NEGOCIACIÓN

domingo, 19 de septiembre de 2021 10:50 p. m.

BARGAINING MIX: all of the issues involved in a negotiation, the type of scope of the issues can vary dramatically of the issues can vary dramatically
depending on the type of negotiation. In a negotiation involving the purchase of raw materials to be used in the manufacture of a company's products, the
issues will likely include product specification, price, various discounts and how and when the products will be snipped.

TARGET POINT: is the point at which a negotiator would like to conclude negotiations. It is his optimistic goal for a specific issue, the point beyond which
a negotiator is unwilling to settle is her resistance or reservation point.

RESISTANCE POINT: is the least favorable point at which one will accept a negotiated agreement. For a seller this means the least amount (minimum) or
bottom line they would be prepared to accept, while for a buyer it would mean the most (maximum) or bottom line that they would be prepared to pay.

THE BEST ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (BATNA): the most advantageous alternative course of action a party can take if
negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached.

IMPORTANCES OF BATNA
1. It provides an alternative if negotiations fall through
2. It provides negotiating power
3. It determines your reservation point (the worst price you are willing to accept)

BARGAINING RANGE/SETTLEMENT ZONE: the area between parties' resistance points is referred to as the bargaining range or settlement zone. If
there is overlap between the two resistance points, the settlement zone is positive and settlement can occur, provided the parties exchange enough
information to signal the other party that settlement is possible.

SETTLEMENT POINT: is what the parties actually agree upon. In a multi-issue negotiation there is a settlement point for each issue. Sometimes there
are issues that should be included, but are overlooked.

APPROACHES TO NEGOTIATING AND RESOLVING CONFLICT

Researchers have developed models that identify several general approaches to a negotiation or conflict situation.
1. THE THOMAS KILMANN CONFLICT STYLE: the dimensions are assertiveness/concern for one's own outcomes and cooperativeness/concern for
others outcomes, and the approaches to handling conflict are referred to as avoiding, accommodating, competing, collaborating, and compromising.
2. THE DUAL CONCERNS MODEL: identifies the dimensions as concern for one's own outcomes and concern for the other party's outcomes; the
possible approaches are called inaction, yielding, contending, and problem solving

The Thomas-Kilmann model includes compromise; the Dual Concerns Model does not. Instead, the Dual Concerns Model views compromising as either
joint yielding or a failure in problem solving. It has even been referred to as "lazy problem-solving involving a half-hearted attempt to satisfy both
parties interests"
People plan to give something in order to get something. Indeed this is fairly common approach in traditional negotiations between employers and
labor unions where both parties may bring issues to the table that they either don't care much about, or know they will never get, so they have
something to trade for what they really want.

NEGOTIATIONS ARE EITHER:

1. DISTRIBUTIVE: negotiations generally involve more competitive behavior, where there is a winner and loser, and little concern for the relationship
2. INTEGRATIVE: are characterized by more cooperation, meeting the needs of both parties, and more concern for maintaining the relationship after
the negotiation concludes.

FRAMING

FRAME: is the lens through which you view a negotiation, which also influences your behavior in a negotiation. Research shows that how a negotiation is
framed is related to the outcome. The more negatively something is framed, the more likely there is to be conflict that can quickly escalate.

RECIPROCITY: the notion that if someone does something for you, you owe them, is one of the most powerful principles there is in negotiation according
to social psychologist and internationally respected expert on negotiation, Robert Cialdini.

DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION: the objective is to achieve an efficient compromise by focusing on the distribution of outcomes as opposed to meeting the
needs of the parties involved.

MIXED-MOTIVE BARGAINING: a situation when the negotiating agenda has "significant elements of conflict and considerable potential for integration".
For a mixed strategy to be an ongoing relationship between the parties that provides and incentive to work together.

LEVERAGE POWER: has two components

1. The benefits the negotiator brings to the table
2. The counterpart's BATNA (Best Alternative toa Negotiator Agreement)
• The more a negotiator's offer is valued by the other party, the more power the negotiator will have
• The better a negotiator's BATNA, the more power she will have

POWER TACTICS IN NEGOTIATION

TACTICS are the specific behaviors used by a party in a negotiation. Which tactics are used will likely depend on whether the situation is viewed as
distributive or integrative, the parties and personalities involved, and the unique characteristics of the situation.
The tactics in distributive negotiations tend to be more direct and assertive because there is little emphasis on the relationship between
the parties.

RECOGNIZED POWER TACTICS

RATIONALITY: is a generic tactic used across various contexts that involves the use of reason and logical presentation of facts or data

INGRATIATION: is another generic tactic used in a variety of settings that involves being friendly to the other party to get him to like you

NEGOCIACIÓN página 1
COALITION BUILDING: involves obtaining the support of and forming an alliance with others. It's based on the notion that there is strength in numbers
and is most often used when you don't think you have enough influence to get what you want on your own.

EXCHANGE: is quid pro quo bargaining and is the basis for barter systems. Success with this tactic depends on each party having something to offer that
the other party wants

ASSERTIVENESS: involves using a direct and forceful approach to push your own agenda and/or attack the other party’s position. In organizations,
assertiveness is more often used by persons who are higher in the organizational hierarchy.

UPWARD APPEAL: involves obtaining support for your position from people in higher positions of authority

IMPOSING SANCTIONS: involves the use of coercive power to achieve the desired results

TACTICS TO CHANGE POWER

HARDBALL TACTICS

1. HIGHBALL/LOWBALL: one party makes an extreme opening offer in an attempt to throw the other party off balance and get him to believe that he
is not being realistic with his opening offer
2. BLUFFING: sometimes referred to as playing "chicken". Basically it involves going head to head with the other party to see who will back down first
3. INTIMIDATION: or engaging in aggressive behavior, is another fairly common hardball tactic
4. BOGEY: involves including issues in your opening offer are really not important to you, but give you something to trade later.
5. "NIBBLE": involves asking for additional small things
6. SNOW JOB or creating a BLIZZARD: Overwhelming the other party with information
7. GOOD COP / BAD COP: requires two negotiators. It is rooted in the scenario of two police officers to convince a suspect to confess

INFORMATION SHARING IN A DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION: is a crucial component for value, it is necessary to identify alternatives to satisfy
the needs of both parties. Since distributive negotiators are competitive in nature, information sharing is more cautious to protect one's position. In
addressing problems, a distributive negotiator focuses on the facts, asks varied questions related to tasks, and suggest discussion of problems

CLAIMING VALUE: behaviors negotiators use to claim value include defending their arguments to substantiate their position, making single issue offers,
suggesting creative solutions to suit their own interests, making threats, and referencing the bottom line and their power. The opening offers and the target
resistance points that a negotiator sets before starting a trade have a significant impact on the bottom line.

CONCESSIONS: are what you give up and are expected in any negotiation. Negotiators establish opening offers with the expectation that it is unlikely
that their counterpart will agree to their offer. If a negotiator's first offer is immediately accepted, he is often left feeling like he could have done better a
condition referred to as the WINNER CURSE

COMMITMENT: the final step in any negotiation is to obtain the commitment of the parties on all issues involved in the negotiation. In multi-issue
negotiations, it becomes more complex. The parties generally agree on certain issues as the negotiation progresses and continue until an agreement is
reached on all issues. In contact negotiations, the term tentative agreement or TA is often used to indicate that the parties agree on a particular issue before
reaching an agreement on all issues involved.

IMPASSE: when negotiating, the parties begin with their opening offers and then make a series of concessions. This continues until the parties reach an
agreement. If not, the parties are said to come to a standstill. In labor contract negotiations, the employer and the union are legally bound to negotiate to
reach a standstill before the union can strike or the employer can fire employees.

INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION: is sometimes referred as interest-based bargaining because the focus is on the interests of each party as opposed to the
distribution of a fixed resource. It is collaborative approach used when both your outcome and the relationship with the other party are important.

The assumption is that resources are not finite, in other words, the pie is not fixed.

There are FOUR BASIC COMPONENTS of integrative negotiation as identified by FISHER and URY:
1. Separate the people from the problem
2. Focus on interests not positions
3. Generate a variety of alternatives that provide mutual gain
4. Evaluate the alternatives based on objective criteria

Separate the people from the problem

Depersonalizing the problem, so the focus on the actual problem and not the individuals involved. In negotiation, you are dealing with other human beings
with their unique characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Some people are by nature more agreeable than others.

A successful negotiator is able to recognize the situations and focus on the problem at hand instead of the person or people involved.

When emotions run high, people may say or do things at which the other party takes great offense. Our feelings may be hurt; we may feel threatened,
offended, and angry, which can lead us to become defensive or even hostile.

Focus on interest
Focus on the parties' interests, which are their needs, desires, concerns, and fears. It is important that the parties' interests be the center of attention to
make it possible to find solutions that meet the needs of both parties.
1. Substantive interest: are the needs that a negotiator has that relate to the material outcomes of the negotiation. In negotiating the purchase of an
item, the substantive interests would include the characteristics of the item the purchase price, and possibly the payment and delivery terms.
2. Relationship interest: deal with the ongoing relationship between the parties. While in some cases you may never have to deal with the other party
again, that is typically not the norm.
3. Process interest: have to do with a party's interests in the negotiation or dispute resolution process itself. People want to be heard and taken
seriously and want their contributions to be recognized and valued.
4. Interest in the principles: involve including the parties' concerns about what is ethical and just. Many people have strongly held beliefs about what
is right or proper in certain circumstances and have a very difficult time agreeing to something that goes against those beliefs

Generating options
Involves looking for possible solutions to the problem at hand.
Example: if joe needs to acquire a previously owned car, he could visit local car dealership to see what is available. After identifying what is currently in

NEGOCIACIÓN página 2
 Example: if joe needs to acquire a previously owned car, he could visit local car dealership to see what is available. After identifying what is currently in
stock, he would pick the one that best meets his needs. Whether or not his needs would be fully met would depend in large part on the timing of his
search. If he happened to be looking at a time when there were many cars on the lot, he would be more likely to find that had more of the features that he
wanted than if he happened to look at a time when inventories were low.

INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION
The goal is to go beyond the obvious alternatives by working together to develop alternatives that create additional value. This requires creativity and
patience on the part of the negotiators.
A commonly used technique for generating options is brainstorming, which involves having the parties identify and record any and all ideas that come
to mind. The goal is to identify as many alternatives as possible without concern for their practicality.

OBSTACLES TO CREATING VALUE

1. Making premature judgments (could be due to time pressure)
2. Searching for a single answer, believing the pie is fixed
3. Assuming the other party should meet his own goals

Evaluating alternatives and claiming value

The final step is evaluating the options and claiming value. No matter how much creative problem solving enlarges the pie, it must still be divided; the
value that has been created must be claimed. Many negotiations result in a written agreement. Whether the final agreement is written or verbal, it entails
should be understandable, appealing, and precise.

THE DILEMA OF TRUST

It is how much you believe can rely on the other party to be truthful with you. In other words, how much of what the other party says should you believe? As
we know from the study of psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If you have had direct personal experience with the other party,
you will have an indication of how he typically behaves. In the absence of personal experience with the other party, you must rely on other sources of
information.

THE DILEMA OF HONESTY

Involves how much about your position and motives you will disclose to the other party. Honesty disclosure induces cooperation and can cause an opposing
party to make less demanding offers and settle for less profit than she would in the absence of such disclosure.

CONFLICT can range from something minor and easily resolved to something much more intense, even violent. Can be a result of differences related to
substantive or interpersonal issues. Substantive conflict may arise over desired outcomes or processes.

SUBSTANTIVE CONFLICT: is inherent in the roles of the individuals involved. These differences are often reinforced in the performance appraisal and
compensation systems. These differences can be beneficial as embedded checks and balances in the organization.

RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT is almost always dysfunctional. The relationships we have with these people run the gamut from those for whom we have a
great deal of respect and admiration to those we barely tolerate. Relationships may be strained simply because the parties are incompatible.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

While we all have our natural tendencies toward dealing with conflict, we may deviate from those tendencies depending on the parties involved, their
underlying interests, and the specifics of the situation. In every negotiation, the parties have interests in both the substantive outcomes of the negotiation
and the relationship with the other party, either of which can result in conflict.

If the conflict substantive you will be best served by adopting an integrative approach and engaging in joint problem solving. In doing so you are more likely
to create additional value so that both parties can obtain more value from negotiation.

POWER FRAMEWORK: this framework holds that the parties in a dispute use tactics that focus on their underlying interests, rights, or power:
1. A power-based approach: involves using one's authority or other strengths to coerce the other party to make concessions
2. A rights-based approach: seeks to apply a standard of fairness, contract, or law to resolve the dispute. This is the approach used in lawsuits and the
legal system in general.
3. An interest-based approach: focuses on the parties' common concerns, priorities, and preferences and is more likely to achieve an integrative
agreement that is beneficial to all parties.

ACQUISCENCE AND THE POWER OF AN APOLOGY

ACQUISCENCE: is to simply give to the other party and comply with his demands.

The THOMAS-KILMANN MODEL suggest that this strategy would be appropriate if you don't care about either the issue or the relationship and wish to
avoid the conflict, or if you care more about the other party than the issue and would rather accommodate the other party.

CONFLICT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In some cases it's not enough to merely agree to the other party's demands. If you defend your behavior without acknowledging the harm that it caused, the
other party is likely to keep reminding you of how deeply they were hurt. If on the other hand, you acknowledge that your actions harmed the other person
and offer a sincere apology, there is not much the other person can say.

ONE-ON-ONE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION is generally most effective in the early stages of conflict before the parties have become entrenched in their positions.
It begins with a unilateral action by one of the parties at which point the process begins.
1. The first step is to identify and define the problem
2. Discuss the facts to outline what is and what is not in dispute
3. Then, after discussing the problem you should work with the other party to identify and evaluate possible solutions
4. Once the solution is selected parties involved will identify specifically how the solution will be implemented

THIR-PARTY INVOLVEMENT
If the parties are unable to resolve a dispute informally on their own, they always have the option of bringing in another person or persons to help them
resolve the dispute.

When a dispute becomes protracted and the parties are hostile, bringing in a third party may be the only way to resolve it. It is best not to bring in a third
party prematurely, because disputants are likely to perceive a lower level of control over the decision. In its simplest form a third-party intervention
involves asking someone you trust to intervene. Depending on the situation, the third party might be a supervisor, colleague, friend, or relative.

NEGOCIACIÓN página 3
The techniques used by such a person are essentially the same as those we discussed for the one-on-one approach. However, the advantage of third-party
intervention is that the person asked to intervene is presumed to be more objective because she is not directly involved in the dispute. People sometimes
refer to this type of third-party intervention as “mediation.”

MEDIATION

Common type of ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR). In a formal mediation, a neutral third party, the mediator, helps those involved in the
dispute work through the issues and come to a mutually agreeable solution. During mediation, the mediator controls the process however the parties
maintain control of the outcome in that they decide the terms and conditions of the agreement. In essence, mediation is a way of helping the parties fashion
their own agreement.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION
Community mediation is a method for resolving a variety of disputes that arise within a community. In general, the programs train and approve people to
serve as mediators in a variety of disputes that include breach of contract, neighborhood disputes, divorce or postdivorce issues, guardianship, and special
education.

ARBITRATION
Unlike mediators, arbitrators act as judges to hear and decide the case. The process is simple the disputing parties present their case and the arbitrator
makes a decision. Thus, arbitration is distributive in nature with the arbitrator controlling the final outcome. The parties control the process, in that they
choose to agree to arbitration, but give up control over the outcome to the arbitrator.

LITIGATION: CIVIL / SMALL-CLAIMS COURT

The most formal type of dispute resolution is litigation, which can take place either in civil or small-claims court. It is important to note that with either
civil or small-claims cases, the judge may still refer them to mediation for possible resolution before proceeding to trial.

The study of personality traits: Most of these traits, which explain how people tend to approach and respond to others and their environment, have been
found to be quite stable over time

Locus of control is a personality trait that describes individuals’ beliefs about the cause of or control over situations and events.
• Externals tend to view fate or luck rather than personal effort as the cause of their successes or failures. They are also likely to view themselves as
the victim in any given situation.
• Internals believe that they have control over their actions—both positive and negative—and their destiny. You might hear an internal say something
like, “I know if I put my mind to it, I can quit smoking"

Self-Monitoring: Is the tendency to adjust our behavior relative to the changing demands of social situations. According to self-monitoring theory, people
vary in how likely they are to pay attention to and control what they say and do in public situations.
• Two personality differences that impact how we prepare for and behave in negotiations relate to our data-gathering (thinking) and decision-
making (doing) preferences.

The Temperament Sorter reflects four temperaments—artisans, guardians, rationals, and idealists They are described below:
1. Artisans (similar to Myers-Briggs Sensing-Perceiving) prefer jobs where they can troubleshoot, respond to crises, and negotiate.
2. Guardians (similar to Myers-Briggs Sensing-Judging) prefer jobs that demand responsibility
3. Rationals (similar to Myers-Briggs intuitive-Thinking) enjoy jobs that demand a high level of expertise and high standards of competence
4. Idealists (similar to Myers-Briggs intuitive-Feeling) enjoy jobs that allow them to support and encourage others.

GENDER AND NEGOTIATION

Traditionally, if you were to ask individuals to visualize a successful negotiator——most would visualize a male. Given the stereotype of men being more
aggressive, competitive, and direct than women in their communication style, this traditional image makes sense. In negotiations, this stereotype of women
negotiators as passive, cooperative, and relationship oriented suggests that women (or feminine negotiators) would not fare well in distributive situations,
whereas the style and traits of men (or masculine negotiators) are designed for success in distributive negotiations.

COMMUNICATION STYLE
Communication is the primary mechanism by which negotiators endeavor to resolve their differences in negotiation. It is how we let others know what we
want and learn what others want. Our natural communication patterns can explain whether we ask for or get what we want in life and in negotiations. How
you tend to communicate—whether passive, aggressive, or assertive—will influence what you ask for and get in a negotiation

1. PASSIVE: People whose communication patterns are primarily passive, are more likely to be indirect, to avoid conflict, be easily persuaded/bullied,
and be overly concerned about pleasing others. Passive communicators avoid confrontation at all costs, though they will frown, whisper under their
breath, or simply say nothing because they fear losing someone’s affection or have low self-esteem
2. AGRESSIVE: This style of communication includes exerting control over others, humiliating others, dominating, being pushy, always needing to be
right, using absolute terms, and blaming others. People who tend to communicate aggressively want to be in control, are insecure, are afraid, don’t
value the opinions of others, or have unresolved anger. In negotiation, this style of win-lose communication may help the aggressive communicator get
what he wants, but at a cost.
3. ASSERTIVE: This style of communication is characterized by fairness, directness, honesty, tact, and sensitivity, and involves speaking up for your
rights and taking into account the rights and feelings of others. Assertive communicators keep contact lines open and show respect for others while
affirming their beliefs and preferences. While few people use only one communication style, and as mentioned, there are times when each style can be
appropriate, assertive communication will be the most effective communication style to use in the majority of situations

NEGOCIACIÓN página 4
NEGOCIACIÓN página 5