescalation ofcommitment

• 3ythical /"ed-piebeliefs

• !nchoring and

ad(ustment• ,ssue framing

and risk

• !vailability ofinformation

• The winner&scurse

• vercon/dence• The law of smallnumbers

• )elf-servingbiases

• Endowmente+ect

• ,gnoring others&

cognitions• 0eactive© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or authori"ed instructoruse. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any anner. 5-1'


17/28

IRRATIONAL ESCALATION OFCOITENT AN" $T#ICALFI)E"*PIE BELIEFS

• ,rrational escalation of commitment6egotiators maintain commitment to a course

of action even when that commitmentconstitutes irrational behavior

• 3ythical /"ed-pie beliefs6egotiators assume that all negotiations 9not

(ust some involve a /"ed pie


anner.5-1(


18/28


19/28

A%AILABILIT$ OF INFORATION

AN" T#E 'INNER+S CURSE

• !vailability of informationperates when information that is presented

in vivid or attention-getting ways becomeseasy to recall

8ecomes central and critical in evaluatingevents and options

• The winner&s curse The tendency to settle 2uickly on an itemand then subse2uently feel discomfort abouta win that comes too easily


anner.5-1*


20/28

O%ERCONFI"ENCE

AN" T#E LA' OF SALL NUBERS

• vercon/dence The tendency of negotiators to believe that

their ability to be correct or accurate isgreater than is actually true

• The law of small numbers The tendency of people to draw conclusionsfrom small sample si.es

The smaller sample' the greater thepossibility that past lessons will beerroneously used to infer what will happen inthe future



5-20


21/28

SELF*SER%ING BIASES

AN" EN"O'ENT EFFECT

• )elf-serving biases People often e"plain another person&s

behavior by making attributions' either to theperson or to the situation The tendency' known as fundamentalattribution error' is to:verestimate the role of personal or internal

factors;nderestimate the role of situational or e"ternal

factors

• Endowment e+ect The tendency to overvalue something youown or believe you possess© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary aterial solely !or

authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in anyanner. 5-21


22/28

IGNORING OT#ERS+ COGNITIONS

AN" REACTI%E "E%ALUATION

• ,gnoring others& cognitions6egotiators don&t bother to ask about the

other party&s perceptions and thoughts This leaves them to work with incomplete

information' and thus produces faulty results

• 0eactive devaluation The process of devaluing the other party&sconcessions simply because the other partymade them


anner.5-22


23/28

ANAGING ISPERCEPTIONS AN"

COGNITI%E BIASES IN NEGOTIATION

The best advice that negotiators canfollow is:

• 8e aware of the negative aspects ofthese biases

• 4iscuss them in a structured manner

within the team and with counterparts


authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in any

anner.5-2$


24/28

OO"! EOTION! AN" NEGOTIATION

• The distinction between mood andemotion is based on three

characteristics: )peci/city

,ntensity

4uration


authori"ed instructor use. #ot authori"ed !or sale or distribution in anyanner. 5-2%


25/28


26/28


• !spects of the negotiation process canlead to positive emotions

Positive feelings result from fair proceduresduring negotiation

Positive feelings result from favorable socialcomparison



anner.5-2'


27/28


• 6egative emotions generally havenegative conse2uences for negotiations

They may lead parties to de/ne the situationas competitive or distributive

They may undermine a negotiator&s ability toanaly.e the situation accurately' which

adversely a+ects individual outcomes They may lead parties to escalate the con%ict

They may lead parties to retaliate and maythwart integrative outcomes



anner.5-2(


28/28


• !spects of the negotiation process canlead to negative emotions6egative emotions may result from acompetitive mind-set

6egative emotions may result from animpasse

6egative emotions may result from theprospect of beginning a negotiation

• E+ects of positive and negativeemotion Positive emotions may generate negativeoutcomes

6egative feelings may elicit bene/cial© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education This is proprietary aterial solely !or authori"ed instructor 5-2)

Ana Negotiation w6

Documents

Transcript of Ana Negotiation w6