Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics in
Negotiation
s
1
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Use of Language
language operates at two levels: the logical
level (for proposals or offers) and the
pragmatic level (semantics, syntax, and
style). The meaning conveyed by a
proposition or statement is a combination of
one logical, surface message and several
pragmatic (i.e., hinted or inferred) messages.
In other words, it is not only what is said and
how it is said that matters but also what
additional, veiled, or subsurface information is
4
intended, conveyed, or perceived in reception
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Use of Language
1. The use of polarized language, in which
negotiators use positive words when speaking
of their own positions (e.g., generous,
reasonable, or even-handed) and negative
words when referring to the other party's
position (e.g., tight-fisted, unreasonable, or
heavy-handed).
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Use of Language
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Use of Language
3. The degree of language intensity, in which
high intensity conveys strong feelings to the
recipient.(as with statements of affirmation or
the frequent use of profanity) and low
intensity conveys weak feelings.
4. The degree of lexical diversity (Le., the
command of a broad, rich vocabulary), where
high levels of lexical diversity denote comfort
and competence with language, and low
levels
denote
discomfort,
anxiety,
or
inexperience.
7
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Use of Language
5. The extent of high-power language style,
with low power denoted by the use of verbal
hedges, hesitations, or politeness to the point
of deference and subordination, and high
power denoted by verbal dominance, clarity
and firmness of expression, and selfassurance
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
HOW
COMMUNICATE
NEGOTIATION ?
PEOPLE
IN
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Three main techniques have been proposed
for improving communication in negotiation:
the use of questions, listening, and role
reversal.
The Use of Questions
Asking good questions enables negotiators to
secure a great deal of information about the
other party's position, supporting arguments,
and needs. questions could be divided into
two basic categories: those that are
manageable,
and
those
that
are
unmanageable and cause difficulty
13
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Manageable questions cause attention or
prepare the other person's thinking for further
questions ("May I ask you a question?"), get
information ("How much will this cost?"), and
generate thoughts ("Do you have any
suggestions
for
improving
this?").
Unmanageable questions cause difficulty,
give information ("Didn't you now that we
couldn't afford this?"), and bring the
discussion to a false conclusion ("Dont you
think we've talked about this enough?").
14
15
16
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Listening
Counselors recognize that communications
are frequently loaded with multiple meanings
and that the counselor must try to identify
these different meanings without making the
communicator angry or defensive. There are
three
major forms
of listening:
I. Passive
listening
involves receiving the
message while providing no feedback to the
sender about the accuracy or completeness of
reception. Sometimes passive listening is itself
enough to keep a communicator sending
information. Some people like to talk and are
17
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Listening
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Role Reversal
Role-reversal techniques allow negotiators to
understand more completely the other party's
positions by actively arguing these positions
until the other party is convinced that he or
she is understood. For example, someone can
ask you how you would respond to the
situation that he or she is in. In doing so, you
can come to understand that person's
position, perhaps can come to accept its
validity, and can discover how to modify both
19
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Role Reversal
1. Role reversal is effective in producing
cognitive changes (greater understanding of
the other party's position) and attitude
changes (perceived similarities between the
two
2. positions).
When
the
parties'
positions
are
fundamentally compatible with each other,
role reversal is likely to produce acceptable
results (cognitive and attitudinal change);
when the parties' positions are fundamentally
incompatible, role reversal may sharpen the
20
perceptions of incompatibility and inhibit
Improving Communication
In Negotiation
Role Reversal
3. Although role reversal may induce greater
understanding of the other party's position
and highlight possible areas of similarity, it is
not necessarily effective overall as a means of
inducing agreement between parties.
21
Negotiation
power
Negotiation
power
Negotiation
power
Negotiation
power
SOURCES OF POWER-HOW
PEOPLE ACQUIRE POWER
French and Raven (1959) identified five major
types: expert power, reward power, coercive
power, legitimate power, and referent power.
25
Negotiation
power
Coercive Power
Power that is based on fear. One reacts to this
power base out of fear of the negative results
that might occur if one fails to comply. It rests
on the application, or the threat of the
application, of physical sanctions such as the
infliction of pain, the generation of frustration
through restriction of
movement, or the controlling by force of basic
physiological or safety needs.
26
Negotiation
power
Coercive Power
At the organizational level, A has coercive
power over B if A can dismiss, suspend, or
demote B, assuming that B values his or her
job. Similarly, if A can assign B work activities
that B finds unpleasant or treat B in a manner
that B finds embarrassing, A possesses
coercive power over B.
27
Negotiation
power
Reward Power
The opposite of coercive power is reward
power. People will go along with the wishes or
directives of another if doing so produces
positive benefits; therefore, one who can
distribute rewards that others view as valuable
will have power over those others. In an
organizational context, we think of money,
favourable
performance
appraisals,
promotions, interesting work assignments,
friendly colleagues, important information, and
preferred work shifts or sales territories.
28
Negotiation
power
Legitimate
Power
Negotiation
power
Expert Power
Expert power is influence based on expertise,
special skills, or knowledge. Expertise has
become one of the most powerful sources of
influence as the world has become more
technologically oriented. Most of us follow the
advice that our doctors give us. Expert power
relies on trust that all relevant information is
given out honestly and completely. Of course,
since knowledge is power, the more that
information is shared, the less expert power a
person has.
30
Negotiation
power
Referent Power
Referent power develops out of admiration of
another and a desire to be like that person. If
you admire someone to the point of modelling
your behaviour and attitudes after him or her,
that person possesses referent power over you.
Sometimes teachers and coaches have
referent power because of our admiration of
them. Referent power explains why celebrities
are paid millions of dollars to endorse products
in commercials.
31
Negotiation
power
Information
Power
Information power comes from access to and
control over information. People in an
organization who have data or knowledge that
others need can make those others dependent
on them. Managers, for instance, because of
their access to privileged sales, cost, salary,
profit, and similar data, can use this
information to control and shape subordinates
behaviour.
32
Negotiation
power
1- Power Based on Information
and Expertise
The accumulation and presentation of data
intended to change the other person's point of
view or position on an issue; and (for
expertise) an acknowledged accumulation of
information, or mastery of a body of
information, on a particular problem or issue.
33
Negotiation
power
2- Power Based on Control
over resources
The accumulation of money, raw material,
labor, time, and equipment that can be used
as incentives to encourage compliance or as
punishments for noncompliance.
34
Negotiation
power
3- Power Based on Position
Power derived from being located in a
particular position in an organizational or
communication structure; leads to two
different kinds of leverage:
Formal authority, derived from occupying a
key position in a hierarchical organization.
Access to or control over information or
supply flows,
derived from location within a network,
35
Relationship in
Negotiation
Relationships can be described in many ways.
A characteristic of most relationships is that
each party has a causal influence on the other
party's behavior. How people react to that
influence
depends
on
what
type
of
relationship they have.
36
Relationship in
Negotiation
Four Fundamental Relationship Forms. A clear
representation of the types of social
relationships is presented by Fiske (1991).
Fiske argues for four fundamental forms:
communal sharing, authority ranking, equality
matching, and market pricing. He defines
them as follows:
37
Relationship in
Negotiation
I.Communal
sharing is a relation of unity,
community, collective identity, and kindness,
typically enacted among close kin. People are
bound to one another by feelings of strong
group membership; common identity; and
feelings of unity, solidarity, and belonging.
Collective identity takes precedence over
2."Authority
ranking is a relationship of
individual identity.
asymmetric differences, commonly exhibited
in a hierarchical ordering of status and
precedence, often accompanied by the
exercise of command and complementary
38
displays of deference and respect"
Relationship in
Negotiation
3."Equality matching is a one-to-one
correspondence relationship in which people
are distinct but equal, as manifested in
balanced reciprocity (or tit-for-tat revenge),
equal
share
distributions
or
identical
contributions,
in-kind
replacement
4.
"Market and
pricing
is based on an
compensation,
turn-taking"
(intermodel) metric of value by which people
compare different commodities and calculate
exchange and costlbenefit ratios. The values
that govern this kind of relationship are
determined by a market system.
39
Relationship in
Negotiation
imensions of Relationships
40
Ethics in
negotiations
What Are Ethics And Why Do They
Apply To Negotiation?
Ethics are broadly applied social standards
for what is right or wrong in a particular
situation, or a process for setting those
standards. They differ from morals, which are
individual and personal beliefs about what is
right and wrong. Ethics proceed from
particular philosophies,
which purport to (a) define the nature of the
world in which we live, and (b) prescribe41
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
End-result Ethics,
Rule Ethics,
Social Contract Ethics, And
Personalistic Ethics.
42
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
End-Result Ethics
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
End-Result Ethics
Suppose a television network has convincing
statistical evidence that a particular pickup
truck was designed unsafely, so that in 1 test
out of 10, it bursts into flame when it in a
side collision. To highlight this defect, the
network producer decides to stage and
videotape an accident. But because a
collision may create a fire only 1 time in 10,
and the producer can't afford to destroy 10
(or more) trucks, he decides to place44
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
End-Result Ethics
45
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
Rule Ethics
Rule Ethics emphasize that individuals ought
to commit themselves to a series of moral
rules or standards, and make decisions
based on those rules. Rule utilitarians argue
that a decision based on the utilitarian
standards reviewed above leads decision
makers into more trouble than benefit;
instead, they argue, the best way to achieve
the greatest good is to closely follow a set of
46
rules and principles.
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
Rule Ethics
Who makes the rules? What are the rules
that apply in all circumstances? For example,
those
who
believe
strictly
in
the
commandment (rule) "Thou shalt not kill" will
argue that the commandment is the same,
regardless of whether the subject is murder,
the death penalty for a convicted murderer,
military combat, abortion (even to save the
life of the mother), or euthanasia (mercy
47
killing
of
terminally
ill
or
suffering
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
Ethics in
negotiations
Major Ethical Concerns
Personalistic Ethics
A fourth standard of ethics is that, rather
than attempting to determine what is ethical
based on ends, or rules, or the social norms
of a community, people should simply
consult
their own
conscience.
Personalistic
Ethics
maintain that everyone
ought to decide for themselves what is right
based on their conscience. Whether one lies,
cheats, or steals, therefore, is ultimately a
matter of individual conscience and not the
nature of the ends, absolute rules, or narrow49
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Strategy Formulatio
57
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Face-to-Face Negotiatio
ule 9: Control Location and Tactics
58
Best Practices in
Negotiations
Face-to-Face Negotiatio
ule 12: Allow Yourself Plenty of Time
59