Page 94 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Notes party and invites a reaction. Note: The other party should be cautioned that “cherry-
picking” (e.g., selecting the terms from each option that most suit him or her) is not
permissible. Rather, the offers are truly “package deals” (Schatzki, 1981).
Thus, above strategies show that while dealing an issue, the negotiator should:
(i) Be aggressive in anchoring

(ii) Gain better information about the other party
(iii) Be more persistent and more persuasive regarding the value of an offer
(iv) Overcome concession aversion—when people perceive themselves as having more
choices (as opposed to only one), they may be more likely to comply. For example,
when Ross Johnson, a member of the California Senate was faced with a legislative
bill that he hated, he did not kill it outright.

Structure contingency contracts by capitalising on differences

Negotiators not only have differences in interest and preference, but they view the world
differently (Lax & Sebenius, 1986). A book author may believe that the sales will be high; the
publisher believes it will be more modest. Different interpretations of the facts may threaten
already tenuous relations.
Negotiators can exploit differences to capitalise on integrative agreements in a variety of ways
(Lax & Sebenius, 1986). Consider the following differences and the opportunities they create:
1. Differences in the valuation of the negotiation issues
2. Differences in expectations of uncertain events

3. Differences in risk attitudes
4. Differences in time preferences
5. Differences in capabilities

A strategic framework for reaching Integrative Agreements

The discovery and creation of integrative agreements is very much like problem-solving that
requires creativity. Integrative agreements are devilishly obvious after the fact, but not before.
Because negotiation is an ill-structured task, with few constraints and a myriad of possible
“moves,” a royal road for reaching integrative agreement does not exist. Look at the decision-
making model of integrative negotiation.

4.17.3 Resource Assessment

Resource assessment involves the identification of the bargaining issues and alternatives. Later
stages of resource assessment move beyond the mere identification of issues and alternatives to
two higher-order processes: the unbundling of issues and alternatives, and the addition of new
issues and alternatives. Unbundling (Lax & Sebenius 1986) of issues is important in negotiations
that centre around a single issue. Because mutually beneficial trade-offs require a minimum of
two issues, it is important to fractionate conflict into more than one issue. In other instances, it
may be necessary to add new issues and alternatives facilitated by discussing parties’ interests.

1. Assessment of Differences
2. Offers and Trade-offs

88 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY