BLAW 453 Negotiation Techniques in Difficult Conversations Discussion

NEGOTIATION
BLAW 453
Spring 2022
Paper 2
1.
There is no need for any outside research. Do not include any research on
negotiation skills or techniques other than from class materials and the
readings provided. The goal of this paper is for you to demonstrate a
depth and breadth of knowledge of the negotiation techniques
applicable in situations involving difficult conversations and to
analyze the differences between how women and men negotiate,
including the potential reasons for those differences.
2.
Helpful guides and resources are located at
http://library.csun.edu/Guides/ResearchStrategies/CitationStyleGuides and
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
3.
Use the course materials to inform, explain and illuminate your analysis of the
conversation and of sex differences in negotiations. The purpose of the
assignment is to demonstrate that you have read, heard, understood and can
apply the course materials to both topics. Make sure to incorporate a significant
number of course materials into the paper. Refer to particular discussions and
exercises. Demonstrate intellectual depth by going beyond repetition to explain
significance, to draw connections, to illustrate, to integrate.
4.
Specific instructions:
Part I – Difficult Conversation Analysis
a.
Choose a difficult conversation that you have had or avoided having.
b.
Analyze that conversation from each party’s perspective using course
materials on conflict management, difficult conversations, and ethics.
c.
Reference liberally through quotes and paraphrases the relevant course
materials, including Difficult Conversations and NCR, chapters 7 – 11.
d.
Do not include any research on conflict resolution skills or techniques
other than class materials.
Part II – Sex Differences in Negotiations Analysis
a.
Watch the Nightcrawler clip.

b.
Integrate course materials (lectures, texts) to develop an analysis of what
occurred in the negotiation between Lou and Nina, discussing issues
including Lou’s threat to leave, his demands, his tone, and each side’s
BATNA.
c.
State if you think the negotiation would have progressed in a similar
d.
5.
manner if the roles had been reversed (Nina as the news gatherer and
Lou as the TV manager), or if both parties had been the same sex. In
addition to your opinion, base your answers on known sex differences in
negotiation noted in class material.
Referencing negotiations that you participated in over the course of the
semester, explain how the sex differences described in the assigned
reading did and/or did not apply. Include discussion of the different
negotiation technique choices made by you and your negotiating
partners.
Writing:
a.
clear, correct English in paragraph form – do not label your answers
b.
well-edited
c.
correct use of APA
Format
• Double-spaced
• 12-point font
• each section should be 4 – 5 pages, please try not to go over (or too far over) 10
pages; the page requirement does not include the academic integrity statement
or reference page
• number the pages
• one-inch margins
• single-space the header with your name, class name and time, date – first page
only
• no extra space between paragraphs, including between sections and between
the heading and the following paragraph
• put a heading prior to each section
• APA formatting for in-text references (including page numbers where relevant)
• include a list of references in a separate reference page
• do not include cover sheets, tables of contents, abstracts, running titles
Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant on Why Women Stay Quiet a…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-…
http://nyti.ms/1A7Xwyw
SundayReview
|
WOMEN AT WORK
Speaking While Female
Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant on Why Women Stay Quiet at Work
By SHERYL SANDBERG and ADAM GRANT
JAN. 12, 2015
YEARS ago, while producing the hit TV series “The Shield,” Glen Mazzara noticed
that two young female writers were quiet during story meetings. He pulled them
aside and encouraged them to speak up more.
Watch what happens when we do, they replied.
Almost every time they started to speak, they were interrupted or shot down
before finishing their pitch. When one had a good idea, a male writer would jump in
and run with it before she could complete her thought.
Sadly, their experience is not unusual.
We’ve both seen it happen again and again. When a woman speaks in a
professional setting, she walks a tightrope. Either she’s barely heard or she’s judged
as too aggressive. When a man says virtually the same thing, heads nod in
appreciation for his fine idea. As a result, women often decide that saying less is
more.
Some new studies support our observations. A study by a Yale psychologist,
Victoria L. Brescoll, found that male senators with more power (as measured by
tenure, leadership positions and track record of legislation passed) spoke more on
the Senate floor than their junior colleagues. But for female senators, power was not
linked to significantly more speaking time.
Suspecting that powerful women stayed quiet because they feared a backlash,
Professor Brescoll looked deeper. She asked professional men and women to
evaluate the competence of chief executives who voiced their opinions more or less
frequently. Male executives who spoke more often than their peers were rewarded
with 10 percent higher ratings of competence. When female executives spoke more
than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14 percent lower ratings.
1 of 3
3/10/15 11:45 AM
Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant on Why Women Stay Quiet a…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-…
As this and other research shows, women who worry that talking “too much” will
cause them to be disliked are not paranoid; they are often right.
One of us, Adam, was dismayed to find similar patterns when studying a health
care company and advising an international bank. When male employees
contributed ideas that brought in new revenue, they got significantly higher
performance evaluations. But female employees who spoke up with equally valuable
ideas did not improve their managers’ perception of their performance. Also, the
more the men spoke up, the more helpful their managers believed them to be. But
when women spoke up more, there was no increase in their perceived helpfulness.
This speaking-up double bind harms organizations by depriving them of
valuable ideas. A University of Texas researcher, Ethan Burris, conducted an
experiment in which he asked teams to make strategic decisions for a bookstore. He
randomly informed one member that the bookstore’s inventory system was flawed
and gave that person data about a better approach. In subsequent analyses, he found
that when women challenged the old system and suggested a new one, team leaders
viewed them as less loyal and were less likely to act on their suggestions. Even when
all team members were informed that one member possessed unique information
that would benefit the group, suggestions from women with inside knowledge were
discounted.
Obviously, businesses need to find ways to interrupt this gender bias. Just as
orchestras that use blind auditions increase the number of women who are selected,
organizations can increase women’s contributions by adopting practices that focus
less on the speaker and more on the idea. For example, in innovation tournaments,
employees submit suggestions and solutions to problems anonymously. Experts
evaluate the proposals, give feedback to all participants and then implement the best
plans.
SINCE most work cannot be done anonymously, leaders must also take steps to
encourage women to speak and be heard. At “The Shield,” Mr. Mazzara, the show
runner, found a clever way to change the dynamics that were holding those two
female employees back. He announced to the writers that he was instituting a
no-interruption rule while anyone — male or female — was pitching. It worked, and
he later observed that it made the entire team more effective.
The long-term solution to the double bind of speaking while female is to
increase the number of women in leadership roles. (As we noted in our previous
2 of 3
3/10/15 11:45 AM
Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant on Why Women Stay Quiet a…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-…
article, research shows that when it comes to leadership skills, although men are
more confident, women are more competent.) As more women enter the upper
echelons of organizations, people become more accustomed to women’s contributing
and leading. Professor Burris and his colleagues studied a credit union where women
made up 74 percent of supervisors and 84 percent of front-line employees. Sure
enough, when women spoke up there, they were more likely to be heard than men.
When President Obama held his last news conference of 2014, he called on eight
reporters — all women. It made headlines worldwide. Had a politician given only
men a chance to ask questions, it would not have been news; it would have been a
regular day.
As 2015 starts, we wonder what would happen if we all held Obama-style
meetings, offering women the floor whenever possible. Doing this for even a day or
two might be a powerful bias interrupter, demonstrating to our teams and colleagues
that speaking while female is still quite difficult. We’re going to try it to see what we
learn. We hope you will, too — and then share your experiences with us all or in the
comments section.
This is the second of four essays in a series on women at work.
Sheryl Sandberg is the chief operating officer of Facebook and the founder of
LeanIn.org. Adam Grant is a professor at the Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania and the author of “Give and Take.”
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 11, 2015, on page SR3 of the New York edition with the
headline: Speaking While Female.
© 2015 The New York Times Company
3 of 3
3/10/15 11:45 AM
Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work -…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/adam-gran…
http://nyti.ms/1CSIDXU
SundayReview
|
WOMEN AT WORK
When Talking About Bias Backfires
Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work
By ADAM GRANT and SHERYL SANDBERG
DEC. 6, 2014
A FATHER and his son are in a car accident. The father is killed and the son is
seriously injured. The son is taken to the hospital where the surgeon says, “I cannot
operate, because this boy is my son.”
This popular brain teaser dates back many years, but it remains relevant today;
40 to 75 percent of people still can’t figure it out. Those who do solve it usually take a
few minutes to fathom that the boy’s mother could be a surgeon. Even when we have
the best of intentions, when we hear “surgeon” or “boss,” the image that pops into
our minds is often male.
Our culture’s strong gender stereotypes extend beyond image to performance,
leading us to believe that men are more competent than women. Managers — both
male and female — continue to favor men over equally qualified women in hiring,
compensation, performance evaluation and promotion decisions. This limits
opportunities for women and deprives organizations of valuable talent.
To solve this problem, business leaders, academics and journalists are working
to raise awareness about bias. The assumption is that when people realize that biases
are widespread, they will be more likely to overcome them. But new research
suggests that if we’re not careful, making people aware of bias can backfire, leading
them to discriminate more rather than less.
In several experiments, Prof. Michelle Duguid of Washington University in St.
Louis and Prof. Melissa Thomas-Hunt of the University of Virginia studied whether
making people aware of bias would lessen it. They informed some people that
stereotypes were rare and told others that stereotypes were common, then asked for
their perceptions of women. Those who read that stereotypes were common rated
women as significantly less career-oriented and more family-oriented. Even when
1 of 4
3/10/15 11:44 AM
Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work -…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/adam-gran…
instructed to “try to avoid thinking about others in such a manner,” people still
viewed women more traditionally after reading that a vast majority held stereotypes.
In another study, Professors Duguid and Thomas-Hunt told managers that
stereotypes were common or rare. Then, they asked managers to read a transcript
from a job interview of a candidate described as either female or male. At the end of
the interview, the candidate asked for higher compensation and a nonstandard
bonus. When the managers read that many people held stereotypes, they were 28
percent less interested in hiring the female candidate. They also judged her as 27
percent less likable. The same information did not alter their judgments of male
candidates.
Why would knowledge about stereotype prevalence lead to greater stereotyping?
We can find clues in research led by Prof. Robert Cialdini at Arizona State
University. In a national park, Professor Cialdini’s team tried to stop people from
stealing petrified wood by posting: “Many past visitors have removed the petrified
wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest.” Even with this
warning, theft rates stood at 5 percent. So they made the sign more severe: “Your
heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a
year, mostly a small piece at a time.” This warning influenced theft, but not in the
direction you’d expect: stealing jumped from 5 percent to almost 8 percent.
The message people received was not “Don’t steal petrified wood,” but “Stealing
petrified wood is a common and socially acceptable behavior.” We have the same
reaction when we learn about the ubiquity of stereotypes. If everyone else is biased,
we don’t need to worry as much about censoring ourselves.
If awareness makes it worse, how do we make it better? The solution isn’t to
stop pointing out stereotypes. Instead, we need to communicate that these biases are
undesirable and unacceptable.
Professor Cialdini’s team slashed the theft rate to 1.67 percent by adding a
simple sentence to the sign:
“Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park.”
Professors Duguid and Thomas-Hunt used a similar approach to prevent bias
awareness from backfiring.
Rather than merely informing managers that stereotypes persisted, they added
that a “vast majority of people try to overcome their stereotypic preconceptions.”
With this adjustment, discrimination vanished in their studies. After reading this
2 of 4
3/10/15 11:44 AM
Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work -…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/adam-gran…
message, managers were 28 percent more interested in working with the female
candidate who negotiated assertively and judged her as 25 percent more likable.
When we communicate that a vast majority of people hold some biases, we need
to make sure that we’re not legitimating prejudice. By reinforcing the idea that
people want to conquer their biases and that there are benefits to doing so, we send a
more effective message: Most people don’t want to discriminate, and you shouldn’t
either.
Encouraging people to correct for biases does more than change the way we
view others. It also affects the opportunities women will seek for themselves. One of
us, Adam, presented data in his classes at Wharton on the underrepresentation of
women in major leadership roles and discussed the factors that held women back.
He thought a public dialogue would prompt action. But during the next five months,
there was no change in the percentage of female M.B.A. students who applied for a
leadership position on campus.
The following year, he shared the same data about the shortage of female
leaders, with one sentence added at the end: “I don’t ever want to see this happen
again.” During the next five months, there was a 65 percent increase in the number
of female M.B.A. students who sought out leadership roles compared with those who
had in the previous year. And the female students who heard this statement were 53
percent more likely to apply for leadership positions than those who did not hear it
that year.
To motivate women at work, we need to be explicit about our disapproval of the
leadership imbalance as well as our support for female leaders.
When more women lead, performance improves. Start-ups led by women are
more likely to succeed; innovative firms with more women in top management are
more profitable; and companies with more gender diversity have more revenue,
customers, market share and profits. A comprehensive analysis of 95 studies on
gender differences showed that when it comes to leadership skills, although men are
more confident, women are more competent.
To break down the barriers that hold women back, it’s not enough to spread
awareness. If we don’t reinforce that people need — and want — to overcome their
biases, we end up silently condoning the status quo.
So let’s be clear: We want to see these biases vanish, and we know you do, too.
This is the first of four essays in a series on women at work.
3 of 4
3/10/15 11:44 AM
Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work -…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/adam-gran…
Adam Grant is a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and
the author of “Give and Take.” Sheryl Sandberg is the chief operating officer of Facebook
and the founder of LeanIn.org.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 7, 2014, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the
headline: When Talking About Bias Backfires.
© 2015 The New York Times Company
4 of 4
3/10/15 11:44 AM
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
BLAW 453 – NEGOTIATION
Prof. Golden
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D. & Barry, B. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases
Negotiation 4.1
Women Don’t Ask
1.
more male grad students were teaching courses of their own while female grad
students were working as TA’s – AD said he finds teaching opportunities for
those who ask. “More men ask. The women just don’t ask.”
2.
study on starting salaries of students graduating from Carnegie Mellon with
master’s degrees:
a.
starting salary of men 7.6% higher than women
b.
only 7% of women negotiated their salary, 57% of men
c.
those who negotiated their salary (mostly men) increased it by 7.4%,
suggesting that if women had negotiated, there wouldn’t be the wage gap
3.
studies that found that 9xs more men than women asked for more money in the
Boggle experiment; men asking for things or negotiating 2 – 3 times as often as
women
The Asking Advantage
1.
in largely male-defined work culture, women’s strategies can often be
misinterpreted and can leave them operating from a position of weakness
2.
much of the disparity in wages can be traced to not negotiating a starting salary –
significant long-term effects of failing to do so
When Talking About Bias Backfires
In what situations do managers favor men over equally qualified women?
In studies, were participants more or less likely to view job candidates in a stereotypical
fashion when they were made aware of sex stereotypes? Why?
What adjustment was made to the study that allowed people to overcome their
preconceived notions?
What can be done to motivate women at work? How do women’s leadership skills
compare to men’s?
Gender Differences in Negotiations
Stereotypical beliefs about how men and women negotiate
1.
men are highly competitive, manipulative, win-lose negotiators, want to attain
solid deals from other negotiator
2.
women more accommodating than men, seek a win-win outcome, want to
preserve relationships by expanding the joint returns
Real Gender-Based Differences
1.
when men and women interact, men talk for longer periods, interrupt more often,
utilize more direct language
2.
women often use tentative and deferential speech patterns
3.
women tend to use more hedges – “I think;” “you know” – so perceived as less
forceful
4.
women more sensitive to non-verbal signals than men, more likely to tune into
subtle messages the other side conveys during negotiations
Perceived-Based Differences – Negotiation Stereotypes
1.
men believed to be rational and logical, emphasize objective fact, act dominant
and authoritative
2.
women thought to be emotional in negotiations and more intuitive, focus more on
the maintenance of relationships, are passive and submissive, expected to act
like “ladies”
3.
overt aggressiveness considered vigorous advocacy if used by men, considered
offensive and threatening when used by women, especially when women use
foul language, loud voices
4.
negotiation advantage for women when men find it difficult to act competitively
with women, assume that women won’t “play games” as much as men will
The Impact
1.
women do not feel as comfortable in overtly competitive situations as their male
colleagues
2.
in negotiation class, both men and women were more critical of women attaining
exceptional results than men; men don’t want to “lose” to women
3.
men tend to convey more confidence, even if they’re minimally prepared
4.
no matter how much women prepare, they tend to feel unprepared
5.
successful men think they’ll be successful in the future
6.
successful women tend to express doubts about their capabilities
7.
when men are successful, performance ascribed to intrinsic factors: hard work,
intelligence
8.
when women are successful, performance often put down to extrinsic factors:
luck, help from others
9.
men’s success overvalued and women’s undervalued
How to Attack the Pay Gap? Speak Up
What is one of the main reasons why women don’t get as many raises as men?
What are some of the factors that may explain the wage gap? Do they explain all of the
gap?
What have studies shown when men and women negotiate using the same scripts?
What can women do to reach a better result when negotiating?
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
BLAW 453 – NEGOTIATION
Prof. Golden
Difficult Conversations
“There Is No Such Things as a Diplomatic Hand Grenade”
Chapter 1
Sort Out the Three Conversations
Decoding the Structure of Difficult Conversations
1.
need to understand not only what is said, but what is not being said
2.
need to understand what the people involved are thinking and feeling but not
saying to each other
Each Difficult Conversation is Really Three Conversations
1.
the “what happened?” conversation
a.
the truth assumption (I am right, you are wrong) – not about facts, about
perceptions, interpretations, values
b.
intentions – we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t
c.
blame – produces disagreement, denial, and little learning; talking about
blame distracts from exploring why things went wrong and how we might
correct them; focusing on contribution allows us to learn the real causes of
the problem and work on correcting them
2.
the feelings conversation
3.
the identity conversation – about who we are and how we see ourselves
Chapter 2
Stop Arguing About Who’s Right: Explore Each Other’s Stories
Why We Argue, and Why It Doesn’t Help
1.
we think they are the problem, they think we are the problem (ex. Rory and Aunt
Bertha – old mattress)
2.
arguing blocks us from exploring each other’s stories: inhibits our ability to learn
how the other person sees the world
3.
arguing without understanding is unpersuasive: telling someone to change
makes it less rather than more likely that they will – they need to feel understood
first (ex. Trevor tries to change Karen’s behavior of turning things in late, but
doesn’t understand why she’s turning things in late – feeling overwhelmed,
overworked, etc. – and she doesn’t understand the impact her late work has on
him)
Different Stories: Why We Each See the World Differently
1.
in difficult conversations, too often conclusions are traded back in forth instead of
getting to the information and interpretations that lead each of us to interpret the
world as we do
2.
we have different information for various reasons: we notice different things
(truck parade v. homecoming parade), we have access to information about
ourselves that no one else does
3.
we have different interpretations of the same situation (scene from Annie Hall),
based on factors such as past experiences (taking supervisor to a nice lunch)
1
and the implied rules that we’ve learned about how things should or should not
be done (unprofessional to be late v. unprofessional to obsess about small
details such as being 10 minutes late)
4.
our conclusions reflect our self-interest – we look for information that support our
view, focus on things that are consistent with what we want to believe and ignore
things that don’t (experiment where the sellers valued the company at 30% more
and the buyers at 30% less)
Move from Certainty to Curiosity
1.
instead of “How can they think that?” ask “What information do they have that I
don’t”; instead of “How can they be so irrational?” ask “How might they see the
world such that their view makes sense?”
2.
think about what’s your story, how you make sense of the world, decide on
implicit rules – rules, not truths
Embrace Both Stories: Adopt the “And Stance”
1.
instead of accepting or rejecting another person’s story, work to understand it
2.
not a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong, but rather that each side’s
perspective can be right for them (ex. they can be doing their best and you think
it’s not good enough; you did something stupid and they contributed to the
problem)
3.
you can assert your views and feelings without diminishing the other person’s
Two Exceptions that Aren’t
1.
I really am right (joke about the 2 clerics)
2.
even if you understand the other person’s story, you may still think you’re right,
they’re wrong (ex. conversation between parent and daughter about daughter
smoking – the issue isn’t is smoking bad, the issue is how the parent feels about
the daughter smoking and the daughter’s need to break out of the “good girl” role
3.
rather than telling an alcoholic friend to stop drinking, tell him the impact his
drinking has on others
4.
you can understand the other person’s story and give bad news (break up, fire
someone – I’m breaking up with you because it’s the right decision for me and I
understand how hurt you are)
Chapter 3
Don’t Assume They Meant It: Disentangle Intent from Impact
1.
mistake to assume you know the other person’s intentions (why did the boyfriend
tell the girlfriend not to have seconds of dessert)
2.
mistake to assume that once you announce your intentions are good, that’s the
end of it (boyfriend thinks girlfriend not justified in being upset once he says he
didn’t mean to hurt her)
Our Assumptions About Intentions Are Often Wrong
1.
we make assumptions about someone’s intentions based on the impact their
actions have on us (we feel hurt, they meant to hurt us)
2.
we assume the worst (doctor with poor bedside manner extended vacation; turns
out he was helping set up a hospital in a country with terrible conditions)
3.
we treat ourselves more charitably – we know what our intentions are, assume
the worst of others even for doing the same thing
2
tendency to make the leap from “they had bad intentions” to “they’re a bad
person”
5.
accusing them of bad intentions creates defensiveness, both parties think they’re
the victim, attributions can become self-fulfilling (employee thinks boss doesn’t
give her enough responsibility, she loses motivation, the boss gives her less
responsibility)
Good Intentions Don’t Sanitize Bad Impact
1.
by focusing on clarifying intentions, end up missing significant pieces of what the
other person is saying (ex. someone says “Why are you trying to hurt me?” which
is 2 messages: “I know what you intended” and “I got hurt”; focus is on defending
against the first message and not paying attention to the second one)
2.
more useful to clarify your intentions after you’ve heard and understood what the
other person meant to express
3.
we ignore the complexity of human motivations – intentions are probably mixed,
not either good or bad
4.
attributing intentions, defending ourselves, and ignoring the impact we have on
others is especially common in conflicts between groups and can aggravate
hostility
Avoiding the First Mistake
1.
disentangle impact and intent – avoid making the leap from “I was hurt” to “You
intended to hurt me” by asking yourself 3 questions about the other person’s
actions, it’s impact, and the assumption made about intentions
2.
share the impact on you, inquire about their intentions
4.
Avoiding the Second Mistake
1.
listen past the accusation for the feelings
2.
be open to reflecting on the complexity of your intentions
Chapter 4
Abandon Blame: Map the Contribution System
1.
focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what’s
really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it
2.
distinguish blame (judging) from contribution (understanding):
a.
“Who is to blame?” asks 3 questions: did this person cause the problem, if
so, how should her actions be judged against some standard of conduct, if
the judgment is negative, how should she be punished?
b.
expect defensiveness, strong emotion, interruptions in response to blame
3.
contribution asks what each side did to bring about the situation, what can be
done to change it moving forward
The Costs of the Blame Frame
1.
blame is appropriate in specific situations, such as court proceedings
2.
when punishment is a possibility, learning the truth becomes more difficult (ex.
car company may not make safety improvements after being sued because it
could look like an admission of guilt)
3.
focusing on blame takes the focus off of problem-solving
3
4.
removing 1 player in a system may be warranted, but the cost of doing so as a
substitute for doing the hard work of examining the larger contribution system
may be quite high
The Benefits of Understanding Contribution
1.
contribution is easier to raise as an issue
2.
contribution encourages learning and change (ex. husband decides to stay with
adulterous wife after understanding why she cheated instead of after an
ultimatum that he’ll leave if she ever does it again)
3.
Three Misconceptions About Contribution
a.
I should only focus on my contribution – just because you contributed to
the problem does not mean the other person didn’t
b.
putting aside blame means putting aside my feelings (if you continue to
blame, ask yourself what feelings you’re failing to express, if the other
person has acknowledged your feelings)
c.
exploring contribution means “blaming the victim”: rather than asking if the
person did something wrong, ask what did they do that helped cause the
situation; can have contribution without blame; by identifying what you’re
doing to perpetuate a situation, you learn where you have leverage to
affect the system – by changing your behavior you gain at least some
influence over the problem
Finding Your Fair Share: Four Hard-to-Spot Contributions
1.
avoiding until now (ex. problematic store managers deserves to be fired but all
his performance reviews are satisfactory because of the difficulty of confronting
an argumentative person)
2.
being unapproachable
3.
intersections: result from a simple difference between 2 people in background,
preferences, communication style, or assumptions about relationships (ex.
newlyweds where the husband wants to talk everything out and the wife needs
distance)
4.
problematic role assumptions: despite its problems, a familiar pattern may be
comfortable and easier to deal with than finding a way to change it
2 Tools for Spotting Contribution
1.
role reversal
2.
the observer’s insight
Moving from Blame to Contribution
1.
map the contribution system
a.
what are they contributing
b.
what am I contributing
c.
who else is involved
2.
take responsibility for your contribution early
3.
help them understand their contribution
a.
make your observations and reasoning explicit
b.
clarify would you would have done differently
4.
making a specific request for how the other person can change their contribution
in the service of helping you change yours can be a powerful way of helping them
understand what they are doing to create and perpetuate the problem and it goes to the
4
heart of the purpose of understanding the contribution system – to see what you each
need to do differently to influence and improve the situation
Chapter 8: Major Sources and Types of Conflict
Conflict: the opposition of persons or forces, giving rise to some tension, or to a disagreement
between two or more parties that are interdependent.
Three theories of conflict:
1. Traditional view: conflict has destructive consequences for the group and should be
avoided
2. Human relations views: conflict is the natural and unavoidable result of people
interacting in groups; it can be a creative, positive, and constructive force that
contributes to group functioning
3. Interactionist view: conflict is both inevitable and, at the same time, produces a level of
tension that can be helpful in keeping the group energized and creative; conflict is a
positive force for change within interpersonal relationships, groups, and the total
organization
Positive Consequences of Conflict
1. Higher group performance; people become so motivated to win the conflict that
they may surprise themselves and their superiors with their work output
2. More reflective communication that facilitates task performance; more in-depth
thought is given to problem solving
3. Increased creativity
4. Increased diagnostic information
5. Increased cohesiveness within the group
6. Opportunity for learning and growth
Negative Consequences of Conflict
1. Poor mental and physical health
2. Wasted resources
3. Poor performance and side-tracked goals
4. Heightened self-interest
5. Workplace aggression
6. Workplace violence
Major Sources and Types of Workplace Conflict
1. Perceived adverse changes like downsizing
2. Competing work and family demands
Strategies to attain work and family goals:
a. Allocating: intentional activation and allocation of existing resources to achieve
work and family goals
b. Changing: intentional increase of resources and/or reduction of barriers related
to work and family goals
5
c. Sequencing: intentional prioritizing of some work or family goals in the short
term so that other goals can be achieved in the long run
d. Revising: intentional revision of present work or family goals and replacing them
with new goals
3. Sexual harassment: unwanted sexually oriented behavior in the workplace that
results in discomfort and/or interference with the job
a. Quid pro quo
b. Hostile environment
4. Factional Groups and Intragroup Conflict
5. Territorial Disputes (turf wars)
Chapter 9: Basic Techniques for Resolving Conflicts
Five Steps to Workplace Conflict Resolution
1. Separate the people from the problem and focus on the process
2. Identify a mediator
3. Clarify the problem
4. Explore all options
5. Agree on a resolution
Traditional Conflict Resolution Styles:
1. Competitive: win-lose power struggles; also referred to as forcing
2. Accommodative: favors appeasing or satisfying the other’s concerns without taking care
of one’s own
3. Sharing: Halfway between domination and appeasement; “splitting the difference”
4. Collaborative: win-win; the belief that both sides should gain something of value
5. Avoidant: both uncooperative and unassertive
Techniques for Resolving Conflict:
1. Confrontation and Problem Solving: a method of identifying the true source of conflict
and resolving it systematically; gentle and tactful
2. Win-lose: One side attempts to maximize gain at the expense of the other
3. Confront, Contain and Connect for Anger: developed specifically to resolve conflict with
angry people; contain by moving the angry worker out of sight and earshot; provides
angry workers a place where they can vent their frustrations without embarrassing
themselves
4. Reframing through Cognitive Restructuring and Asking Questions: mentally convert
negative aspects into positive ones by looking for the positive elements in a situation
Five Rules for Dealing Effectively with Organizational Conflict
1. Stay focused on the most essential objectives
6
2.
3.
4.
5.
Do not fight over things that don’t matter
Build empathy for other people’s points of view
Adhere to the adage: “keep your friends close and your enemies closer:
Use humor to defuse difficult situations
Additional Behaviors and Attitudes for Resolving Conflict
1. Recognize that all of us have biased perceptions of what is fair
2. Pause, breathe, and figure out the next steps
3. Look beneath the surface to identify deeper issues
4. Assign high priority to building a good relationship
5. Avoid escalating tensions with threats and provocative moves
6. Overcome an “us versus them” mentality
7. Decide on the most appropriate medium for dealing with the conflict
8. Make effective use of nonverbal communication skills
9. Separate sacred from pseudo-sacred issues
10. Create an opening for communication so that all parties involved have a voice
11. Repeat back (paraphrase your understanding of the issues)
12. Use “I” statements instead of “you” statements to clarify your position on the major
issues
13. Find the way forward
7
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
BLAW 453 – NEGOTIATION
Prof. Golden
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D. & Barry, B. Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases
Negotiation 4.1
Women Don’t Ask
1.
more male grad students were teaching courses of their own while female grad
students were working as TA’s – AD said he finds teaching opportunities for
those who ask. “More men ask. The women just don’t ask.”
2.
study on starting salaries of students graduating from Carnegie Mellon with
master’s degrees:
a.
starting salary of men 7.6% higher than women
b.
only 7% of women negotiated their salary, 57% of men
c.
those who negotiated their salary (mostly men) increased it by 7.4%,
suggesting that if women had negotiated, there wouldn’t be the wage gap
3.
studies that found that 9xs more men than women asked for more money in the
Boggle experiment; men asking for things or negotiating 2 – 3 times as often as
women
The Asking Advantage
1.
in largely male-defined work culture, women’s strategies can often be
misinterpreted and can leave them operating from a position of weakness
2.
much of the disparity in wages can be traced to not negotiating a starting salary –
significant long-term effects of failing to do so
When Talking About Bias Backfires
In what situations do managers favor men over equally qualified women?
In studies, were participants more or less likely to view job candidates in a stereotypical
fashion when they were made aware of sex stereotypes? Why?
What adjustment was made to the study that allowed people to overcome their
preconceived notions?
What can be done to motivate women at work? How do women’s leadership skills
compare to men’s?
Gender Differences in Negotiations
Stereotypical beliefs about how men and women negotiate
1.
men are highly competitive, manipulative, win-lose negotiators, want to attain
solid deals from other negotiator
2.
women more accommodating than men, seek a win-win outcome, want to
preserve relationships by expanding the joint returns
Real Gender-Based Differences
1.
when men and women interact, men talk for longer periods, interrupt more often,
utilize more direct language
2.
women often use tentative and deferential speech patterns
3.
women tend to use more hedges – “I think;” “you know” – so perceived as less
forceful
4.
women more sensitive to non-verbal signals than men, more likely to tune into
subtle messages the other side conveys during negotiations
Perceived-Based Differences – Negotiation Stereotypes
1.
men believed to be rational and logical, emphasize objective fact, act dominant
and authoritative
2.
women thought to be emotional in negotiations and more intuitive, focus more on
the maintenance of relationships, are passive and submissive, expected to act
like “ladies”
3.
overt aggressiveness considered vigorous advocacy if used by men, considered
offensive and threatening when used by women, especially when women use
foul language, loud voices
4.
negotiation advantage for women when men find it difficult to act competitively
with women, assume that women won’t “play games” as much as men will
The Impact
1.
women do not feel as comfortable in overtly competitive situations as their male
colleagues
2.
in negotiation class, both men and women were more critical of women attaining
exceptional results than men; men don’t want to “lose” to women
3.
men tend to convey more confidence, even if they’re minimally prepared
4.
no matter how much women prepare, they tend to feel unprepared
5.
successful men think they’ll be successful in the future
6.
successful women tend to express doubts about their capabilities
7.
when men are successful, performance ascribed to intrinsic factors: hard work,
intelligence
8.
when women are successful, performance often put down to extrinsic factors:
luck, help from others
9.
men’s success overvalued and women’s undervalued
How to Attack the Pay Gap? Speak Up
What is one of the main reasons why women don’t get as many raises as men?
What are some of the factors that may explain the wage gap? Do they explain all of the
gap?
What have studies shown when men and women negotiate using the same scripts?
What can women do to reach a better result when negotiating?
Difficult Conversations
“There Is No Such Things as a Diplomatic Hand Grenade”
Chapter 1
Sort Out the Three Conversations
Decoding the Structure of Difficult Conversations
1.
need to understand not only what is said, but what is not being said
2.
need to understand what the people involved are thinking and feeling but not
saying to each other
Each Difficult Conversation is Really Three Conversations
1.
the “what happened?” conversation
a.
the truth assumption (I am right, you are wrong) – not about facts, about
perceptions, interpretations, values
b.
intentions – we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t
c.
blame – produces disagreement, denial, and little learning; talking about
blame distracts from exploring why things went wrong and how we might
correct them; focusing on contribution allows us to learn the real causes of
the problem and work on correcting them
2.
the feelings conversation
3.
the identity conversation – about who we are and how we see ourselves
Chapter 2
Stop Arguing About Who’s Right: Explore Each Other’s Stories
Why We Argue, and Why It Doesn’t Help
1.
we think they are the problem, they think we are the problem (ex. Rory and Aunt
Bertha – old mattress)
2.
arguing blocks us from exploring each other’s stories: inhibits our ability to learn
how the other person sees the world
3.
arguing without understanding is unpersuasive: telling someone to change
makes it less rather than more likely that they will – they need to feel understood
first (ex. Trevor tries to change Karen’s behavior of turning things in late, but
doesn’t understand why she’s turning things in late – feeling overwhelmed,
overworked, etc. – and she doesn’t understand the impact her late work has on
him)
Different Stories: Why We Each See the World Differently
1.
in difficult conversations, too often conclusions are traded back in forth instead of
getting to the information and interpretations that lead each of us to interpret the
world as we do
2.
we have different information for various reasons: we notice different things
(truck parade v. homecoming parade), we have access to information about
ourselves that no one else does
3.
we have different interpretations of the same situation (scene from Annie Hall),
based on factors such as past experiences (taking supervisor to a nice lunch)
and the implied rules that we’ve learned about how things should or should not
be done (unprofessional to be late v. unprofessional to obsess about small
details such as being 10 minutes late)
4.
our conclusions reflect our self-interest – we look for information that support our
view, focus on things that are consistent with what we want to believe and ignore
things that don’t (experiment where the sellers valued the company at 30% more
and the buyers at 30% less)
Move from Certainty to Curiosity
1.
instead of “How can they think that?” ask “What information do they have that I
don’t”; instead of “How can they be so irrational?” ask “How might they see the
world such that their view makes sense?”
2.
think about what’s your story, how you make sense of the world, decide on
implicit rules – rules, not truths
Embrace Both Stories: Adopt the “And Stance”
1.
instead of accepting or rejecting another person’s story, work to understand it
2.
not a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong, but rather that each side’s
perspective can be right for them (ex. they can be doing their best and you think
it’s not good enough; you did something stupid and they contributed to the
problem)
3.
you can assert your views and feelings without diminishing the other person’s
Two Exceptions that Aren’t
1.
I really am right (joke about the 2 clerics)
2.
even if you understand the other person’s story, you may still think you’re right,
they’re wrong (ex. conversation between parent and daughter about daughter
smoking – the issue isn’t is smoking bad, the issue is how the parent feels about
the daughter smoking and the daughter’s need to break out of the “good girl” role
3.
rather than telling an alcoholic friend to stop drinking, tell him the impact his
drinking has on others
4.
you can understand the other person’s story and give bad news (break up, fire
someone – I’m breaking up with you because it’s the right decision for me and I
understand how hurt you are)
Chapter 3
Don’t Assume They Meant It: Disentangle Intent from Impact
1.
mistake to assume you know the other person’s intentions (why did the boyfriend
tell the girlfriend not to have seconds of dessert)
2.
mistake to assume that once you announce your intentions are good, that’s the
end of it (boyfriend thinks girlfriend not justified in being upset once he says he
didn’t mean to hurt her)
Our Assumptions About Intentions Are Often Wrong
1.
we make assumptions about someone’s intentions based on the impact their
actions have on us (we feel hurt, they meant to hurt us)
2.
we assume the worst (doctor with poor bedside manner extended vacation; turns
out he was helping set up a hospital in a country with terrible conditions)
3.
we treat ourselves more charitably – we know what our intentions are, assume
the worst of others even for doing the same thing
4.
tendency to make the leap from “they had bad intentions” to “they’re a bad
person”
5.
accusing them of bad intentions creates defensiveness, both parties think they’re
the victim, attributions can become self-fulfilling (employee thinks boss doesn’t
give her enough responsibility, she loses motivation, the boss gives her less
responsibility)
Good Intentions Don’t Sanitize Bad Impact
1.
by focusing on clarifying intentions, end up missing significant pieces of what the
other person is saying (ex. someone says “Why are you trying to hurt me?” which
is 2 messages: “I know what you intended” and “I got hurt”; focus is on defending
against the first message and not paying attention to the second one)
2.
more useful to clarify your intentions after you’ve heard and understood what the
other person meant to express
3.
we ignore the complexity of human motivations – intentions are probably mixed,
not either good or bad
4.
attributing intentions, defending ourselves, and ignoring the impact we have on
others is especially common in conflicts between groups and can aggravate
hostility
Avoiding the First Mistake
1.
disentangle impact and intent – avoid making the leap from “I was hurt” to “You
intended to hurt me” by asking yourself 3 questions about the other person’s
actions, it’s impact, and the assumption made about intentions
2.
share the impact on you, inquire about their intentions
Avoiding the Second Mistake
1.
listen past the accusation for the feelings
2.
be open to reflecting on the complexity of your intentions
Chapter 4
Abandon Blame: Map the Contribution System
1.
focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what’s
really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it
2.
distinguish blame (judging) from contribution (understanding):
a.
“Who is to blame?” asks 3 questions: did this person cause the problem, if
so, how should her actions be judged against some standard of conduct, if
the judgment is negative, how should she be punished?
b.
expect defensiveness, strong emotion, interruptions in response to blame
3.
contribution asks what each side did to bring about the situation, what can be
done to change it moving forward
The Costs of the Blame Frame
1.
blame is appropriate in specific situations, such as court proceedings
2.
when punishment is a possibility, learning the truth becomes more difficult (ex.
car company may not make safety improvements after being sued because it
could look like an admission of guilt)
3.
focusing on blame takes the focus off of problem-solving
4.
removing 1 player in a system may be warranted, but the cost of doing so as a
substitute for doing the hard work of examining the larger contribution system
may be quite high
The Benefits of Understanding Contribution
1.
contribution is easier to raise as an issue
2.
contribution encourages learning and change (ex. husband decides to stay with
adulterous wife after understanding why she cheated instead of after an
ultimatum that he’ll leave if she ever does it again)
3.
Three Misconceptions About Contribution
a.
I should only focus on my contribution – just because you contributed to
the problem does not mean the other person didn’t
b.
putting aside blame means putting aside my feelings (if you continue to
blame, ask yourself what feelings you’re failing to express, if the other
person has acknowledged your feelings)
c.
exploring contribution means “blaming the victim”: rather than asking if the
person did something wrong, ask what did they do that helped cause the
situation; can have contribution without blame; by identifying what you’re
doing to perpetuate a situation, you learn where you have leverage to
affect the system – by changing your behavior you gain at least some
influence over the problem
Finding Your Fair Share: Four Hard-to-Spot Contributions
1.
avoiding until now (ex. problematic store managers deserves to be fired but all
his performance reviews are satisfactory because of the difficulty of confronting
an argumentative person)
2.
being unapproachable
3.
intersections: result from a simple difference between 2 people in background,
preferences, communication style, or assumptions about relationships (ex.
newlyweds where the husband wants to talk everything out and the wife needs
distance)
4.
problematic role assumptions: despite its problems, a familiar pattern may be
comfortable and easier to deal with than finding a way to change it
2 Tools for Spotting Contribution
1.
role reversal
2.
the observer’s insight
Moving from Blame to Contribution
1.
map the contribution system
a.
what are they contributing
b.
what am I contributing
c.
who else is involved
2.
take responsibility for your contribution early
3.
help them understand their contribution
a.
make your observations and reasoning explicit
b.
clarify would you would have done differently
4.
making a specific request for how the other person can change their contribution
in the service of helping you change yours can be a powerful way of helping them
understand what they are doing to create and perpetuate the problem and it goes to the
heart of the purpose of understanding the contribution system – to see what you each
need to do differently to influence and improve the situation
Chapter 8: Major Sources and Types of Conflict
Conflict: the opposition of persons or forces, giving rise to some tension, or to a disagreement
between two or more parties that are interdependent.
Three theories of conflict:
1. Traditional view: conflict has destructive consequences for the group and should be
avoided
2. Human relations views: conflict is the natural and unavoidable result of people
interacting in groups; it can be a creative, positive, and constructive force that
contributes to group functioning
3. Interactionist view: conflict is both inevitable and, at the same time, produces a level of
tension that can be helpful in keeping the group energized and creative; conflict is a
positive force for change within interpersonal relationships, groups, and the total
organization
Positive Consequences of Conflict
1. Higher group performance; people become so motivated to win the conflict that
they may surprise themselves and their superiors with their work output
2. More reflective communication that facilitates task performance; more in-depth
thought is given to problem solving
3. Increased creativity
4. Increased diagnostic information
5. Increased cohesiveness within the group
6. Opportunity for learning and growth
Negative Consequences of Conflict
1. Poor mental and physical health
2. Wasted resources
3. Poor performance and side-tracked goals
4. Heightened self-interest
5. Workplace aggression
6. Workplace violence
Major Sources and Types of Workplace Conflict
1. Perceived adverse changes like downsizing
2. Competing work and family demands
Strategies to attain work and family goals:
a. Allocating: intentional activation and allocation of existing resources to achieve
work and family goals
b. Changing: intentional increase of resources and/or reduction of barriers related
to work and family goals
c. Sequencing: intentional prioritizing of some work or family goals in the short
term so that other goals can be achieved in the long run
d. Revising: intentional revision of present work or family goals and replacing them
with new goals
3. Sexual harassment: unwanted sexually oriented behavior in the workplace that
results in discomfort and/or interference with the job
a. Quid pro quo
b. Hostile environment
4. Factional Groups and Intragroup Conflict
5. Territorial Disputes (turf wars)
Chapter 9: Basic Techniques for Resolving Conflicts
Five Steps to Workplace Conflict Resolution
1. Separate the people from the problem and focus on the process
2. Identify a mediator
3. Clarify the problem
4. Explore all options
5. Agree on a resolution
Traditional Conflict Resolution Styles:
1. Competitive: win-lose power struggles; also referred to as forcing
2. Accommodative: favors appeasing or satisfying the other’s concerns without taking care
of one’s own
3. Sharing: Halfway between domination and appeasement; “splitting the difference”
4. Collaborative: win-win; the belief that both sides should gain something of value
5. Avoidant: both uncooperative and unassertive
Techniques for Resolving Conflict:
1. Confrontation and Problem Solving: a method of identifying the true source of conflict
and resolving it systematically; gentle and tactful
2. Win-lose: One side attempts to maximize gain at the expense of the other
3. Confront, Contain and Connect for Anger: developed specifically to resolve conflict with
angry people; contain by moving the angry worker out of sight and earshot; provides
angry workers a place where they can vent their frustrations without embarrassing
themselves
4. Reframing through Cognitive Restructuring and Asking Questions: mentally convert
negative aspects into positive ones by looking for the positive elements in a situation
Five Rules for Dealing Effectively with Organizational Conflict
1. Stay focused on the most essential objectives
2. Do not fight over things that don’t matter
3. Build empathy for other people’s points of view
4. Adhere to the adage: “keep your friends close and your enemies closer:
5. Use humor to defuse difficult situations
Additional Behaviors and Attitudes for Resolving Conflict
1. Recognize that all of us have biased perceptions of what is fair
2. Pause, breathe, and figure out the next steps
3. Look beneath the surface to identify deeper issues
4. Assign high priority to building a good relationship
5. Avoid escalating tensions with threats and provocative moves
6. Overcome an “us versus them” mentality
7. Decide on the most appropriate medium for dealing with the conflict
8. Make effective use of nonverbal communication skills
9. Separate sacred from pseudo-sacred issues
10. Create an opening for communication so that all parties involved have a voice
11. Repeat back (paraphrase your understanding of the issues)
12. Use “I” statements instead of “you” statements to clarify your position on the major
issues
13. Find the way forward
Michelle Manoyan
BLAW 453 Negotiation
Nina Golden
March 17, 2022
Reflection Journal Entries 4-7
Negotiation 4 – Lexus Car Dealership (My Role: Buyer; Partner/Seller: Xurshia Marie Pepino)
This negotiation made me a bit uncomfortable because I know how tricky it can be to play your
hand at a car dealership. I knew that I had to have a walk away price and I would use it if I
needed to get some leverage. The ad for the new car I wanted was listed for $34,999. My goal
was to trade in my existing Lexus for a higher value than what I was previously quoted, and my
argument would be that the car market at the moment is booming and there is a substantial
price increase across the board. Since I wanted to minimize the use of my available cash, I knew
I had to go with financing either from the dealer or the bank. I decided I would use my bank
offer as another form of leverage to get a lower interest rate with the dealer. To my surprise,
my partner Xurshia was receptive to my offer of $9k for my trade in car. I also needed some
additional add ins on the car, but I didn’t want to push too much on all of them. When it came
to the financing, my partner had offered me 7% of up to $17,500. I told her that my bank had
offered me 6.50% and I would rather take their offer. She then countered and said that she
would give me a 25% discount on the moon roof addition for the car, which was the main add
in that I wanted. My final sale price came out to $28,866, which I was satisfied with. During the
debrief in class, I noticed that a lot of people were able to get more add ins. It made me realize
that I should challenge myself a bit more with these negotiations to not settle for the minimum.
Xurshia was very accommodating and collaborative, similar to me. Although we both walked
away with satisfactory results, I think we could both benefit from being a bit more assertive and
aiming for maximum results in the future.
Negotiation 5 – The Job Offer (My Role: Employee; Partner/Employer: Nelida Meza)
In this negotiation, there was a lot of back and forth between me and my partner. The tone of
the conversation was not aggressive, but we were both firm on our positions in the beginning.
As the conversation progressed, we began to compromise. I personally have had to negotiate a
pay raise at my current job, so I did have empathy for this situation. I’ve learned that it is
important to have a clear goal of what you want to get out of the negotiation so that you don’t
get swayed in the way of what the other person wants. My main concerns were the long
commute, my need for a dog sitter, student loans, and job stability. I didn’t mention these all at
once. My strategy was to throw them out there one by one and it seemed to work well for me.
Although I wanted to be firm on my position, I also knew that I did not want to strain my
relationship with my employer since that would make things a bit awkward if I got the job.
Ultimately, the reason why I wanted this job over the retail store was that the environment was
friendly and in line with my career goals. This was a bit more important to me than the money,
along with job stability. My partner ended up offering to provide me with a dog sitter and pay
for commute to work. My pay would begin with the initial offer of $37,500 and once I had
completed a successful business plan for the investors, the pay would increase to 41k. Again, I
was more interested in job stability, so I wanted to confirm that with Nelida. She said that in my
contract, there will be a clause that states this is a lifetime position. I was pretty happy with the
way I conducted this negotiation because I paid attention to the most important goals and
grasped them.
Negotiation 6 – Bakery-Florist-Grocery (My Role: Florist; Baker: Isabell Castillo, Grocer: Emma
Simpson)
This negotiation was by far the most fun, yet complex in my opinion. There was definitely a big
difference between negotiating with 2 people instead of 1. I went in with a goal of getting the
most ideal results as described in the instructions. Nevertheless, I was almost positive that we
would have to compromise on the most fair and equal options for all of us. I decided my most
important goal would be to get the coldest temperature possible for my shop because my
product would depend on it to last. My winning options overall were Design D, 12 degrees
Celsius for the temperature, and distribution 2 for the rental costs. The easiest decision was the
design on the market. We agreed on Design E since it would give customers an equal view of all
shops. Although it was not my first chose, I still agreed because I would have a window to
display my arrangements in the front of the market. The hardest decision was the temperature
of the market. The battle was between Isabell and I as she was the baker. She needed her bread
and desserts to stay warm and fresh for her customers, so the lowest temperature would not
work for her. She was really firm on this and offered 18 degrees as the lowest she could go. I
was a bit intimidated because she seemed very unwilling to change her mind. Then, I asked her,
no matter what the temperature of the bakery, wouldn’t she have the baked goods kept in a
heated oven or heat them up anyway before giving them to customers? I could see a shift in
her as soon as I said that. Emma really didn’t care about the temperature because her grocery
store would need to be cold anyway. I said that I would be willing to settle for 16 degrees, but I
would have to pay less in rent. Isabell and Emma both agreed that I should be one of the people
that would pay the least amount of rent, but they had issues in deciding who would be the
other person between themselves. Emma did a good job of defending the fact that she was
unproblematic when it came to the design and temperature of the market. She said she was
even getting the same area space of the market even though she had more inventory and
visitors on a daily basis. Isabell’s argument was that Emma would have flowers and baked
goods in her grocery store anyways, so what would stop others from picking up those items in
her store while they’re there, versus stopping by our shops. Emma’s offer is what made us all
even in the end. She said she would source the baked goods and flowers from our stores, so we
would all make profit. This was enough for all of us to end up agreeing on Distribution 4 for the
rental costs. This wasn’t my worst option, so I wasn’t opposed to accepting the offer. I was
really content with my results in this negotiation, especially since it was more challenging with 2
people.
Negotiation 7 – Terry and Josephine at Navigational Systems (My Role: Josephine; Partner/Terry
Hardel: Derek Williams)
This negotiation was different for me because my partner was very stern. He made direct eye
contact the entire time, which I have to admit made me pretty uncomfortable. I found myself
looking away and smiling. This probably made me look nervous, so it’s something I’ll have to
work on. He taught me that the unspoken verbal ques can make a huge impact on your results.
I went into the conversation with a goal to get enough time to finish my project and at least one
test round. At the same time, I really cared about my husband’s career and didn’t want to
sacrifice his position for my benefit. Although my partner was assertive, he was also
understanding of my concerns. I told him that I was well aware this day would come. I knew
that if anyone was to get the promotion, it would have been my husband because of his
background, and I was more than happy for him. I explained that my frustration stemmed from
the fact that I was not given ANY time to sit with this news or prepare. I told him that it was not
fair to have someone come in and take over my project that I had been working on for so long.
My partner asked what my ideal timeframe would be to complete the project. I started with 10
weeks and he immediately said that was too long and they would need me at the other
location. I wanted to aim really high so I could still get favorable results if he wanted to
downplay. I told Derek that when we had this conversation about the promotion with the group
manager, he made it seem like this would be something we would be aware of well in advance.
I also mentioned how much time and effort I had put into my project and that I wanted to see it
through. My partner eventually agreed to 8 weeks with one test run for my project, and I would
have to report to him instead of my husband since that would arise issues of nepotism.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment