Session 8 persuasion ethics and team building in negotiation bookbooming
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Session 8Persuasion, Ethics & Team Building in Negotiation
  • 2. Part 1Principles of Persuasion 2
  • 3. Social Judgment Theory• We cannot evaluate messages without reference to existing attitudes.• The theory explains certain phenomena of persuasive message processing.• Underlying the theory is the premise that people know their attitudes. 3
  • 4. Latitudes of the Mind• Latitude of Commitment–where firmly attitudes already exist.• Latitude of Non-commitment–where little or no prior attitude exists.• Latitude of Acceptance–where persuasive messages are similar to existing attitudes.• Latitude of Rejection–where persuasive messages are at odds with existing attitudes. 4
  • 5. Latitudes of the Mind• Some portion of the latitude of commitment will constitute the latitude of rejection.• Some portion of the latitude of commitment may be included within the latitude of acceptance.• Persuasion is most likely in the latitude of non-commitment. 5
  • 6. Cognitive Dissonance• Psychological tension created by receiving messages inconsistent with prior beliefs and attitudes, or by behavior that is inconsistent with beliefs and attitudes, or by inconsistent behaviors.• The tension motivates us to achieve consonance.• An unconscious cognitive phenomenon. 6
  • 7. Reducing Dissonance Unconsciously we: Perceive statements as more similar than they are. We think others’ attitudes are the same as ours. We change the relative importance of attitudes. We forget inconsistent attitudes. We reject inconsistent attitudes as invalid. 7
  • 8. Negativity BiasNegative information weighs more heavily, isperceived as more valid, and is rememberedlonger than positive information. 8
  • 9. How to Persuade• Focus your arguments with ACES.“A” = Appropriate“C” = Consistent“E” = Effective“S” = Special particular additional reasons 9
  • 10. Crossing the CREEK• “C” = Common ground• “R” = Reinforcing facts and data• “E” = Emotional connection• “E” = Empathy• “K” = the KEY is credibility 10
  • 11. When Persuasion Is Unlikely• Reframe. Look for more ACES.• Re-load to cross the CREEK–more common ground, more facts, more emotional connection, more empathy, more credibility.• Ask the reason for non-acceptance.• Identify the contrary/inconsistent attitude.• Demonstrate consistency–or recognize that persuasion is not possible at this time with the focus and arguments used. 11
  • 12. Diplomacy• Assertion and diplomacy are always appropriate in negotiation.• Diplomacy is the restraint of power. 12
  • 13. Part IIEthics In Negotiation 13
  • 14. Three Major Views of Ethical Conduct• The end justifies the means.• Absolute truth versus relative truth.• There is not such thing as the truth. 14
  • 15. Ethical Negotiation: Questionable Strategies• Lying (and its effects on negotiation issues) on: – Positions – Interests – Priorities and preferences – BATNAs – Reservation prices – Facts• Other questionable negotiation strategies – Traditional competitive bargaining – Manipulation of an opponent’s network – Reneging on negotiated agreements – Retracting an offer – Nickel-and-diming 15
  • 16. Conditions under which Negotiators SayThey Would Engage in Deception (i.e., Lying) in Negotiations 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 43% 38% 40% 30% 21% 19% 20% 15% 15% 13% 9% 10% 4% 0% ot e ht lie n n h er e ik io pi ai at sh ug w a- sl lg at de po d r- Di ca ne ut xe na fo or ep w O g Fi e- o Lo tin fe rs tr Li Li Pe et ec tg 16 ot Pr No
  • 17. Review of Categories (Left to Right on X-Axis)• Lie-for-a-lie: When I suspect the other party is deceiving me• One shot: In a one-shot situation, with no potential for a long-term relationship• Personal gain: If there was a gain to be had• Not getting caught: If I felt I could get away with it• Life or death: If the situation was “life or death”• Low power: If the other party had more power (i.e., to “level the playing field”)• Protecting reputation: When I would not have to worry about my reputation• Dislike: If I did not like the other person• Fixed pie: If the situation was purely distributive 17
  • 18. Psychological Bias and Unethical Behavior• Human biases that give rise to ethical problems in negotiation – Bounded ethicality – Illusion of superiority – Illusion of control – Overconfidence• How can negotiators calibrate ethical behavior? – The front page test – Reverse golden rule – Role modeling – Third-party advice 18
  • 19. How People Justify Unethical Tactics• “It was unavoidable”• “It was harmless”• “It helped avoid negative results”• “It helped accomplish good results”• “The other party deserved it”• “Everybody’s doing it”• “It was fair, under the circumstances” 19
  • 20. Defusing Unethical Behaviors• Ignore it• Identify it• Warn them• Set ground rules• Tell them the consequences• Act 20
  • 21. Part IIITeam Building in Negotiation 21
  • 22. Team Negotiation• Use teams when the matter is complex and requires varying expertise.• Go solo when issues are limited and you have all necessary information and expertise.• Go solo when time is short. Take advantage of behind-the-scenes help, if possible. 22
  • 23. Team Negotiation (continued)• Teams add complexity but diversity increases team ability.• Conflict may arise within the team from personality, style, perception, and communication difficulties.• Choosing complementary personalities and expertise and allow time for team development.• Constructive conflict is a primary benefit of using teams. 23
  • 24. Maximizing Benefits of Teams• Establish rules of conduct and roles.• Use of good guy/bad guy with teams.• Plan to negotiate among each other.• Continually diagnose and monitor conflict.• Manage constructive conflict.• Resolve destructive conflict. 24
  • 25. Defining Roles within a TeamRoles ResponsibilitiesLeader •conducting the negotiation •ruling on mattersGood guy/girl •showing understanding for the oppositionBad guy/girl •intimidating the opposition •stopping the negotiationHardliner •keeping the team focused •emphasising difficultiesSweeper •bringing all views together •suggesting ways out of a deadlock 25
  • 26. ... using seating tactically BAD GUY GOOD HARD- BOSS LINER SWEEPER GUY Your team Opposing team 26
  • 27. ... using seating tactically GOOD BOSS HARD- GUY LINER BAD GUY SWEEPER Comp. Hindle, T., 2001, Erfolgreich verhandeln, München, p.28 27