The Ugli Oranges & The role of emotions in negotiation
Distributive versus Integrative model of negotiation
Distributive/ Competitive
- Hides information
- Rigid offers
- objective = maximum profit and minimal losses
- Zero -sum game
Integrative/ Cooperative
- Extends the pie
- Positive sum game
- Gives information
What is BATNA?
Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement: It's the alternative option a negotiator has if a negotiation doesn't lead to a mutually agreeable outcome
Definition of negotiation as a process
process by which two or more parties in conflict seek to do better through jointly decided actions
big three biases
1) Fixed pie bias
2) Egocentric bias
3) Dispossitional bias (FAE)
Emotions in Intercultural Negotiations (Barry and Oliver, 1996) - when do emotions come up?
1) just prior to the onset of negotiation
2) during the negotiation process
3) or when they are evaluating negotiating outcomes
Positional negotiation versus principled negotiation
Positional negotiation: focuses on holding firm to a specific position
Principled negotiation: prioritizes understanding underlying interests and finding mutually beneficial solutions
Critical factors to consider when establishing your BATNA
1) the cost
2) feasibility
3) immediate impact
4) consequences
Tactics, Strategies and Form
Negotiation Behavior When Cultures Collide: The United States and Japan ( Adair et al., 2001)
Japanese = high context, indirect
US = low context, direct
Japanese adapted more
Japanese more competative w outgroups (collectivist ingroup loyalty)
overall intra > inter-cultural for both
cultural distance
the degree of divergence in cultural values and beliefs and the divergence in negotiation scripts across cultures
Tactics of principled negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1981)
1) Expand the pie
2) exchange information
3) make promises
4) know your BATNA
What is ZOPA?
Zone of possible agreement: minimum and maximum - negotiation happens in the middle as there is likely overlap between one parties max and the others min
phase models
Phase models suggest that a negotiation progresses through an evolutionary process that blends integration and distribution.
Two types of phase models differ in how phases are defined
1. Stage models assume that negotiations pass through a series of predictable stages on the path to agreement: issue definition, problem solving, and resolution
2. Episodic models, in comparison, look for unified periods of coherent activity, such as an uninterrupted series of offers
elements of cultural competence
1) meta-cognitive CQ: awareness of diff
2) cognitive CQ: knowledge of values
3) motivational CQ: interest to learn
4) behavioural CQ: ability to interact
promotion or a prevention focus
promotion focus: focus on getting positive outcomes
prevention focus: focus on avoiding negative outcomes
Three take home ideas from Ugli Oranges
1) interest versus positions - most focused on underlying interests rather than taking a position
2) trust and cooperation - trust in negotiation partner led to best solution
3) communication and emotional intelligence - most were cooperative and receptive
Four basic power change tactics
1) improve the quality of ones BATNA
2) decrease the quality of the counterparts BATNA
3) decrease the valuation of the counterparts contribution
4) increase counterparts valuation of own contribution
Quantitative Coding of Negotiation Behavior (WEINGART et al., 2004)
to study negotiation, you can break it into 3 levels:
1. Frequencies → how often different tactics (individual actions) are used.
2. Sequences → how one tactic leads to another (who responds how).
3. Phases → how tactics/strategies shift over time (initiation, problem solving, resolution).
They use a coding scheme called Towers II to identify:
1. Tactics = individual moves (e.g., making an offer, giving priority info)
2. Strategies = clusters of tactics (e.g., integrative vs distributive)
• This coding helps researchers link behavior to outcomes (e.g., high joint gain)
The relationship between cultural values, CQ and negotiation styles (Caputo et al., 2019)
higher levels of power distance + masculinity = competitive nego styles
higher uncertainty avoidance, higher collectivism and lower masculinity = cooperative nego styles
CQ mediates:
1) the relationship between collectivism and competitive nego styles
2) the relationship between collectivism and cooperative nego styles
3) the effects of long term orientation on competitive nego styles
ego- focused and other-focused emotions (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
ego-focused: associated with fulfillment of individual goals (pride, anger, frustration)
other-focused: associated with ability to nurture interdependence (shame, anxiety, fear)
Integrative versus distributive bargaining: solo vs teams (thompson, peterson, brodt, 1995)
- both teams and solos thought teams would do better
- teams shared more info - had better judgment accuracy and joint value
- however teams didnt "win" more
- friends did worse than non-friends
- caucusing had no effect
BATNA and Contributions in Negotiation (Kim & Fragale, 2005)
The authors ask: Do BATNAs and contributions have different effects on negotiation outcomes? AND Under what conditions is one more effective than the other?
Small Bargaining Zone:
- BATNA = more powerful
- Why? If the deal falls through, a strong BATNA means you have a good alternative
Large Bargaining zone:
- contribution = more powerful
- why? allows you to gain larger surplus
Three communication strategies have been identified as effective at breaking conflict spirals
1. Not reciprocating a distributive tactic
2. Reciprocating a distributive tactic in combination with an integrative tactic
3. Labeling the process as ineffectual
The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes (Imai & Gelfand, 2010)
High CQ negotiators:
→ more cooperative
→ greater epistemic motivation
→ used more integrative tactics
High CQ pairs:
→ achieved higher joint profit
→ used more complementary sequences
→ built better working relationships
however, there was a "weakest link effect"
need for affect
the degree to which individuals allow their behaviour to be shaped by their emotions