IBM 553 NEGOTIATION UITM

1. CHAPTER 5: POWER, GENDER, ETHICS
Power – authority, may come in a different background regards of power.
Gender – male and female, each have different personalities.
Ethics – standards, follow rules and regulation. / prefer ethical rather than unethical.
POWER
4 VANTAGE POINTS:
1. Potential power (dependency)
- If someone not prepare = no power. They feel power when they really fully prepared.
- Other people depend on you when you have that resources.
- The more people depend on you, the more potential power that you have.
- It is a function of the counterparty’s dependence on you.
- How much someone depends on you in a nego is based upon how much he/she values the
resources you provide and the value of the alternatives to negotiating with you.
2. Perceived power
- Feel that have power, but it actually not necessarily has. (being confident)
- A negotiator’s alternative affect the distribution of outcomes, perceived power as well as
actual alternatives affect the integrativeness of outcomes.
3. Power tactics
- Power that you gain in relationship.
- Usually have skills/strategy better in negotiate.
- Compromise what’s commonly studied in negotiation behavior and refer to the behavior
designed to use or change the power relationship.
4. Realized power
- Not even realize that you have power.
- Come at the negotiation table with empty hand, just try and how it goes.
- At the end of the process, realize actually that you have power.
- The extend to which negotiators claim benefits from an interaction.
THE POWER OF ALTERNATIVES
3 ways of improving your BATNA:
1. Keep your option open
- Don’t know what will happen during nego.
- KYOO even after you have come to the nego table because nego could break down for a
variety of reasons at any point prior to mutual settlement.
2. Signal your BATNA, but do NOT reveal it.
- Reveal = weak position
- If reveal, there would be no other interesting things/ offer by the counterpart.

2. - If the other party does not believe that you actually have BATNA, you should signal that you
have options, without revealing their exact value.
- However, hint to options you do not actually have is misrepresentation, which is unethical.
3. Assess the other party’s BATNA.
- Do research of the opponent’s BATNA, enhance BATNA -> power. The more the research
inquiries of counterparty , the better you’ll be at negotiation table.
- Should not done during the negotiation process as it could weakened your position.
- Research on the other party’s BATNA could be done through multiple sources.
- The more you could predict the opponent’s BATNA (through well research) the better you will
be at slicing the pie.
POWER TRIGGERS IN NEGOTIATION
Source of power in nego is based on a person’s perceived ability to influence others.
Social power = the power people have over other people. In terms of actions, decisions.
Personal power = the freedom people have from other people in terms of deceasing their dependency
on others.
How determine social or personal? By looking at person’s posture / facial expression. If someone feel
anxiety / not confident = constricted (without power) while expansive (with power)
SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC POWER RELATIONSHIPS
3 types of power balance:
1. Symmetric high power negotiators
- Value creation (win-win) was associated with increased mutual accommodation.
- Cooperate to get the best agreement.
2. Symmetric low power negotiators
- Value creation (win-win) was associated with greater contentiousness (provoking arguments).
3. Asymmetric power negotiators
- Maximized value creation when they adopted a neutral stance, neither overusing or under
using accommodation or contentiousness.
THE EFFECT OF USING POWER ON POWERFUL PEOPLE
1. Power decreases social awareness (and accuracy)
- Their mindset, they believe they have and know everything -> ignore to other people -> less
accuracy collecting info (very dangerous)
- When powerful people are in control in a situation, less powerful people actions have little
effect to those of high power
2. Power increases feelings of control
- Feel and control -> influence nego process, will denominated by other party , don’t have
chances to lead.

3. - People with power have an illusion of control, they feel control over outcomes that they
cannot influences or beyond their reach.
3. Power increases risk taking
- Good at certain thing, likely to take challenges, take decision that risky. High power, high
dopamine.
- People with high power mindset are more likely to act in a risk seeking way and make known
their interests in a negotiation (risky)
- Power changes people’s brains and makes them feel immune and supreme.
4. Situations and stimuli that trigger power
- It is somehow easy to trigger feelings of power.
- Different aura
THE EFFECT OF POWER ON THOSE WITH LESS POWER
- Dependent upon those of high power for important economic outcomes.
- More accurate information (prepare well)
- Would feel paranoid (scare), takes time in talking, conversation.
- Easily affected by the emotions, lose focus when face a powerful, emotional counterparty.
POWER – a person’s potential to influence others successfully, the capacity or ability to direct or influence
the behavior of others or the course of events.
STATUS – the relative social position or rank given to people / groups by other. May be formal
(organization title, CEO) or informal (people who are older and more experienced)
2 types of status
1. Primary status characteristics
- Indicators of legitimate authority.
- Ex: a person’s rank, titles and degrees earned.
- High status people talk more, even when they do not necessarily know more.
- Generally, control when they would talk during the conversation. Affect distribution of
resources.
2. Secondary status characteristics
- Refers to indicators that have no legitimate authority on the allocation of resources but
nevertheless they exert a powerful influence on behavior.
- Ex: sex, age, ethnicity (race), status in other groups and cultural background
GENDER
- Men are more successful than woman in terms of pie slicing – they often get a bigger slice.
- Men negotiated significantly better outcomes than did women.
- Women set lower aspirations (ask for less) in their opening offers than do men, holding
constant their previous experience, education, and bargaining position.

4. INITIATING NEGOTIATION
- A key to successful negotiation - the ability to initiate negotiations, rather than avoid them
and simply accept the first offer.
- Women are less likely to initiate negotiations than men.
- 4 reasons that act as barriers for women asking for what they want:
a. They don’t feel a given situations is negotiation
b. They think they will be given things when they “deserve” them.
c. They do not establish aggressive goals.
d. They do not want to damage the relationship
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD
3 strategies that can help women attain better outcomes at the nego table:
1. Stereotype generation
- Women often stereotyped as women are docile (compliant / obedient), relationship oriented
and accommodating.
- It might be that women are highly goal oriented and assertive.
- Nego involves both relationship building and economic expertise.
- Regardless men/women, as long as they believe that those skills are required for successful
nego, they should do very well.
2. Remove ambiguity
- Men / women = tend to perform worse in nego when situation is ambiguous. They feel shaky
and cannot think clearly.
- Conversely, when situations are less ambiguous, gender differences are eliminated.
- The greater the amount of situation ambiguity, the more a negotiation will be affected by
gender.
3. Negotiate on behalf of a constituency
- Gender differences are minimized as compared to when they nego on a behalf of themselves,
when women nego on behalf of someone other than themselves.
- Women feel accountable
- Larger constituency -> more comfortable, more likely to express their interests, make more
assertive offer and hold out for a better set of terms
EVALUATIONS OF NEGOTIATORS
- Self-advocating or being assertive (women) – when ask for what they want in nego often less
liked in nego.
- They suffer negative social judgements backlash.
- Female negotiators often associated with high negative masculine, low negative feminine
characteristics.
GENDER AND RACE DISCRIMINATION IN NEGOTIATION

5. - Women and their race being discriminate during nego.
- Other people treat them unequally.
- Different countries, different cultures – treat different
GENDER AND THIRD PARTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- Women usually feeling accountable, they can nego on behalf of others
- Agentic behavior = strong, dominant, assertive. Usually men engaged in agentic behavior, and
women tend to avoid them.
ETHICS
ETHICS AND LYING
- Men set lower ethical standards than do women in negotiations.
- Due to MALE PRAGMATISM HYPOTHESIS – men, more than women are motivationally biased
in setting ethical standards.
- Men – mostly lying, they have tendency to commit unethical behavior and men are more
egocentric.
LYING - Is regarded to be unethical and in some cases illegal.
Fraudulent:
- When someone makes a knowingly misrepresentations
- Of a material facts
- On which the victim reasonably relies
- And the fact causes damage in some way – economically or emotionally
Several key aspects of lying
- The speaker is aware he or she is misrepresenting information
- Regarding a material fact
- The other party relies on this fact
- By doing so is damaged in some way – economically or emotionally.
OTHER QUESTIONABLE NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES
5 other strategies:
1. Traditional competitive bargaining
- Hiding one’s real bottom line
- Making very high or low opening offers, and gaining information by asking among one’s
contact, is not regarded as unethical.
2. Manipulation of an opponent’s network
- Involves an attempt to weaken an opponent’s position by influencing his or her associate or
constituency.
3. Reneging (break) on negotiated agreements

6. - In many important negotiations, deals are closed without formal contracts.
- Ex: even in the purchase of houses and cars, an understanding is often reached before official
papers have been signed. Even after formal contracts are signed, a period of rescission exists,
wherein either party can legally exit from the agreement.
4. Retracting (pull back) an offer.
- Once a negotiator puts an offer on the table, he or she should not retract it.
- This action would be bargaining in bad faith.
- Even so, negotiators may need to retract offers because a mistake has been made.
5. Nickel and diming
- The strategy of continually asking for “just one more thing” after a deal has been closed.
- It is often an effective strategy to inform the other party of the terms you need to make the
agreement final.
- Even better, prepare the official paperwork and indicate that you’ll “sign today” if your terms
are met.
SINS OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION
- Sins of commission (active lying) ARE REGARDED AS MORE UNETHICAL THAN sins of omission
(failure to fulfill a moral or legal obligation)
COSTS OF LYING
4 costs or disadvantages:
1. The liar can be caught and face criminal charges
2. Even if the liar is not caught, one’s reputation and trustworthiness can be damaged.
3. If this repeatedly happens, it could lead to a culture and increases general suspiciousness.
4. Lying will increase the probability of impasse on negotiations.
UNDER WHAT CONDITION DO PEOPLE ENGAGE IN DECEPTION
4 factors that may lead people to engage in deception.
1. The lure of temptation – great deal / offer
2. Uncertainty – ambiguous, assume people doesn’t know anything
3. Powerlessness –
4. Anonymity of victims
5. Being on a team may increase the tendency to lie.
RESPONDING TO UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
1. Negotiators who are suspicious are more effective at the bargaining table.
2. Recognize that negotiators take risks when considering ethically questionable behavior.
3. By signaling these risks and the disadvantages of unethical behavior to the counterparty,
negotiators may neutralized the likelihood that the opponent will engage in unethical behavior.

7. CHAPTER 4 : DEVELOPING NEGOTIATION STYLE
How negotiators act in a negotiation process is based on their PERSONALITIES AND STYLES which
eventually affect the process.
2 negotiation styles:
1. Tough
- Unflinching (determines/persistent/fearless)
- Makes high demands
- Concedes little
- Holds out until the very hard
- Often rejects offers that are within the bargaining zone
- Often walks away from potential profitable interactions and gain reputation for being
stubborn.
2. Soft
- Offers too many concessions
- Reveals his/her own RP
- So concerned that the other party feels good about the negotiation that he / she gives away
too much of the bargaining zone.
- Agrees to readily and never reaps much of the bargaining surplus.
MOTIVATION ORIENTATION
Assessing motivational style:
1. Individualistic
- Negotiator prefers to maximize his/her own gain and is indifferent to much the other person
is getting.
- Objective, view others = self- interested
- Situational factors that trigger this motivational orientation = incentives to maximize own gain
2. Competitive
- Negotiators prefers to maximize the difference between his/her own profits and those of the
other party
- Objective = victory
- View of others = competitive
- Situational factors = group competition, when organizations make interpersonal comparisons
salient.
3. Cooperative
- Negotiator seeks for equality and to minimize the difference between the negotiator’s
outcomes.
- Objective = joint welfare
- View of others = heterogenous (some cooperative, some competitive, some individualistic)
- Situational factors = social identity, subordinate goals.

8. 7 tools for the overly COOPERATIVE negotiators by Richard shell
1. Avoid concentrating too much on your bottom line
- Spend extra time preparing your goals and developing high aspirations
2. Develop your BATNA
- Know your options to negotiating
3. Get an agent and delegate the negotiation work.
- It’s not wrong/ failure to appoint an agent if you think that the person can act more assertively
for you than yourself.
4. Bargain on behalf of someone or something else, not yourself
- There is tendency for being less selfish when negotiator bargain on behalf of others.
- Women achieve better outcome when they bargain on behalf of someone than for
themselves.
5. Create an audience
- People negotiate more assertively when someone knows about it and eagerly report the
results.
6. Say, “you’ll have to do better than that because…” instead of saying yes.
- Learn to say ‘NO’ or rehearse to not saying ‘YES’ to everything.
- Cooperative negotiator are more likely to offer concessions.
7. Insist on commitments, not just agreements.
- Agreement = put trust in it, but commitments requires promises and conditions if the party
do not followed.
7 tools for the overly COMPETITIVE negotiators by Richard shell
1. Think about pie-expansion, not just pie slicing
- Remember that you can increase your slice of the pie by creating a bigger pie.
2. Ask more questions than you think you should
- It pays really understand the other party’s objectives and needs.
3. Rely on standards
- Other people respond well to arguments based upon standards of fairness and objectivity
4. Hire a relationship manager
- It is not wrong/failure to consult with someone concerning how to manage the “people side”
of negotiations.
5. Be scrupulously (thoroughly ) reliable
- Keep your word. Avoid being egocentric bias (feel more honourable than others).
6. Do not haggle when you can negotiate
- Do not view the negotiation as a contest, rather spend time thinking about all the issues and
the bigger picture
7. Always knowledge the other party and protect that person’s self esteem.
- Do not gloat (feel pleasure of your own self) or brag. Shower the other party with honest
respect.

9. STRATEGIC ISSUES CONCERNING MOTIVATIONAL STYLE
1. The myth of the hard bargainer
2. Do not lose sight of your own interests.
3. Social comparison can cause breakdowns in negotiations
4. Use reinforcement to shape behavior
5. The power of reciprocity
6. Anticipate motivational clashes at the bargaining table
7. Motivational convergence
8. Epistemic motivation
INTEREST, RIGHT & POWER
Interest
- negotiators attempt to learn about the other’s underlying needs, desires, and concerns; they
attempt to reconcile different interests among parties in a way that addresses parties’ most
pressing needs and concerns.
- Goal : self interest, dispute resolution, understanding others’ concerns
- Temporal focus : present (what needs and interests do we have right now?)
- Pie slicing : compromise
- Pie expansion : most likely to expand the pie via addressing parties’ underlying needs
- Implications for future negotiations and relationship : greater understanding, satisfaction,
stability of agreement.
-
Rights
- negotiators apply standards of fairness to an analysis of negotiation; they may include terms
specified by contracts, legal rights, precedent, or expectations based on norms.
- Rights differ across situations
- Ex: employee may ask for increase in salary based on his/her productivity, yet firm may focus
on seniority.
- Goal : fairness, justice
- Temporal focus : past (what has been dictated by the past?)
- Pie slicing : often produces a “winner” and a “loser”, thus , unequal distribution
- Pie expansion : difficult to expand the pie unless focus is on interests.
- Implications : possible court action
Power
- Is the ability to coerce someone to do something he/she would not otherwise do.
- negotiators who focus on power use status, rank, threats, and intimidation to get their way.
- May manifest in acts of aggression, such as – sabotage, physical attack, or withholding
benefits derived from a relationship.

10. - Goal : winning, respect
- Temporal focus : future (what steps can I take in the future to overpower others?)
- Pie slicing and pie expansion: same as rights
- Implications : resentment, possible retaliation, revenge
- 2 types of power-based approach : THREATS – in which one or both parties makes a threats.,
CONTESTS = in which parties take action to determine who will prevail.
6 STRATEGIC ISSUES CONCERNING APPROACH
1. The Principle of Reciprocity
- The style you use in a nego will often be reciprocate by the other party.
- Most reciprocated : interest 42%, power 27% and rights 22%
2. Interest are effective for pie expansion
- Focus on interest help uncover hidden problems and help identity which issues are the
greatest concern to each party.
- Put the focus on interests early in the nego.
3. How to refocus your opponent an interest.
- Enter a nego with an interest based approach, but opponent uses right/power.
- May reciprocate but will bring to lose lose situation
- 2 strategies : personal / structural
4. High costs associated with power & rights
- Focusing on interests compared to rights and power produces higher satisfaction with
outcomes, better working relationships and less recurrence.
- It may also mean lower transaction costs.
5. Know WHEN to use rights and power
- Other party refuses to come to the table
- Nego have broken down and parties are at an impasse.
- Other party needs to know you have power
- Someone violates a rule or breaks the law.
- Interests are opposed that agreement is not possible
- Social change is necessary
- Nego are moving towards agreement and parties are “positioning” themselves
6. Know HOW to use rights and power
- Threaten the other party’s interest
- Clarity
- Credibility
- Do not burn bridges
10 PERSONAL STRATEGIES REFOCUS YOUR OPPONENT ON INTEREST
1. Do not reciprocate
2. Provide opportunities to meet
3. Don’t get personal – use self discipline

11. 4. Use behavioral reinforcement
5. Send a mixed message
6. Try a process intervention
7. Let’s talk and then fight
8. Use strategic cooling off periods
9. Use paraphrasing
10. Label the process
5 STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES REFOCUS YOUR OPPONENT ON INTEREST
STRATEGY 1 – PUT THE FOCUS ON INTERESTS
- Multistep nego procedure = a procedure in which a dispute that is not resolved at one level
of the organization hierarchy moves to progressively higher levels.
- Wise counselor = an interests strategy in which senior executives are selected to consider
disputes
- Multiple points of entry = an interests strategy which provides a way for reluctant negor to
come nego table
- Skills and training
- Mediation = a nego strategy in which a 3rd
party intervenes.
STRATEGY 2 – BUILD IN LOOP BACKS TO NEGO
- A. Looping back from rights
- Info procedures = a loopback procedure in which databases are created that can be accessed
by negor who want to research the validity and outcome of their claims
- Advisory arbitration = a method whereby managers are provided with info that would likely
result if arbitration were to be carried out or the dispute were to go to court.
- Minitrials = whereby “lawyers” – high level executives in the organization who have not been
previously involved represents each side and present evidence and arguments that are heard
by a neutral judge or advisor
- B. LOOPING BACK FROM POWER CONFLICT
- Crisis procedures = guidelines for emergency communication written in advance to establish
communication mechanisms between disputants
- Intervention by 3rd
parties
STRATEGY 3 – PROVIDE LOW COST RIGHTS AND POWER BACKUPS
- Conventional arbitration
- Med – arb = a hybrid model in which the mediator serves as an arbitrator, if mediation fails.
- Final-offer arbitration = the arbitration does not have the authority to compromise between
parties’ positions but must accept one of the final offers made.
- Arb – med = a hybrid model in which an arbitrator’s decision sits on a table and is destined to
be opened unless the parties reach mutual agreement.

12. STRATEGY 4 – BUILD IN CONSULTATION BEFOREHAND AND FEEDBACK AFTERWARDS
- Notification and consultation
- Post dispute analysis and feedback = a method whereby parties learn from their disputes to
prevent similar problems in the future
- Establishing a forum
STRATEGY 5 – PROVIDE SKILLS AND RESOURCES
EMOTIONS AND EMOTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
- E = are relatively fleeting states that are usually fairly intense and often a result of a particular
experience. Ex : anger, regret, relief, gratitude etc.
- Moods = more chronic and more diffuse, moods are usually not directed to someone. Often
classify “bad mood” and “good mood”.
4 TYPES OF EMOTION
1. Genuine vs strategic emotion
- G = behavioral manifestations of felt emotions
- S = carefully designed orchestration to take the counterparty off guard.
- 3 different strategic emotion (positive, negative and poker face @ no emotion)
- +ve and poker face = more effective than the -ve emotional strategy in obtaining a favorable
outcome from counterparty.
- Sequencing of emotions can also affect nego
- Feigned (pretend to ne affected) liking. It is a way of gaining favor and achieving their ultimate
interaction goals.
2. Negative emotions
- A. Real vs strategic
- Negor use -ve emotions as a way of threatening the opponent to make concessions.
- It makes a difference whether the anger is “real” or “strategic”
- Genuinely angry = often less effective in expanding pie than a happy negor.
- Strategically angry = more likely to gain concessions
- B. Emotional consistency
- Does influence the nego process
- Display emotional inconsistency and unpredictability – alternate beween happy and anger =
would achieve greater concessions thus greater outcome
- Consistent display anger = likely to settle for less, felt less in control, thus make less
concessions.
- C. Disappointment vs Anger
- Negative emotions may differ by the counterparties’ expression
- Negor conceded more when their opponents display disappointment and worry, but
conceded least when opponent display guilt.

13. - D. Anger, Power, Threats
- Often occur during nego
- Expression of anger is somewhat like a threat.
- Negor finds they extracted more concessions when they make a threat compared than anger.
- When negor use anger, the effectiveness of anger depends on how powerful the negor are.
3. POSITIVE EMOTION
- Positive makes positive = expressing +ve emotions would significantly influence +ve
consequences in nego
- Good moods promote creative thinking – lead to innovative problem solving
- Use of humor in a nego also improve the nego process.
- In a +ve mood = more cooperative strategies, engage more in info exchange, generate more
alternatives, use fewer contentious tactics, compared to -ve or neutral-mood negor.
4. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENT & NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES
- A. Emotional intelligence
- Ability of people to understand emotions in themselves and other and to use emotional
knowledge to affect positive outcomes.
- People with high EQ, experience greater subjective outcome in nego than objective outcome.
- B. Accuracy
- Successful nego outcome somehow depends on how accurately negor read their opponent’s
emotions.
- +ve correlation between emotion recognition (ERA) and goal-oriented performance.
- C. Self-efficacy
- SE and confidence are significantly importance in EQ.
- Distributive SE = negotiator’s belief in his/her ability to claim resources effectively
- Integrative SE = “….. to create resources”
5 STRATEGIC ADVICE FOR DEALING WITH EMOTIONS AT THE TABLE
1. Monitor your emotional displays
- Negor should avoid from gloat or show signs of smugness in nego.
- Often, negor who are SE achieve better outcomes in nego compared to gloated negor.
2. Be aware of what you are reinforcing
- People often make concession to opponents just to shut them up.
- Reinforcement concession could be +ve and -ve.
- -ve reinforcement, or escape behavior during nego may -vely influence the process.
3. Re-evaluation is more effective than suppression
- Suppression may backfire
- Re-evaluation involves acknowledging emotions, but thinking about a different way to view
it.
4. Emotions are contagious
- When negor display good moods, the opponent would also convey the same way.
- The same could be happened for -ve emotions.

14. - +ve moods are likely to achieve better outcome and vice versa.
5. Understand emotional triggers
- Should concerns for words use in nego process
- Certain words could loaded and evoke emotions

15. CHAPTER 3: DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION – SLICING THE PIE
- Involves the process of achieving an economic outcomes (money and resources) as well as
social outcomes (preserving relationship and trust)
- How best to claim these outcomes? NEGOTIATION DANCE = The entire process of making an
opening offer and then reaching a mutually agreeable settlement.
THE BARGAINING ZONE
- The target point (price that you aim or willing to pay)
- This target point seldomly OVERLAP. The seller wants more than what buyer is willing to pay.
- The one that OFTEN OVERLAP is a negotiator’s reservation point (RP)
- RP = The range the buyer is willing to pay and the range the seller is willing to accept.
- Nego challenge = to reach a settlement that is most favourable to oneself while at the same
time does not give up too much of the bargaining zone.
ZONE OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENTS (ZOPA) – the range between each party’s RP.
- The final settlement of a nego will fall somewhere above the seller’s RP and below the buyer’s
RP.
- The bargaining zone can be either +ve or-ve.
POSITIVE BARGAINING ZONE
- Negotiators’ RP overlap: the amount the buyer is willing to pay is greater than the least the
seller willing to accept.
- The overlap means that mutual agreement is better than resorting to BATNA.
NEGATIVE BARGAINING ZONE
- No positive overlap between the parties’ RPs.
- Negotiators should exercise their BATNA rather than spending fruitless hours trying to reach
an agreement.
BARGAINING SURPLUS
- The amount overlap between negotiating parties RPs. It is a measure of the size/value of the
ZOPA.
- Measure the value that a negotiated agreement offers to both parties compared to the value
of not reaching settlement.
NEGOTIATOR’S SURPLUS
- The +VE difference between the settlement outcome and the negotiator’s RP.
- The total surplus of both parties adds up to the size of the ZOPA or bargaining surplus.
- The bargaining surplus illustrates the mixed-motive nature of nego: negors are motivated to
both cooperate and compete with the other party.

16. PIE-SLICING STRATEGIES
10 BASIC STRATEGIES TO GAIN FAVORABLE SLICE OF THE PIE
1. Assess your BATNA and improve it
- Unclear BATNA will lead to high chance of losing in nego. It will easily influence by
counterparty.
- Negor should spends a considerable amount of time attempting to improve their BATNA
before entering into a nego.
2. Determine your RP, but do not reveal it
- Once the negotiator reveal the RP, the counterparty has no incentive to offer you more.
3. Research the other party’s BATNA and estimate their RP
- Use a various possible ways to gain info that may reveal info about the counterparty’s BATNA.
4. Set high aspirations (be realistic but optimistic)
- Your aspiration / target point defines the upper limit on what you can get in a nego.
- 1st
offer represents an important anchor point in the nego.
- 2 types of negotiator : promotion-focused (view goals as ideals and opportunities, often do
better in slicing the pie by claiming more resources )and prevention focused (view goals as
obligations and necessities, often avoiding negative outcomes by constantly holding their
actual economic positions.
5. Make the first offer (if you are prepared)
- The party who makes the first offer obtain better final outcome as the first offer could act as
an anchor point for better final outcome.
- Premature concessions – negotiator make more than one concession in a row before the
other party responds or counteroffers.
6. Immediately re-anchor if the other party opens first.
- Should have a few set bargaining range and re-anchor
7. Plan your concessions
- Concessions = reduction that a negor makes during the course of a nego. Most negor expect
to make concessions during nego.
- 3 things to consider:
- A. pattern of concessions
- i. unilateral – C made by one party. Ex : you made a 1st
offer but then being rejected, without
waiting long you promptly make second concession; double than the 1st
value without waiting
the counterpart to respond first.
- ii. Bilateral – C made by both sides. It is a universal norms that negor should expect a back-
and forth exchange of C between parties.
- B. Magnitude of concessions
- Graduated reduction in Tension (GRIT) model – avoid tension between 2 party based on
reciprocity.
- C. The timing of concessions
- Immediately (not effective), gradual (better - +ve reaction and high satisfaction), delayed.
8. Support your offer with facts

17. - The way offer is presented affects the course of nego.
- Ideally present your fact/rationale and invites the counterparty to buy into your rationale.
- It is important to be more informed than the other party.
9. Appeal to norms of fairness
- Often, negor focus on norms of fairness that serve their interests.
- Making a reference to fairness can give a negotiator an advantage.
10. Do not fall for the “even split” play/trick
4 MOST COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Should I reveal my RP?
- NO. Secure the RP
- If reveal, be prepared for the other party to offer you your RP – but not more
- It is not effective as there are other ways to build trust.
2. Should I lie about my RP?
- If negor do well for themselves by not revealing their RP, perhaps they might do even better
by lying, misrepresenting and exaggerating their RP.
- 3 reasons: unethical, creates a face saving problem if the other party calls your bluff, and hurts
your reputation.
3. Should I try to manipulate the counterparty’s RP?
- No.
- Assuming the counterparty is reasonably intelligent, motivated and informed (well prepared),
he/she may not fall prey to the nego trick.
4. Should I make a final offer or a commit to a positon?
- When you really want to walk way – say final offer
- Of course you should only walk away when your BATNA is more attractive than the
counterparty offer.
- Don’t renegotiate after you say final offer.
SAVING FACE
Face – is the value a person places on his or her public image, reputation, and status vis-à-vis other people
in the nego. Direct threats to face in a nego include making criticisms, challenges, and insults.
MULTIPLE METHOD OF FAIR DIVISION
3 fairness principles:
1. Equality rule
- Blind justice – prescribes equal shares for all
- Outcomes are distributed without regard to inputs, and everyone benefits(or suffer) equally.
- Divide equally among parties involve – 50 – 50
2. Equity rule
- Vice versa equality
- The more you contribute, the more you would get.

18. - Proportionality of contributions principle – prescribes that distribution should be proportional
to a person’s contribution.
3. Needs based rule
- Resource will go to person who needs more money, capital.
- % of allocation to most needed
- Welfare- based allocation – states that benefits should be proportional to need.
SITUATION-SPECIFIC RULES OF FAIRNESS
4 factors often dictate which fairness rule is employed:
1. Goals
- Maintain peace and harmony (equality)
- Encourage people to do more (equity)
- If the goal is to enhance productivity and performance, equity based rule is most effective
2. Relationship
- Negor share similar attitudes, beliefs or when they are likely to engage in future interaction
(equality)
- Friends (equality), non friends (equity)
3. Reward vs cost
- Equality is often used to allocate benefits,
- Equity is more common used to allocate burdens.
4. Extenuating circumstances
- When the situation is complex, involve multiple inputs in different dimension – use equality
- Ex: group dinner
SOCIAL COMPARISON
- Is an inevitable fact of life in organizations and relationships
- Happens when we compare ourselves to others – salary, power, position that known as self
concept.
3 comparison targets:
1. Upward comparison
- Occurs when people compare themselves to someone who is better off, more accomplished
or higher in status.
- Compare for inspiration and motivation
2. Downward comparison
- Occurs when people compare themselves to someone who is less fortunate, able,
accomplished or lower in status
- Often makes people feel better about their own state.
3. Comparison with similar others
- Occurs when people choose someone of similar background, skill and ability with whom to
compare themselves.

19. - Useful when people desires to have accurate appraisals of their abilities
3 Goals and motives that drives the choice of the comparison to others:
1. Self-improvement
- People compare themselves with others who can serve as model of success.
- Ex: an amateur chess player may compare his skill level with a grand master.
- Upward comparison provides inspiration, insight, challenge but it also could lead to feelings
of discouragement and incompetence.
2. Self-enhancement
- Desire to maintain or enhance a +ve view of oneself may lead people to bias info in self serving
ways.
- People seek comparisons that show then in favorable light rather than seek truth.
- People make downward comparisons with others who are less fortunate, less successful and
so forth.
3. Accurate self-evaluation
- The desire for truthful knowledge about oneself (even if the outcome is not favorable)
THE EQUITY PRINCIPLE
- Equity refer to equivalence of the input/output ration of parties, while inequity exists when
ration of input/output is unequal.
- Complication arise when 2 people have different views of what constitutes a legitimate
investment, cost or reward and how they rank each one.
RESTORING EQUITY
- When people find themselves in an inequitable relationship, they become distressed; the
greater the perceived inequity, the more distressed people feel.
- Distressed drives people to attempt restore equity.
Employee who underpaid may use the following means to eliminate the tension arising from inequity:
1. After the inputs
- Employee work less hard, take on fewer projects, take more days off
2. After the outcomes
- E may alter what he receives as what others received.
3. Cognitively distort inputs or outcomes
- E could minimize the importance of his job contributions and maximise the perceived value.
4. Leave the situation
- Quit his job
5. Cognitively distort either the inputs or the outcomes of an exchange partner
- E may view other wages as contributing more, or perhaps regard the wages to be less
attractive than it is actually is.
6. Change the object of comparison

20. - E may stop to comparing himself to that colleague and start to comparing himself to someone
else in the company.
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
FAIRNESS IN RELATIONSHIP
EGOCENTRISM – people want or prefer more than what they regard as fair.
May emerge in several ways:
1. Egocentric bias
- Allocating more money to ourselves.
- People pay themselves substantially more than they willing to pay others for doing the same
task.
2. Egocentric judgement
- People select fairness rule in a self-serving manner.
- Ex: when people contribute minimum, they often prefer equality, but when they contribute
substantially, they opt for equity rather than equality.
3. Egocentric evaluation
- To selectively weigh different aspects of the exchange situation in a way that favors
themselves.
- Ex: when asked for fair payment, employees who worked for long hours indicate the
importance of hours, while others who worked for short hours emphasize quantity.
3 cognitive mechanism that drives the egocentric judgements:
1. Selective encoding and memory
2. Differential retrieval
3. Information disparity
WISE PIE SLICING (MESSICK’S PRINCIPLES WHEN SLICING THE PIE)
1. CONSISTENCY
- Fairness procedures are often inconsistent because of heuristics decision making
2. SIMPLICITY
- Pie-slicing procedures should be clearly understood by the individuals who employ them and
those who are affected by them.
- Group members should be able to explain the procedures used to allocate resources.
3. Effectiveness
- Pie-slicing policies should procedure a choice, meaning that the allocation procedure should
yield a clear decision
4. Justifiability
- Pie-slicing procedures should be justifiable to other parties.
5. Consensus
- Group members should agree upon the method of allocation

21. 6. Generalizability
- The pie-slicing procedure should be applicable to a wide variety of situations.
7. Satisfaction
- To increase the likelihood that negotiators will follow thorough with their agreement, the pie-
slicing procedures should be satisfying to all.