{epub download} Bargaining for Advantage Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People eBook PDF,Item Preview
30/03/ · Ebook Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People EBOOK ONLINE DOWNLOAD in English is available for free here, Click on the download 02/05/ · Download or read book Bargaining for Advantage written by G. Richard Shell and published by Penguin. This book was released on with total page pages. 04/04/ · Step-By Step To Download this book: Click The Button "DOWNLOAD". Sign UP registration to access Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for. Reasonable Bargaining for advantage: negotiation strategies for reasonable people by Shell, G. Richard, Publication date DOWNLOAD OPTIONS ENCRYPTED DAISY download. Some of the most frequent axioms used in the building of bargaining solutions are efficiency, symmetry, independence of irrelevant alternatives, scalar invariance, monotonicity, etc. The ... read more
Magazine: {epub download} Bargaining for Advantage Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People eBook PDF. EN English Deutsch Français Español Português Italiano Român Nederlands Latina Dansk Svenska Norsk Magyar Bahasa Indonesia Türkçe Suomi Latvian Lithuanian český русский български العربية Unknown. Self publishing. Login to YUMPU News Login to YUMPU Publishing. TRY ADFREE Self publishing Discover products News Publishing. Share Embed Flag. SHOW LESS. ePAPER READ DOWNLOAD ePAPER. TAGS goals provides effectively shell author download ebook strategies bargaining negotiation. You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves. START NOW. This newly updated classic just got even better.
It belongs on any list of required reading for practitioners or educators in the field of negotiation and is also highly recommended to the general public. Replete with intriguging real world anecdotes. Shell offers sage and practice advice to almost any negotiator. A volume that gives direct and practical fundamentals to becoming an effective bargainer in any situation. His expertise comes through in this bookÂ. a wonderful integration of practical advice that will be useful to all readers. Bargaining for Advantage will help you identify your negotiating style, strengths and weaknesses, identify your bargaining goals, and teach you useful tactics for getting the most out of your negotiations.
a fine crop of new ideas, all presented in an enjoyable style. It provides [negotiators] with a system for categorizing and digesting the bewildering mass of information that comes at her in the course of a complex negotiation. As director of the world-renowned Wharton Executive Negotiation Workshop, Professor G. Richard Shell has taught thousands of business leaders, lawyers, administrators, and other professionals how to survive and thrive in the sometimes rough-and-tumble world of negotiation. His systematic, step-by-step approach comes to life in this internationally acclaimed book- now in its third edition and. More documents Similar magazines Info. No information found Page 2 and 3: Step-By Step To Download this book: Page 4: sometimes rough-and-tumble world of. Share from cover.
Share from page:. Copy {epub download} Bargaining for Advantage Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People eBook PDF Extended embed settings. Flag as Inappropriate Cancel. Delete template? Are you sure you want to delete your template? Cancel Delete. no error. We gave the same four-issue, buy-sell exercise to hundreds of MBA students. We instructed half the pairs to read the problem and negotiate whenever they thought they were ready— some face-to-face, others using e-mail. They usually took about ten to fifteen minutes to prepare, then they negotiated. We required the other groups to go through a structured, individual preparation process on the computer that usually took about thirty to forty minutes.
Some students then negotiated the buy-sell exercise using our computer network system while others bargained face-to-face. We were surprised by the results. Our fancy, computerized method of negotiation did not matter much. But the preparation process did. The students who used the formal preparation system reached better agreements in both the face-to-face and the computer network conditions—not just for themselves, but for both sides. I will discuss the best way to set goals in Chapter 2. To acquire high expectations, you must combine specific goal setting with a personal commitment to performance. Expectations come from your overall attitude about what you are trying to achieve and derive from unstated, sometimes unidentified, beliefs about what is fair and reasonable.
You can always tell, when a negotiation is over, where your expectations were really set. If you feel genuine disappointment that you fell below a certain level, that is where your expectation was set. If you feel genuinely satisfied, you met or exceeded your expectation. The goal of an effective negotiator is to have expectations that are high enough to present a real challenge but realistic enough to promote good working relationships. THE PATIENCE TO LISTEN It is hard to overstate the importance of listening skills in bargaining. Information-Based Bargaining begins with the idea that information is power. Listening enables you to get information. If having high expectations is sometimes a problem for cooperative people, listening requires special effort for competitive types. Aggressive bargainers spend most of their time at the bargaining table either talking about what they want or thinking of something clever to say next that will put the other side on the defensive.
As we shall see, the best negotiators follow a different practice: They ask questions, test for understanding, summarize discussions, and listen, listen, listen. They keep their promises, avoid lying, and do not raise hopes they have no intention of fulfilling. The research on this is reassuring. Skilled negotiators prize their reputations for straightforward dealing very highly. That makes sense. Given a choice, would you want to do business with someone you could trust or someone who might be trying to cheat you? This sounds good, but does it really pay to be honest in bargaining? Does personal integrity require you to reveal your bargaining position? What if the other side fails to ask an important question? Do you have a duty to volunteer an answer?
I will address these and similar issues in Chapter It is, like high expectations, an attitude. Relationships, social norms, culture, and bargaining etiquette all make a difference. Therefore, when I speak of a commitment to personal integrity in negotiation, I mean that effective negotiators can be counted on to negotiate consistently, using a thoughtful set of personal values that they could, if necessary, explain and defend to others. This approach obviously leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation about what is right and wrong. But such differences are an inevitable part of human interaction. The main thing is to attend to your reputation and self-regard.
Be reliable. Both worked out. We left each story as the parties began to share information with each other. Smith gracefully accepted both the watch and the tacit admission that Smith had most of the bargaining leverage with reciprocal signals of cooperation. The initial meeting between the two men and their advisers went on through the evening and into the night. Within days, they created an outline of a merger agreement to create a new company: Harcourt General Inc. Back in the shadow of Mount Meru, the two farmers went back and forth all day. At length, one of the elders proposed dividing the disputed land along a prominent footpath that formed a natural boundary. The farmers huddled with their bargaining teams. The social pressure for an agreement intensified. The farmer who had demanded the meeting in the first place the one whose son had been beaten then stepped into the center of the circle.
He, too, would honor the new arrangement. They had a deal. These public declarations and a ritual feast that followed served to commit the parties. Everyone in the community would remember the agreement and help enforce it if necessary. Summary All negotiations begin with you. The First Foundation of Effective Negotiation is therefore your preferred bargaining styles—the ways you communicate most confidently when you face a negotiation. Your success depends on candidly assessing your strengths and weaknesses as a communicator. They can adapt easily to many different situations and opponents. Others are more limited in their range of effective action. They may be quite strong in situations requiring competitive instincts but weak when it comes to accommodation or compromise. Or they may be strong in cooperative skills and weak if the situation calls for hardball tactics. Many negotiation experts try to teach people a single, all-purpose menu of bargaining moves. I do not believe this is either helpful or realistic.
People and situations are too varied for such mechanical advice to work. Rather, your job as a negotiator is to understand your style preferences, see how they match up with the situation more on this in Chapter 7 , plan your path through the four steps that negotiations follow, and try your best to be effective by preparing, forming high expectations, listening to the other party, and acting with integrity in the process. Information-Based Bargaining proceeds from the assumption that you will get better results for yourself and achieve more for others who depend on you by tirelessly searching for key information about the parties and the situation. Your success then turns on using this information skillfully as bargaining goes forward. It is time to explore the Second Foundation, your goals and expectations.
I believe in always having goals, and always setting them high. He quickly ran into a problem: The tiny radio was unlike anything Americans had ever seen. As Morita would later write, many U. Everybody in America wants big radios. Bulova offered to buy , of the radios for distribution through its strong U. retail network. Morita was stunned by the size of the order. This was the deal of a lifetime. This condition conflicted directly with an important long-range goal Morita had set for his firm: to establish Sony as an independent, global brand name based on its innovative, quality products. Morita cabled his executive board at Sony headquarters in Japan for instructions. The board enthusiastically cabled back its response: Forget about the problem with the brand name and take the order.
Morita thought it over carefully for a week, then returned to Bulova to continue the negotiations. He told Bulova he would like to make a deal, but he could not accept the condition. Why not take advantage of ours? I am here with a new product, and I am now taking the first step for the next fifty years of my company. Fifty years from now I promise you that our name will be just as famous as your company name is today. Indeed, his board was shocked when he reported his decision and told Morita that he was being foolish. Shortly thereafter, Morita received a more modest order from another American distributor, but this one let Morita keep the Sony name on the radio. But his bargaining stance reflected the strength of his vision for Sony. Morita had a goal: to make the name Sony a household word for quality electronics throughout the world within fifty years. He achieved that goal with time to spare—and made himself a business legend in the process.
The Second Foundation of Effective Negotiation focuses on your goals and expectations. And research on setting goals discloses a simple but powerful fact: The more specific your vision of what you want and the more committed you are to that vision, the more likely you are to obtain it. But you do not need to be the next Akio Morita to draw a lesson from his story. Research on negotiation confirms that anyone who is willing to take the time to develop higher expectations will do significantly better and do so without putting his relationship or reputation with others at risk. To become an effective negotiator, you must find out where you want to go—and why.
That means committing yourself to specific, justifiable goals. It also means taking the time to transform your goals from simple targets into genuine—and appropriately high—expectations. What is the difference between a simple goal and something that has matured into a genuine expectation? Basically one thing: your attitude. Goals are things we strive toward that are usually beyond the range of our past achievements. Such things as investment goals, weight loss goals, and athletic goals are typical. We set goals to give ourselves direction but we are not greatly surprised or disappointed if we fall short.
An expectation, by contrast, is a considered judgment about what we can and ought reasonably to accomplish. If we fall short of our expectations, we will feel sincere loss and disappointment. It will hurt. We may set a goal of having our children attend an Ivy League college, but we have an expectation that they will attend college somewhere. Our expectation about college affects the way we communicate about the subject with others, including our children. They begin to share our assumption that college is in their future, and their behavior reflects that assumption.
And guess who in fact expects to go to college? Kids of parents who went to college. The same pattern holds all the way up to the children who expect to obtain doctoral degrees. So it is with negotiation. Our goals give us direction, but our expectations are what give weight and conviction to our statements at the bargaining table. We are most animated when we are striving to achieve what we feel we justly deserve. As his goal matured into a solid expectation, he was able to communicate this vision more clearly to his own board of directors and to potential customers. What you aim for in negotiations often determines what you get.
The first reason is obvious: Your goals set the upper limit of what you will ask for. You mentally concede everything beyond your goal, so you seldom do better than that benchmark. Sports psychologists, salespeople, and educators alike confirm that setting specific goals motivates people, focusing and concentrating their attention and psychological powers. Third, we are more persuasive when we are committed to achieving some specific purpose, in contrast to the occasions when we ask for things half-heartedly or merely react to initiatives proposed by others. Our commitment is infectious. People around us feel drawn toward our goals. Wayne Huizenga, an energetic American entrepreneur, maintains that one of the secrets of success in business negotiations is having a passionate commitment to ambitious goals. This trait enables effective negotiators to communicate enthusiasm and direction at the bargaining table. Huizenga should know, having built three successful megacorporations from scratch at the same time he was buying or founding three professional sports teams—the Miami Dolphins football , the Florida Marlins baseball , and the Florida Panthers ice hockey.
Negotiators striving to achieve concrete goals are more animated, committed, prepared, and persistent. Nor is this effect limited to experienced deal makers. Everyone gains a significant psychological edge when he or she is working to achieve a specific target in bargaining. By definition, if you cannot achieve your bottom line, you would rather seek another solution to your problem or wait until another opportunity comes your way. A well-framed goal is quite different from a bottom line. For example, in the case of the used CD player illustrated in Figure 2. Bottom lines are vitally important to negotiation theory, but setting and negotiating toward a legitimate goal is the key factor in most bargaining success stories.
Let me explain why. FIGURE 2. The seller is selling a used CD player. Researchers have discovered that humans have a limited capacity for maintaining focus in complex, stressful situations such as negotiations. Consequently, once a negotiation is under way, we gravitate toward the single focal point that has the most psychological significance for us. They measure success or failure with reference to their bottom line. And we know that avoiding losses is a powerful motivating force. This power is not working as strongly for you when you focus solely on your bottom line. You can now end your search for a buyer and begin mentally possessing the other item you want. If the buyer is alert and most are when it comes to money , he will sense your relaxation and stop the bidding.
What is the practical effect of having your bottom line become your dominant reference point in negotiations? Over a lifetime of negotiating, your results will tend to hover at a point just above this minimum acceptable level. For most reasonable people, the bottom line is the most natural focal point. Disappointment arises if we cannot get the other side to agree to meet our minimum requirements usually established by our available alternatives or our needs away from the table , and satisfaction arises just above that level. Meanwhile, someone else who is more skilled at orienting himself toward ambitious goals will do much better. Not surprisingly, research shows that parties with higher but still realistic goals outperform those with more modest ones, all else being equal.
To avoid falling into the trap of letting your bottom line become your reference point, be aware of your absolute limits, but do not dwell on them. Instead, prepare your bottom line, then set it aside while you work energetically on formulating your goals. Then, if you must, gradually reorient toward your bottom line as that becomes necessary to close the deal. With experience, you should be able to keep both your goal and your bottom line in view at the same time without losing your goal focus. Research suggests that the best negotiators have this ability. If setting goals is so vital to effective preparation, how should you do it? Use the following simple steps: 1. Think carefully about what you really want—and remember that money is often a means, not an end. Set an optimistic—but justifiable—target. Be specific. Get committed. Write down your goal and, if possible, discuss the goal with someone else.
Carry your goal with you into the negotiation. What Do You Really Want? Begin your preparation for negotiation by considering your own underlying needs and interests. But it is easy to forget that price is often a means to an end, not an end in itself. The goal is to achieve more value or profit, not a victory on the price term. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds. If you are on the buy side, you want to make sure that you get a specified level of quality for the money you spend, not just a low price. And sellers need to be careful that their sales create the conditions for future business. Canceled orders and one-time sales do not make for a profitable enterprise, even if the price achieved on any given sale looks good. The founder of CBS, William Paley, was having a hard time making money in the radio broadcast marketplace in its early days. He was negotiating with local stations over prices for CBS shows the local stations would run, and the stations had all the power.
They did not have to buy and often did not. Paley revolutionized radio and created the modern network by realizing that the price for his shows was a means, not an end in itself. The strategy earned him millions. Later, in the s, Paley took the U. recording industry by storm with a similar move: cutting the prevailing price of records in half. Experienced negotiators often report that price can be a relatively easy term to resolve compared with less obvious but more explosive issues such as control, turf, ego, and reputation. So when you formulate your goals, consider carefully what really matters to you. Sure, money is important. But identify your underlying interests and needs clearly. Once negotiations start, it is all too easy to become preoccupied with competitive issues such as price and forget what you are really trying to accomplish.
Set an Optimistic, Justifiable Target When you set goals, think boldly and optimistically about what you would like to see happen. In one classic study, psychologists Sydney Siegel and Lawrence Fouraker set up a simple buy-sell negotiation experiment. In other words, Siegel and Fouraker gave their subjects both concrete incentives for hitting a certain specified level of performance and, perhaps unintentionally, a hint that the assigned target levels were realistically attainable why else would subjects be told about the bonus round? Both sides had the same bottom line: They could not accept any deal that involved a loss. In our experiment, unlike the one Siegel and Fouraker conducted, negotiation subjects set their own bargaining goals. The result was the same, however.
Negotiators who reported higher prenegotiation expectations achieved more than those who entered the negotiation with more modest goals. Why are we tempted to set modest bargaining goals when we can achieve more by raising our sights? There are several possible reasons. First, many people set modest goals to protect their self-esteem. Modest goals thus help us avoid unpleasant feelings of failure and regret. This usually means we have failed to prepare well enough. Third, we may lack desire. If the other person wants money, control, or power more urgently than we do, we are unlikely to set a high goal for ourselves.
Why look for conflict and trouble over things we care little about? Research suggests that the self-esteem factor plays a more important role in low goal setting than many of us would care to admit. I see further evidence of this in negotiation classes. As students and executives in negotiation workshops start setting more ambitious goals for themselves and strive to improve, they often report feeling more dissatisfied and discouraged regarding their performance—even as their objective results get better and better. That way you can maintain your enthusiasm for negotiation as you learn. Research shows that people who succeed in achieving new goals are more likely to raise their goals the next time.
Those who fail, however, tend to become discouraged and lower their targets. Once you have thought about what an optimistic, challenging goal would look like, spend a few minutes permitting realism to dampen your expectations. Optimistic goals are effective only if they are feasible; that is, only if you believe in them and they can be justified according to some standard or norm. As I discuss more fully in Chapter 3, negotiation positions must usually be supported by some standard, benchmark, or precedent, or they lose their credibility. No amount of mental goal setting will make your five-year-old car worth more than a brand-new version of the same model. You should also adjust your goal to reflect appropriate relationship concerns, a subject I address in Chapter 4. With the preliminary work done, you are ready to enter the negotiation process and encounter the values and priorities the other side is bringing to the deal. Until you know for sure what the other side has for goals and what the other side thinks is realistic, you should keep your eyes firmly on your own defendable target.
Be Specific The literature on negotiation goal setting counsels us to be as specific as possible. Clarity drives out fuzziness in negotiations as in many other endeavors. With a definite target, you will begin working on a host of psychological levels to get the job done. Your specific goal will start you thinking about other, comparable jobs that pay your target salary, and you will begin to notice a variety of market standards that support a salary of that amount. But effective negotiators do not let these feelings get in the way of setting specific goals. Commit to Your Goal: Write It Down and Talk About It Your goal is only as effective as your commitment to it. There are several simple things you can do that will increase your level of psychological attachment to your goal. First, as I suggested above, you should make sure it is justified and supported by solid arguments.
You must believe in your goal to be committed to it. Second, it helps if you spend just a few moments vividly imagining the way it would look or feel to achieve your goal. Visualization helps engage our mind more fully in the achievement process and also raises our level of self-confidence and commitment. He then kept that picture over his desk for several years as he directed all his professional energies toward gaining admission. After being turned down once, he was finally admitted. When he arrived on campus, he had another picture taken of himself in the same building, and he now displays the two pictures together with great satisfaction. He credits the visual image of his goal with keeping him on track toward its achievement.
The same visualization techniques work for negotiation goals. To commit yourself even further to your goal, tell another person about it and show him or her your written goal. If other people know about the goal, you begin to feel subtly accountable to them, and research indicates that negotiators bargain harder when they must explain to someone why they failed to achieve a goal. Labor, sports, and political negotiators go to extreme lengths to mobilize this power: They sometimes announce their bargaining goals to the press, thereby putting everyone including their constituents and the other side on notice as to what they want to achieve. This sort of public commitment is a powerful way of binding yourself to your goals.
Of course, as in all other aspects of negotiation, one should use judgment in committing to goals. If both parties engage in dramatic forms of public commitment, with press conferences and do-or-die statements to their respective audiences, they can paint themselves into a corner from which it is impossible to escape. Labor strikes, political showdowns, and wars are examples of failed negotiations, not successes. Finally, any type of material investment you can make in the goal that would be lost if you fail to achieve it will add greatly to your commitment. A major airline recently announced that it had signed a deal to acquire as many as four hundred new planes to expand and upgrade its fleet.
It went on to state that the airline would be forced to cancel that order if it failed to reach a favorable wage agreement with its pilots before the deadline for closing the purchase. With that one move, the airline secured three negotiation advantages: a public commitment to its stated wage target, a credible deadline for concluding negotiations with its pilots, and, most important, a vision of what it and the pilots would lose if the airline failed to achieve its wage goals. The negotiations ultimately closed by the deadline and within the wage constraints the airline had set.
It therefore pays to carry your goals with you and, if you feel yourself getting swept away, take a break and review them before going forward. I find it sometimes helps to literally carry a short summary of my goals in my pocket or wallet. Even if you just carry it in your head, however, the point is not to lose sight of your goals in the confusion of actual negotiation. Barry Diller, the successful television executive and entrepreneur, learned this lesson the hard way when he got caught up in bidding for the rights to the first television showing of the movie The Poseidon Adventure in the early s. The reason Diller paid so much? He agreed to participate in the first and, for him, the last open-bid auction for TV rights to a movie. It usually does not take long for regret to set in after such a victory, teaching the winners that it is not enough to prepare goals—you must remember them during the negotiation.
Clarity of purpose and optimism are key attitudes to bring to the goal-setting process. First, a concrete, challenging goal will motivate you. You will become more focused, persistent, and achievement-oriented, and you will be more likely to come up with good arguments and new ideas about how to get what you want. You will also avoid the common trap of becoming focused on your bottom line too early. Second, your clarity will communicate confidence and resolve to the other party. You will convey the message that you have high expectations for both yourself and the deal. And perhaps no other personal variable makes such a difference in negotiation as the quiet feeling of confidence, self-esteem, and commitment that emanates from people who know what they want and why they ought to get it.
The Third Foundation of Effective Negotiation directs attention to this psychological drive. The Story of the Two Pigs In his book The Halfway Sun, anthropologist R. Barton told a story about tribal people in the Philippines with whom he lived for many years. Barton reported that a man of the Ifugao people the name of the tribe once borrowed two pigs from his neighbor. Two years later, the man who loaned the pigs asked for the debt to be repaid. His son was getting married, and he needed pigs to give as presents at the wedding. The two men then fell into a dispute over how many pigs were owed. There was general agreement that a two-year loan of two pigs called for a repayment of four—double the original number. That was the standard. The problem was implementing it. The lender, an ambitious man who wanted to make a lavish wedding display, insisted that the borrower owed him a total of six pigs.
He argued that slightly more than two years had passed and that one of the pigs had been of a special, larger breed that should draw a higher rate of interest. The borrower angrily replied that everyone knew the right number was four. The natural rate of increase on that chicken, he said, equaled roughly one pig. So he reduced his offer from four pigs to three—to account for the chicken debt. The lender responded that he would accept five pigs, but not one less. After much haggling and many insults, the two families engaged the services of a respected elder to act as a go-between. That brought the whole negotiation process to an abrupt halt. Now the wives got involved. Both women told their men to stop arguing and settle the matter. The elder finally put together a deal. First, the lender promised to restore the gong. Next, the borrower promised to cancel the chicken debt and pay the five pigs demanded by the lender. But there was a twist: The elder passed along to the lender only three of the five pigs paid by the borrower, keeping the other two for himself as his fee.
From Pigs to Price Lists: The Role of Standards What are we to make of this story? Few of us today are busy borrowing and lending pigs. Yet like people in every culture, we are inclined to negotiate on the basis of authoritative standards and norms. And when parties deviate too widely from these norms, they risk irritating others and causing trouble for themselves. They are seen as being unreasonable. Standards very similar to the Ifugao natural rate of increase for borrowed animals play equally important roles in our more modern world. Global financial markets set interest rates for borrowing money. Such fancy terms and complex analyses are nothing more or less than techniques that help buyers and sellers form opinions about the right price. These standards, like the one in the two pigs story, bracket the bargaining zone and permit all participants to talk about their preferred end of the range without appearing, at least in their own eyes, to be unreasonable.
Nor are market standards such as interest rates and comparable sales the only examples of normative arguments and formulae that carry weight in negotiations. You have something to talk about beyond your self-serving assessment of what you want. This in turn gives you a fair basis on which to be an energetic advocate for your goal. And you had better be ready to respond to arguments the other side will advance. If the accepted standards lend themselves to a variety of interpretations and most do , the other party will come prepared to argue the interpretation that most favors him or her. In short, as part of your preparation, you must become an advocate for your goals using the most persuasive standards you can find. Which standards might those be? As my opening quotation from Samuel Coleridge suggests, the arguments the other party accepts as legitimate or has used to his or her own advantage in the past are usually the most effective.
A Psychological Fact: We All Want to Appear Reasonable Why are standards and norms—particularly standards the other side has adopted —such an important part of bargaining? Because, all else being equal, people like to be seen as consistent and rational in the way they make decisions. Psychologists have a name for this need-to-appear-reasonable phenomenon. Because we like to keep these webs intact, we rationalize our actions so they appear at least in our own eyes to be consistent with our prior beliefs. We are also more open to persuasion when we see a proposed course of action as being consistent with a course we have already adopted. Negotiations are fertile ground for observing the consistency principle at work. Whether we are aware of it or not, we sometimes feel a tug to agree with the other party when the standards or norms he or she articulates are consistent with prior statements and positions we ourselves have taken.
We also feel uncomfortable though we may keep this to ourselves when the other side correctly points out that we have been inconsistent in one of our positions or arguments. In short, standards and norms are—or can be—more than just intellectual pawns in bargaining debates. They can be strong, motivating factors in the way negotiations proceed. Normative leverage is the skillful use of standards, norms, and coherent positioning to gain advantage or protect a position. If you set up your own needs, standards, and entitlement as the only rational approaches to a negotiation, you will not inspire agreement. If you cannot do this, prepare to argue for a special exception to his standard based on the special facts of your case. Attack his standard only as a last resort. Suppose you are involved in a budget negotiation in a hospital system. The administrators will then feel constrained by their prior policy statements to make a decision consistent with their policy.
Your best move will be to show how a quality nursing staff attracts more and better physicians than do lavish offices. Here is another, harder case. Suppose you are a corporate division chief faced with a downsizing mandate. Each division must slash 10 percent of its staff. You study the situation and determine that, with a 10 percent cut, there will simply not be enough people to do the work. Your initial instinct may be to go to your boss, show her you cannot do your job with the proposed cuts, and request permission to retain staff. Will this be persuasive? Probably not. Everyone is going to say the same thing, and she will not make her downsizing target if everyone retains staff. How can you gain better normative leverage for your request? If she likes to think about ways to be more efficient, give her arguments based on efficiency.
Tell her you have evaluated the assortment of tasks your department is doing and have determined that your group is superbly efficient at tasks 1, 2, and 3 but is ill equipped to perform tasks 4 and 5. Even after a 10 percent cut, you could do considerably more of tasks 1, 2, and 3 if the boss would assign tasks 4 and 5 to other groups better equipped to handle them. Alternatively, you might try to demonstrate how, by retaining more of your staff and cutting more heavily elsewhere in the organization, you could sharply reduce the time and cost of an entire business process spanning several divisions. That would save the firm money—which is the underlying point of downsizing—while improving an area on which the boss herself is evaluated. Will such arguments carry the day each time you use them? But they have a better chance of advancing your goals than arguments based strictly on your own point of view.
In fact, none of the Six Foundations alone guarantees success in bargaining. But attention to each one improves your chances incrementally. Effective negotiators move step by step. By positioning your needs within the normative framework the other party uses to make decisions, you show him respect and, as a result, gain his attention and sympathy. Because the difference between success and failure in negotiation is often very small, anything that systematically improves your chances of getting agreement to your terms will pay off in the long run. The goal of a consistency trap is to precommit you to a seemingly innocent standard and then confront you with the logical implications of the standard in a particular case—implications that actually turn out to run against your interests. This is a form of intellectual coercion, and you should be ready to defend against it. Collection agencies, credit card companies, and high-pressure sales companies routinely use consistency traps as part of the scripts they give telemarketing people to read on the telephone when they call you at dinnertime.
You can learn to see a consistency trap coming if you know what to look for. The trap closes. How about starting to save right now? At the bargaining table, consistency traps are a favorite of aggressive, competitive negotiators. The pattern is the same as that used by telemarketers. How can you defend against consistency traps? By being alert to them. When the person you are negotiating with begins asking leading questions before you know where he is going, slow the pace. Turn the tables on the trapper. Elicit as much information as possible about why these questions are important before committing to anything. If you are nevertheless pressed into agreeing to a standard, qualify it or phrase it in your own words and use the broadest possible terms, leaving ample room for interpretation later.
You have to be alert to every move he makes. If you are caught in an inconsistency, you have two choices. Either you can adjust your position to conform to the standard that you have admitted applies or you can hold your ground, admitting that you made a mistake when you agreed to the standard. This latter move will cause you to lose some face, but that may be less costly than a bad bargain. But suppose they cannot. You can try, but chances are the other party will cling to his beliefs. In these difficult cases, you will need to resort to explicit leverage and search for an ally—a third party to whom your bargaining counterpart is answerable and who is sympathetic to your norms. Allies serve as audiences or witnesses to guarantee the application of standards that ought, in fairness, to apply.
Mahatma Gandhi Rides First-class One way of understanding how audiences can help in asserting standards in negotiations is through example. This one comes from the life of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of modern India. Gandhi had earned a law degree in England. He arrived in South Africa ready to use his knowledge of both English law and English social norms to help in the cause of Indian civil rights. Soon after arriving in South Africa, Gandhi learned firsthand about this rule when he was thrown off a train for trying to ride in a first-class car. What is less well known is that Gandhi immediately looked for a second opportunity to challenge the rule on a train ride from Durban to Pretoria.
This time he succeeded. He did so by skillfully using an audience to outflank a negotiation opponent. Gandhi wrote that he was a barrister who was accustomed to traveling first-class. He wanted to impress the stationmaster with a basic fact—that the stationmaster and Gandhi were from the same social class, even if they were of different races. I must reach Pretoria today. I appreciate your feelings, and you have my sympathy. Gandhi agreed, although this eliminated an authoritative ally who could have proven useful later. Gandhi had to figure out how to persuade the conductor, who would not be from his own social class and who would be a Transvaaler, to let him stay in the first-class car.
Gandhi walked along the corridor in the first-class car until he found just the audience he was looking for: an Englishman sitting in a first-class compartment by himself, without any South African whites present. Gandhi sat down, holding his first-class ticket and waiting for the conductor to arrive. When the conductor came, he immediately saw that Gandhi was Indian and angrily demanded that he move to third-class. Gandhi showed him his first-class ticket. I do not mind in the least his traveling with me. The conductor retreated, and Gandhi completed his trip in first-class. Gandhi used his Englishman as an audience to temporarily overcome the unjust standards of South African law. Standards and Norms in Markets Standards and norms rely on the consistency principle for their power in negotiation. But some standards and norms are more powerful than others, especially in market transactions.
The strongest market standards act as anchors or focal points in bargaining. The natural rate of increase standard for borrowing animals in the Philippines had this quality. It provided a single, definitive solution to an otherwise negotiable issue. Most market standards are not so preemptive. Instead, they serve as range finders, bargaining devices that bracket the bargaining zone within which parties can haggle to settle an issue. Examples of standard terms and formulas that serve as preemptive norms for negotiations can be found everywhere in modern business. For instance, the practice in the residential real estate industry in the United States is for real estate agents to receive a fixed percentage 6 percent of the selling price of a home. In the literary and entertainment industries, agents receive a standard percentage of royalties and fees usually 15 percent earned by their clients.
Authors of hardcover books typically collect a 15 percent royalty on U. These standards are completely arbitrary from a financial point of view. Real estate brokers, book agents, and publishers could negotiate fees on a case-by-case basis and sometimes do in very special situations. But it would take time and energy to negotiate each and every transaction. The result: Each industry has converged on a payment standard that eliminates the need to negotiate. Acceptance of institutionalized bargaining standards is a hallmark of social membership in a given industry or group. A feeling arises that it is slightly insulting or presumptuous to negotiate a variance from the standard. And that is just the way the groups that benefit from these powerful standards like it. When you are new to a market, one of your first moves should be to investigate and abide by the prevailing standards and norms. Otherwise, people will think you are at best clumsy and at worst unreasonable. Similarly, when you are new to a company or institution, you should take time to understand the underlying conventions and norms of that organization if you want to negotiate change effectively.
Eventually, you may have enough leverage or skill to propose a deviation from an institutionalized norm and get away with it. But such a move is a calculated risk best taken by an experienced negotiator, not a novice. Institutionalized standards aside, most norms in market negotiations are contestable. These are the range-finding standards. They provide a basis for arguing in a civilized way about preferred results, but they do not dictate what the final agreement will be. They legitimize offers and demands and narrow the range within which bargaining will take place.
Facts from published and private sources based on prior transactions are usually critical, and it is no surprise that research confirms that such data significantly affect negotiation results. But fair market value is a relative concept in virtually any purchase or sale. The same principle is even truer for less quantitative standards and norms such as quality patient care in health care institutions or undergraduate educational excellence at colleges and universities. People will interpret such standards differently depending on their goals within their institutions, but data can usually be assembled to support linkages between any given proposal and the applicable institutional norm. The better the data, the stronger your argument. The biggest mistake you can make with range-finding norms is to come to the table unprepared to argue for your end of the range permitted by the legitimate standards.
The better prepared you are and the closer your proposal comes to being viewed as fair within the range described by the standards, the more successful you will be both in obtaining your price and in negotiating additional concessions on important nonprice issues. A positioning theme is a crisp, memorable phrase or framework that defines the problem you are attempting to solve in the negotiation. Asserting such a positioning theme early in a negotiation helps the other party see why you are there and what overall interests and norms tie your various bargaining positions together. When the going gets tough and the deadline is approaching, a good positioning theme can hold your bargaining position together just as sturdy ropes and bracing hold together a ship being tossed about by a strong wind.
Let me give a simple example of how good positioning works. Some years ago, the Teamsters Union won a major strike against United Parcel Service of America UPS , the biggest door-to-door package delivery service in the United States. It was the first major strike won by organized labor in the United States in years. What made the difference? These workers wanted the company to convert their positions to full- time jobs. The theme resonated with these and other workers throughout the United States who were unhappy about being forced to accept part-time jobs. The leverage the Teamsters gained from their persuasive positioning ultimately translated into a win for them at the bargaining table. As UPS Vice Chairman and strategist John W.
But they can be vital, not only in highly visible events such as the UPS strike but also in more ordinary negotiations. Persuasive positioning of our needs and interests helps us organize our thoughts, communicate consistently, and tailor our message so the other party will be most likely to hear it. If other parties become convinced that you are committed to a consistent position, they will respect that and you will gain important normative leverage. The Power of Authority In addition to the consistency principle, there is a second psychological lever that makes standards and norms persuasive. This is the human tendency to defer to authority. In negotiations, this tendency can affect both the process and the results of an exchange in a number of ways. Standards and norms have power in negotiation in part because they carry an authoritative message about what the market, the experts, or society has determined to be a fair and reasonable price or practice.
In addition, most of us occupy a number of social roles in our negotiations, and we may feel a strong need to act in ways that are consistent with our own vision of what these roles require—including being deferential to people and principles that appear to have high status or enjoy broad acceptance. Psychologists have discovered a firm fact about human nature: We are inclined to defer to authority. Some cultures emphasize obedience to authority more than others, but even Americans, who tend to be highly individualistic, defer to authority in many situations. Deferring to authority is useful most of the time. But authority becomes a problem in negotiation in two instances. First, others may seek to exploit our natural tendency to defer to authority by presenting us with unfair terms wrapped in authoritative packages.
Second, our deference to authority sometimes inappropriately interferes with our ability to assert our own legitimate interests. They present us with dense, authoritative-looking standard form contracts written in unintelligible legalese and resort to other expert talk in explaining what they call the routine aspects of a transaction. Have you ever heard someone you are negotiating with justify their position using explanations based on company policy, standard procedure, and the like? That is a standards- based argument that gains additional power from being combined with an authority ploy.
Herb Cohen tells a story in his book You Can Negotiate Anything that illustrates in an amusing way just how easy we are to manipulate based on our deference to authority. Candid Camera, a TV show that uses a hidden camera to observe ordinary Americans reacting to set up situations, once placed a large outdoor advertising sign on the expressway between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the neighboring city of Wilmington, Delaware. The sign read DELAWARE CLOSED. The producers placed a staff member near the sign with a lantern to slow traffic. The hidden camera then recorded people as they went by in their cars. Some people just drove by, ignoring the sign. But others stopped and inquired. The staff member simply referred people to the sign. I live there, and my family is in there! Our deference to authority can also needlessly interfere with our ability to initiate negotiations or express our points of view appropriately within organizations.
Virtually anyone who wears a uniform on the job or works in a hierarchical organization must be constantly alert to the possibility that his or her deference to authority could interfere with the proper discharge of his or her duties. On a more serious note, let me illustrate how our need to maintain consistency with social roles and routines can interfere with our abilities to communicate and, ultimately, negotiate effectively. This tragic example comes from an actual conversation between the captain and copilot of an Air Florida flight departing from Washington, D. A heavy snow is falling. Captain: Yeah. The snow keeps falling. Captain: I think we get to go here in a minute. Captain: Yes, it is. Captain: Hundred and twenty. Captain: I know it.
Sixty-nine of the seventy-four people on this flight, including the captain and copilot, died. The subsequent government investigation of the accident confirmed that the copilot had been correct—the instrument readings were abnormal and the captain should have aborted the takeoff. Partly in response to this and other incidents like it, some airlines now give their flight crews special training on how to communicate regarding safety issues in more direct, effective ways. But virtually all the examples used in this chapter illustrate another important truth about the criteria of fairness and consistency: Unless the issue is relatively trivial or the social roles especially strong, authoritative standards and crisp positioning themes alone seldom carry the day against negotiators with high aspirations.
When stakes are high, people do not make a concession just because they are caught making an inconsistent statement or realize that the other side has a good argument. They make it because they decide after careful consideration that it is within their reach and helps them advance toward their goal. The J. But argument alone is seldom sufficient to achieve bargaining success. In the end, only two things determine the right price of something: what a buyer is willing to pay and what a seller is willing to accept. In the two pigs example, a very important part of the negotiation was the theft of the ancestral gong. However, the theft also caused the lender to lose face in the eyes of the elder. Both factors contributed to the final settlement under which the borrower paid the full five pigs demanded and the lender ended up getting only three of them.
The presence of the Englishman gave Gandhi leverage. The conductor faced an uncomfortable choice: He could either throw Gandhi off the train and cause a scene with a dignified-looking and perhaps powerful English citizen or he could leave the situation alone and complain later that someone was illegally selling first-class tickets to coolies. Identify the ones the other party views as legitimate. ROOSEVELT Leave a good name in case you return. Your ability to form and manage personal associations at the bargaining table is therefore the Fourth Foundation of Effective Negotiation. Personal relationships create a level of trust and confidence between people that eases anxiety and facilitates communication. Relationships can help us achieve our goals, and they may also prompt us to modify them.
Most of us, for example, would not charge a close friend the same price for a professional service that we might charge a large corporate client. Why did I buy any fruit at all? Because of the relationship between our families. At the core of human relationships is a fragile interpersonal dynamic: trust. With trust, deals get done. Without it, deals are harder to negotiate, more difficult to implement, and vulnerable to changing incentives and circumstances. What is the secret to creating and sustaining trust in negotiation?
Better World Books. Uploaded by Lotu Tii on August 26, Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive headquarters building façade. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up Log in. Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book. Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. Search Metadata Search text contents Search TV news captions Search archived websites Advanced Search. Bargaining for advantage : negotiation strategies for reasonable people Item Preview.
remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. EMBED for wordpress. com hosted blogs and archive. Want more? Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! Includes bibliographical notes p. Access-restricted-item true Addeddate Bookplateleaf Boxid IA City New York Donor bostonpubliclibrary Edition 2. shenzhen archive. Full catalog record MARCXML. plus-circle Add Review. There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review. download 1 file. Books for People with Print Disabilities. Internet Archive Books. Scanned in China. SIMILAR ITEMS based on metadata.
Bargaining for Advantage - G. Richard Shell,media books
Some of the most frequent axioms used in the building of bargaining solutions are efficiency, symmetry, independence of irrelevant alternatives, scalar invariance, monotonicity, etc. The 30/03/ · Ebook Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People EBOOK ONLINE DOWNLOAD in English is available for free here, Click on the download Bargaining for advantage: negotiation strategies for reasonable people by Shell, G. Richard, Publication date DOWNLOAD OPTIONS ENCRYPTED DAISY download. BARGAINING ADVANTAGE Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People Revised and G. Richard Shell EXECUTIVE WORKSHOP to Ralffa. of Art of 04/04/ · Step-By Step To Download this book: Click The Button "DOWNLOAD". Sign UP registration to access Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for. Reasonable 31/03/ · PDF Bargaining For Advantage. Free Download Pdf. [SHARE] Textbook Megathread #11 Free PDF - reddit. Bargaining for advantage for reasonable people pdf ... read more
Aggressive bargainers spend most of their time at the bargaining table either talking about what they want or thinking of something clever to say next that will put the other side on the defensive. Gandhi had earned a law degree in England. By positioning your needs within the normative framework the other party uses to make decisions, you show him respect and, as a result, gain his attention and sympathy. Research suggests that the best negotiators have this ability. Two problems. The boss could not find the time to review her. Send an email to ja
Moreover, this strategy, like the compromise approach, may take too long to implement. CComputing Read After J. Advanced embedding details, examples, and help!
No comments:
Post a Comment