L5M15 LO 1.0 advanced negotiation
What factors may give rise to an advantage in negotiating at a 'home' venue? - ANS
Issue here is that in negotiation, as in sport, there is considered a 'home' advantage: a
psychological advantage to the party negotiating on its own turf. This advantage may
arise from any or all of the following:
- Familiarity with the surroundings, facility, culture (in international negotiations) and so
on, treating a psychological 'comfort zone' and confidence which the 'away' party may
lack
- Accessibility of additional resources (information, files, expert advisers, additional
support, personnel and so on), which may be difficult for an 'away' party to carry with
them
- The immediate presence of support networks (one's own organisational stakeholders,
sponsors and champions)
- The sense of obligation that an 'away' party may feel, having enjoyed the hospitality of
the home party, putting it at a disadvantage in hard bargaining.
In terms of room layout and surroundings what factors should be considered when
preparing for a negotiation? - ANS A relatively comfortable (but business-like and
professional) work environment is conducive to agreement. Again, Steele notes that:
'Negotiators who are cramped, uncomfortable, cold, thirsty, having to balance papers on
their knees are unlikely to give of their best. Indeed they are very likely to become
unco-operative or aggressive. Background noise telephone bells constant interruptions
colleagues peering through windows don't help either. ('Remember to divert calls and
turn your mobile off!')'
More specifically, thought may be given to matters such as:
- Seating arrangements and room layout, which may be used to
Facilitate or hinder collaborative negotiation (eg in terms of proximity or distance
between parties or the convenience with which parties can view visual aids)
Set the tone of the negotiation (eg adversarially facing each other across a physical
barrier such as table, or collaboratively sitting side by side with no intervening barriers)
Signal perceived power or status perceptions (eg status equality provided by a round
table, or the claiming of the 'top' position at the head of a rectangular table - or even the
use of higher or lower chairs to reinforce a perceived power imbalance
- Access to information and communication facilities (eg having files, data projectors,
white boards and other tools to hand)
- The 'tone' set by the venue (eg via lighting, comfort and other attributes) collaborative
or adversarial intimidating power-displaying social, relaxed informal and so on.
, - Tidiness comfort and quality of the room m furniture and facilities which impacts on the
comfort of the participants the image projected by the hosting organisation - and the
impression give of how the negotiation itself is regarded
- Size of the room and number of people it comfortably accommodates. (A small
number of people in a large room which may be intimidating, for example, while a large
number of people in a small room may create pressure to reach a deal quickly, through
sheer discomfort)
- Availability of break-out rooms (for adjournments and confidential side discussions)
- The availability of rest rooms and refreshments for adjournments m breaks - or a
simple glass of water during discussions.
Give reasons why negotiations are often carried out by teams rather than individuals -
ANS Teams are often used in negotiation processes for the following reasons:
- They allow wider contribution of technical knowledge and interpersonal skills and
styles to the negotiation process
- They encourage discussion and information sharing, which may leave room for more
creative and integrative options to emerge (in integrative negotiation).
- The shared responsibility for outcomes places negotiators under less pressure,
allowing less adversarial approaches
- Team members can back each other up and cover each other's mistakes, if necessary
- Team members can take different roles in negotiation (eg soft guy/tough guy) to
support influencing tactics.
List disadvantages of negotiating in teams - ANS Disadvantages to working and
negotiating in teams:
- Group decision-making takes longer especially if the group seeks to teach consensus
by working through disagreements. It will be particularly important for a negotiating team
to ensure that its objectives principles and decisions rules are pre-aligned, as part of the
preparation stage.
- Group working requires a certain amount of attention to group dynamics and group
maintenance processes: this can draw energy away from the task. Again it will be
important to ensure at the preparation stage that the team is capable of working well
together than internal disagreements or conflicts and power issues have been settled
mand that team roles have been clearly defined and established.
- Team decisions have also been shown to be riskier than individual decisions. Shared
responsibility blurs the individuals' sense of responsibility for the outcome of the
decision. Very cohesive groups in particular tend to protect their consensus by ignoring
'outside' information and feedback and by developing stereotyped perceptions of
perceived opponents: they become adversarial, blinkered and over-confident - a
dynamic known as 'group think'.
What factors may give rise to an advantage in negotiating at a 'home' venue? - ANS
Issue here is that in negotiation, as in sport, there is considered a 'home' advantage: a
psychological advantage to the party negotiating on its own turf. This advantage may
arise from any or all of the following:
- Familiarity with the surroundings, facility, culture (in international negotiations) and so
on, treating a psychological 'comfort zone' and confidence which the 'away' party may
lack
- Accessibility of additional resources (information, files, expert advisers, additional
support, personnel and so on), which may be difficult for an 'away' party to carry with
them
- The immediate presence of support networks (one's own organisational stakeholders,
sponsors and champions)
- The sense of obligation that an 'away' party may feel, having enjoyed the hospitality of
the home party, putting it at a disadvantage in hard bargaining.
In terms of room layout and surroundings what factors should be considered when
preparing for a negotiation? - ANS A relatively comfortable (but business-like and
professional) work environment is conducive to agreement. Again, Steele notes that:
'Negotiators who are cramped, uncomfortable, cold, thirsty, having to balance papers on
their knees are unlikely to give of their best. Indeed they are very likely to become
unco-operative or aggressive. Background noise telephone bells constant interruptions
colleagues peering through windows don't help either. ('Remember to divert calls and
turn your mobile off!')'
More specifically, thought may be given to matters such as:
- Seating arrangements and room layout, which may be used to
Facilitate or hinder collaborative negotiation (eg in terms of proximity or distance
between parties or the convenience with which parties can view visual aids)
Set the tone of the negotiation (eg adversarially facing each other across a physical
barrier such as table, or collaboratively sitting side by side with no intervening barriers)
Signal perceived power or status perceptions (eg status equality provided by a round
table, or the claiming of the 'top' position at the head of a rectangular table - or even the
use of higher or lower chairs to reinforce a perceived power imbalance
- Access to information and communication facilities (eg having files, data projectors,
white boards and other tools to hand)
- The 'tone' set by the venue (eg via lighting, comfort and other attributes) collaborative
or adversarial intimidating power-displaying social, relaxed informal and so on.
, - Tidiness comfort and quality of the room m furniture and facilities which impacts on the
comfort of the participants the image projected by the hosting organisation - and the
impression give of how the negotiation itself is regarded
- Size of the room and number of people it comfortably accommodates. (A small
number of people in a large room which may be intimidating, for example, while a large
number of people in a small room may create pressure to reach a deal quickly, through
sheer discomfort)
- Availability of break-out rooms (for adjournments and confidential side discussions)
- The availability of rest rooms and refreshments for adjournments m breaks - or a
simple glass of water during discussions.
Give reasons why negotiations are often carried out by teams rather than individuals -
ANS Teams are often used in negotiation processes for the following reasons:
- They allow wider contribution of technical knowledge and interpersonal skills and
styles to the negotiation process
- They encourage discussion and information sharing, which may leave room for more
creative and integrative options to emerge (in integrative negotiation).
- The shared responsibility for outcomes places negotiators under less pressure,
allowing less adversarial approaches
- Team members can back each other up and cover each other's mistakes, if necessary
- Team members can take different roles in negotiation (eg soft guy/tough guy) to
support influencing tactics.
List disadvantages of negotiating in teams - ANS Disadvantages to working and
negotiating in teams:
- Group decision-making takes longer especially if the group seeks to teach consensus
by working through disagreements. It will be particularly important for a negotiating team
to ensure that its objectives principles and decisions rules are pre-aligned, as part of the
preparation stage.
- Group working requires a certain amount of attention to group dynamics and group
maintenance processes: this can draw energy away from the task. Again it will be
important to ensure at the preparation stage that the team is capable of working well
together than internal disagreements or conflicts and power issues have been settled
mand that team roles have been clearly defined and established.
- Team decisions have also been shown to be riskier than individual decisions. Shared
responsibility blurs the individuals' sense of responsibility for the outcome of the
decision. Very cohesive groups in particular tend to protect their consensus by ignoring
'outside' information and feedback and by developing stereotyped perceptions of
perceived opponents: they become adversarial, blinkered and over-confident - a
dynamic known as 'group think'.
