Find all the study resources for Essentials of Negotiation by Roy J. Lewicki; David M. Saunders. 13/ Lewicki-Chap-3 - Summary Essentials of Negotiation. 2 Pages: 3Year: 17/ 3. 17/ EMPL exam S1 pdf. 5Pages: 3Year: . Chapter 1. The Nature of Negotiation 1. A Few Words about Our Style and Approach 3. Joe and Sue Carter 4. Characteristics of a Negotiation Situation 6. Essentials Of Negotiation 6th Edition By Roy Lewicki - [Free] Essentials Of Edition By Roy Lewicki [PDF] [EPUB] This is Solution Manual for.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
kind of word, pdf, ppt, txt, kindle, rar, as well as zip. essentials of negotiation 6th edition test bank lewicki negotiation when the emerging deal is. View eBook Essentials Of Negotiation By Roy J Lewicki, Bruce Barry, David M Saunders [PDF EBOOK EPUB KINDLE]. (c) - page 1 of 8. Full file at aracer.mobi -Lewicki-Test-Bank TRUE/FALSE. Write 'T' if the statement is true and 'F' if the.
It is a strategy pursued by choice; seldom are we required to negotiate. By intangible factors, we are referring to the deeper psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties during the negotiation. Each party usually suggests alterations to the other party's proposal, and perhaps also changes his or her own position.
When one party agrees to make a change in his or her position, a concession has been made. Concessions restrict the range of options within which a solution or agreement will be reached. When a party makes a concession, the bargaining range the difference between the preferred acceptable settlements is further constrained. The dilemma of trust is how much of what the other party tells them should negotiators believe.
In order to achieve these objectives, negotiators usually employ "win-lose" strategies and tactics. This approach to negotiation—called distributive bargaining— accepts the fact that there can only be one winner given the situation and pursues a course of action to be that winner.
The purpose of the negotiation is to claim value—that is, to do whatever is necessary to claim the reward, gain the lion's share, or gain the largest piece possible. There is no single "best," "preferred," or "right" way to negotiate; the choice of negotiation strategy requires adaptation to the situation. Moreover, if most negotiation issues or problems have claiming and creating value components, then negotiators must be able to use both approaches in the same deliberation.
Actors pursuing the problem-solving strategy show high concern for attaining their own outcomes and high concern for whether the other party attains his or her outcomes.
In problem solving, the two parties actively pursue approaches to maximize their joint outcome from the conflict. Compromising is the strategy located in the middle of the dual concerns model Figure 1.
As a conflict management strategy, it represents a moderate effort to pursue our own outcomes and a moderate effort to help the other party achieve his or her outcomes. Pruitt and Rubin do not identify compromising as a viable strategy; they see it "as arising from one of two sources—either lazy problem solving involving a half-hearted attempt to satisfy the two parties' interests, or simple yielding by both parties.
Conflict can occur when the two parties are working toward the same goal and generally want the same outcome or when both parties want very different outcomes. Actively manage coalitions 8. Savor and protect your reputation 9.
Remember that rationality and fairness are relative to. Continue to learn from the experience 1. Be Prepared We cannot overemphasize the importance of preparation, and we strongly encourage all negotiators to prepare properly for their negotiations see Chapter 4. Preparation should occur before the negotiation begins so that the time spent negotiating is more productive.
Good preparation also means setting aspirations for negotiation that are high but achievable. Negotiators who set their sights too low are virtually guaranteed to reach an agreement that is suboptimal, while those who set them too high are more likely to stale— mate and end the negotiation in frustration.
Negotiators also need to plan their opening statements and positions carefully so they are especially well prepared at the start of ne— gotiations. Overplanning the tactics for each negotiation stage in advance of the ne- gotiation is not a good use of preparation time.
It is far better that negotiators prepare by understanding their own strengths and weaknesses, their needs and interests, the situa— tion, and the other party as well as possible so that they can adjust promptly and effec- tively as the negotiation proceeds.
Diagnose the Fundamental Structure of the Negotiation Negotiators should make a conscious decision about whether they are facing a funda- mentally distributive negotiation, an integrative negotiation, or a blend of the two, and choose their strategies and tactics accordingly.
Using strategies and tactics that are mis- matched will lead to suboptimal negotiation outcomes. For instance, using overly dis- tributive tactics in a fundamentally integrative situation will almost certainly result in reaching agreements that leave integrative potential untapped because negotiators tend not to share readily the information needed to succeed in integrative negotiations in response to distributive tactics. Similarly, using integrative tactics in a distributive situation may not lead to opti- mal outcomes either.
Unfortunately, requests for clarification about the list price of the car and information about manufacturer incentives described in a recent newspaper advertisement were met with silence or by changing the topic of conversation. Negotiators also need to remember that many negotiations will consist of a blend of integrative and distributive elements and that there will be distributive and integrative phases to these negotiations. It is especially important to be careful when transitioning between these phases within the broader negotiation because missteps in these transi- tions can confuse the other party and lead to impasse.
One alternative, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement BATNA , is especially important because this is the option that likely will be chosen should an agreement not be reached. Ne- gotiators without a strong BATNA may find it difficult to achieve a good agreement be- cause the other party may try to push them aggressively, and hence they may be forced to accept a settlement that is later seen as unsatisfying.
For instance, downloadr's who need to download items from sole suppliers are acutely aware of how the lack of a positive BATNA makes it difficult to achieve positive nego- tiation outcomes.
For instance, organizations in a sole supplier relationship have often vertically integrated their production and started to build comparable components inside the company, or they have redesigned their products so they are less vulnerable to the sole supplier.
These are clearly long-term options and are not available in the current negotiation. However, it may be possible to refer to these plans when negotiating with a sole supplier in order to remind them that you will not be dependent forever.
Negotiators have more power in a negotiation when their potential terms of agreement are significantly better than what the other ne— gotiator can obtain with his or her BATNA. Be Willing to Walk Away The goal of most negotiations is achieving a valued outcome, not reaching an agreement per Se.
Strong negotiators remember this and are willing to walk away from a negotia- tion when no agreement is better than a poor agreement.
While this advice sounds easy enough to take in principle, in practice, negotiators can become so focused on reaching an agreement that they lose sight of the real goal, which is to reach a good outcome and not necessarily an agreement.
While negotiators are often optimistic about goal achievement at the out— set, they may need to reevaluate these goals during the negotiation. We will discuss five com- mon paradoxes that negotiators face. The challenge for negotiators in handling these paradoxes is to strive for balance in these situations. There is a natural tension in choos- ing between one or the other alternative in the paradox, but the best way to manage paradox is to achieve a balance between the opposing forces.
Claiming Value versus Creating Value All negotiations have a value claiming stage, where parties decide who gets how much of what, but many negotiations also have a value creation stage, where parties work to— gether to expand the resources under negotiation. The skills and strategies appropriate to each stage are quite different; in general terms, distributive skills are called for in the value claiming stage and integrative skills are useful in value creation.
Typically, the value creation stage will precede the value claiming stage, and a challenge for negotia— tors is to balance the emphasis on the two stages and the transition from creating to claiming value.
One approach to manage this transition is to label it.
How can we move on to decide what is a fair distribution of the expected outcomes? These transitions often create a second paradox for negotiators. On the other hand, core principles are not something to back away from easily in the service of doing a deal. Effective ne- gotiators are thoughtful about the distinction between issues of principle, where firm- ness is essential, and other issues where compromise or accommodation is the best route to a mutually acceptable outcome.