Transcript Slide 1
Negotiating Behaviors 12 Dimensions of Negotiations in Cross-National Situations ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Negotiating Behaviors Framework Twelve dimensions pertaining to negotiating behavior Six categories General model: Perceptions of negotiations of issue type preferences Team Dynamic: Characteristics of the negotiating team and its members Risk-Taking: Orientations toward risk in the venture and mediating relationship risk Procedure: Qualities that influence the style of interaction between negotiators Communication: Qualities that influence communication among negotiators ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Outcomes: The type of agreement preferred by negotiators Negotiating Behaviors Framework General Model Basic Concept of Negotiation Most Significant Type of Issue Risk-Taking Team Dynamic Selection of Negotiators Influence of Individual Aspirations Internal Decision-Making Process Risk-Taking Propensity Basis of Trust Team Dynamic Procedure Selection of Negotiators Orientation Toward Time Concern with Protocol Communication Style of Communication Nature of Persuasion Outcome ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Form of Agreement Influence of Individual Aspirations Internal Decision-Making Process Negotiating Behaviors Framework Dimensions Negotiator’s Profile Basic Concept of Negotiation Distributive Integrative Most Significant Type of Issue Task-based Relationship-based Selection of Negotiators Abilities Influence of Individual Aspirations Individualist Collectivist Internal Decision-Making Process Independent Consensus Orientation Toward Time Monochronic Polychronic Risk-Taking Propensity Risk Averse Basis of Trust External to the Parties Concern with Protocol Formal Style of Communication Low-context Nature of Persuasion Factual-Inductive Form of Agreement Explicit ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Status Risk Tolerant Internal to the Relationship Informal High-context Affective Implicit Basic Concept of Negotiation Distributive The distributive negotiator’s goal: to establish dominance Distributive negotiators believe that One party gains at the expense of the other – the pie is fixed There will be one winner and one loser Integrative The integrative negotiator’s goal: identify the underlying issues and interests of both sides Integrative negotiators believe that Tactics include: Take a hard-line approach Seek to meet only one’s own goals or interests Maximize the benefit for one’s side ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Parties place different values on the issues being negotiated Parties can find effective tradeoffs by conceding less important issues to gain on more important ones – the pie is not fixed Tactics include: Adopt a creative, problemsolving orientation Seeking solutions and outcomes that benefit both parties Most Significant Type of Issue Task-based Task-based negotiators: Spend most of their time discussing specific operational details Tend to avoid discussions involving the general principles of a relationship and broad objectives Prefer to negotiate a contract in an item-by-item way Feel it is important to come away with a clear understanding regarding the control, use, and division of resources (ownership, management, profits, etc.) ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Relationship-based Relationship-based negotiators: Spend most of their time building trust & friendship between members of each team Prefer to agree on the general principles of a relationship and broad objectives before addressing specific details Believe that a good relationship must be established before specific details can be discussed Will blend task issues into the discussion, as the social relationship develops Selection of Negotiators Abilities Members are selected because: They have skills or expertise that is relevant to a particular negotiation Examples of relevant skills: Education Technical or scientific knowledge Legal training Negotiating experience Language fluency The team comprises people who are knowledgeable about the project at hand and technical advisers ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Status Members are selected because of: Who they are Who they know Examples of relevant characteristics: Family background Influential connections Seniority Age Gender The negotiating team comprises senior high-ranking officials, who have considerable influence in their organizations and/or communities Influence of Individual Aspirations Individualist Individualist negotiators Are emotionally independent from the organization Are motivated primarily by their own preferences, needs & rights Give priority to personal goals May strive to achieve outcomes that are in their own best interests May keep the organization’s interests and goals in mind, but will do so because they expect personal reward & recognition for their decisions ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Collectivist Collectivist negotiators Have a strong sense of identity with and loyalty to the organization Are motivated primarily by the norms & duties imposed by the organization Give priority to the goals of the organization Strive to achieve outcomes that are in the organization’s best interests; will do so with no expectation of personal reward or gain Will assume joint responsibility and/or receive joint recognition for actions taken or decisions made during negotiations Internal Decision-Making Process Independent Decision-making power is delegated to leaders or other influential members of the negotiating team Leaders & influential members of the team Have the authority to make decisions independently Do not have to take the viewpoints of others into account ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Consensus Decision-making power is delegated to the entire negotiating team The team leader must Obtain support from team members Listen to their advice Orientation Toward Time Monochronic Monochronic negotiators set agendas for meetings They believe that outstanding or contentious issues should be resolved within an allotted time frame Adhere to preset schedules They schedule how long they will stay in another country for a series of meetings, which creates psychological pressure of having to arrive at a decision by a certain date Believe that time is money They tend not to mix business with pleasure ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Polychronic Polychronic negotiators place minor importance on the actual clock time spent discussing and resolving issues Tend not to adhere to preset schedules They feel that taking the time to get to know their counterparts and building a relationship is more important Believe that time is never wasted They tend to integrate taskoriented activity with relationship-building activities Concern with Protocol Informal Informal negotiators will adhere to a much smaller, loosely defined set of rules Team members may Believe there are multiple ways to respond appropriately to a situation Have conflicting ideas about what is appropriate Team members Are not required to pay compulsive attention to observing rules Who deviate from protocol are not necessarily criticized Formal Formal negotiators will adhere to strict & detailed rules that govern Some examples of rules that govern acceptable behavior: Dress codes Use of titles Seating arrangements There is strong agreement on the team about what constitutes correct action Team members ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Personal & professional conduct Negotiating procedures Hospitality extended to negotiators from the other side Must behave exactly according to protocol Are severely criticized for even slight deviations Risk-Taking Propensity Risk Tolerant Risk-tolerant negotiators are interested in reducing risk rather than avoiding it altogether Show greater willingness to run the risk of failing to come to an agreement May be less likely to make concessions May demand more May choose a strategy that offers higher rewards but has a lower probability of success ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Risk Averse Risk-averse negotiators take steps to avoid the risk of failing to come to an agreement In order to seal the deal May make concessions May accept lower rewards Basis of Trust External to the Parties Trust that the other party will fulfill its obligations because There is a signed contract There is the sanction of law to back it up The written word is binding A deal is a deal A trustworthy partner is one who complies with the terms of the contract, as originally written Internal to the Relationship Trust that the other party will fulfill its obligations because The contract is simply a symbol of the bond between the parties who drafted it ©2003 Bird & Metcalf They have invested in a relationship that has been built up over time They believe the other party is committed to it Less emphasis is placed on detailed, written contracts Negotiators expect that the other party will consider unique & changing circumstances over the life of the relationship A trustworthy partner is one who strives to maintain the relationship, possibly by modifying an existing contract to reflect new developments Style of Communication Low-Context High-context negotiators Are tuned into & reliant on nonverbal cues Tend to use language that is indirect, ambiguous & understated Expect others to notice & to understand Unarticulated intentions & feelings Subtle gestures Other non-verbal or environmental cues Take it personally when others offer direct criticism of Their company and/or its products The proposal they have put on the table Will not conclude agreements with business partners they do not like ©2003 Bird & Metcalf High-Context Low-context negotiators Are direct & to the point Are literal Tend to use language that is precise, open & frank Less likely to notice and to understand non-verbal cues Possible for them to conclude agreements with people whom they do not like personally Nature of Persuasion Factual-Inductive Factual-inductive negotiators Base their arguments on empirical facts Use linear logic (if-then statements) Proof used to support persuasive arguments includes Scientific evidence Professional standards Expert opinion Costs Market value Other hard data Believe the strongest case is made by presenting one’s best arguments first ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Affective Affective negotiators may base their arguments on Abstract theory Ideals References to status & relationships Appeals to sympathy Develop their arguments indirectly Evidence used to support persuasive arguments includes Moral standards Equal treatment Tradition Reciprocity May start with peripheral arguments & present their best arguments last, after the other party has reacted Form of Agreement Explicit Contract Favor & expect written, legally binding contracts A written contract Records the agreement Definitively specifies what each party has agreed to do Believe that written agreements provide the stability that allows their organization to Make investments Minimize the risk of business loss ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Implicit Agreement Favor broad or vague language in a contract because they feel that Definitive contract terms are too rigid to allow a good working relationship to evolve Definitive contract terms inhibit the parties from exploring unexpected or unusual opportunities for improvement & success It is impossible to anticipate & document every conceivable contingency, particularly with new relationships View the contract as a rough guideline, not because they want to evade responsibility but because the relationship, not the contract is primary In some cases, an oral contract may be sufficient Negotiating Behaviors Framework Dimensions Negotiator’s Profile Basic Concept of Negotiation Distributive Integrative Most Significant Type of Issue Task-based Relationship-based Selection of Negotiators Abilities Influence of Individual Aspirations Individualist Collectivist Internal Decision-Making Process Independent Consensus Orientation Toward Time Monochronic Polychronic Risk-Taking Propensity Risk Averse Basis of Trust External to the Parties Concern with Protocol Formal Style of Communication Low-context Nature of Persuasion Factual-Inductive Form of Agreement Explicit ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Status Risk Tolerant Internal to the Relationship Informal High-context Affective Implicit Universally Accepted Positive Negotiation Style ©2003 Bird & Metcalf Build relationships; don’t do deals Focus on interests, not positions Listen for underlying intent Create and claim value Know yourself and the other negotiators Learn how to communicate your intentions Maintain regular contact between face-toface meetings