Change management paper

Integrative Bargaining

· Instead of “How can do you get a bigger chunk by taking it away from someone else?” it became “How can we change the pie so that we both get what we want?”

· History

· (1949) Follette: arbitrator who settled labor disputes…she wrote an article about finding creative integrative solutions

· 1965 some people picked up on these ideas

· 1980s Pruitt, Filley, Fischer & Ury

· Three Approaches

· Conflict Styles Approach

· Accomodative/Smoothing:

· believe that disagreeing with someone means that you don’t like them

· people like these people

· feelers

· Competitive

· belief: every dispute involves one party who is right and one party who is wrong

· believe they are always right

· it is the obligation of those who are right to change the behavior of those who are wrong

· grad student who couldn’t let other grad student enter data in a less efficient way

· thinkers, cognitively simple

· Compromise

· Tend to end up splitting the pie

· belief: problem is that everyone wants too much

· Avoidant

· belief: conflict is not solvable

· tend to be open minded

· impersonal tolerance: live and let live…let everyone do what they want as long as they don’t influence me.

· Major Major from Catch 22

· introverts

· Collabrative

· I want to get as much as I can get, but I want you to get as much as you can get too

· look for the creative solution

· willing to spend a lot of time

· thinkers, most cognitively complex, extroverts

· Procedures Approach: Filley

· 3 Sets of Procedures

· Win/Lose (fall nicely into distributive bargaining

· Rely on Authority to determine who will win: winner is person with the most power.

· Majority Rule: Sounds more democratic, but unless you have consensus, those not in the majority do not get what they want.

· Minority Rule: A small group makes the decision.

· Rely on Experts: not everyone knows the answer so we depend on those with the most knowledge. (Can easily turn into minority rule).

· Roloff sometimes does this

· The people with the most physical power decide

· Smartest decide

· Lose/Lose: both parties give something up

· Compromise: both parties gain something, but both parties give up something too

· Rely on rules: Determine outcome based on previously set rules…you don’t consider both parties needs nor maximize the outcome.

· Side payments (bribe): something on the side that gives the person a reason to comply. Neither side is really accepting this because of the terms of the agreement…they are doing it for outside reasons.

· Bring in Third Parties: (This is ironic because Filley makes part of his living off of this). You are losing because you have to pay the third party and you are losing control over the outcome

· Win/Win

· (Another one we will talk about later in mediation)

· Consensus Decision Making: A procedure that leads to integrative decisions

· Adopt a procedure with no voting and endless discussion

· Don’t move ahead until everyone agrees that this is the solution

· NU worked on this model ( superficial consensus right before the deadline

· Quakers in Philadelphia

· Implied coercion: you keep talking until everyone else gives up.

Strategy Approach

· Pruitt(author) – Logrolling

· General Characteristics of an Integrative agreement

· Yields high joint benefits

· Both get what we want, or more than we expected

· Solution is Non-Obvious

· Essentially the negotiators did not know the outcome in advance

· Specific Types of Integrative agreements

· Cost cutting agreement

· Not tangible, its related to reducing loss of face (image)

· 2 types

· Precedent Setting

· If an agreement is reached, I could be setting precedent with them or other people in the future

· If its set, it reduces my autonomy

· How to address this concern

· Private

· Pledge secrecy

· Explicitly deny precedent setting (doesn’t always work)

· Joke about the precedent setting

· Look Weak

· Don’t want to feel that the other party feels weak

· How to minimize other party feeling weak

· Support that person’s image of strength

· Attribute compliance to a pro-social motive

· Make the request sound urgent (so big that noone could turn this down and feel weak)

· Make the request sound small

· Make the request sound normative (people routinely grant it

· Make it sound like it is the target’s idea

· Negotiate in private

· Want to be able to facilitate the target’s ability to say yes

· Logrolling

· I have made concessions on issues that don’t mean much to me, in order to get concessions that matter to me

· Grew out of politics

· Must be multiple issues on the table of different priority

· Non Specific Compensation

· Offer a new item to the negotiation

· Often looks like a bribe (which Filley doesn’t like)

· Its added after the fact

· If we realize we have the same priorities we can add some more stuff

· Figuring out what to offer

· Must provide adequate compensation (i.e. using Foa and Foa’s)

· Bridging

· Highly creative solution

· Not restricted by rules or convention

· What conditions need to be met?

· Talking is better than written

· Be a creative person

· Highly dogmatic people are not very creative (don’t have great senses of humor)

· Re-Opener Agreement

· Ability to open the agreement later and re-negotiate

· Try it and see if it works or you can consider it again later

· If you know they can change their mind in the future, you might not want to put enough into the agreement to make it work

· Unlinking Agreement: pull issues off the table.

· used when there are multiple issues, most of which we can agree on, and one that we will never reach an agreement on and it is preventing us from making progress

· ways to do it

· Reach a partial agreement: agree to disagree

· Takes a high degree of maturity

· Fractionazation: take a complex proposal, break it into its parts and look at each part separately

· can be hard: hiring a new faculty member from another department

· Remove the chance of precedent

· Similar to cost-cutting strategy

· Remove someone from the decision process (i.e. if they are strongly attached to a problematic issue)

· Professor who had trained noone to take his place and decided to retire

· Contingent Agreements: you get something if something specific happens in the future

· athletes salaries are contingent upon performance.

· I’ll pay you that much if you can prove you are worth that much

· Conditions for integrative bargaining

· Must be multiple issues on the table

· Packages: jobs…salary, benefits, etc.

· Search Model

· Can prepare before you go into negotiation

· What it generally looks like

· Set a goal (similar to level of aspiration)

· Identify all of the ways the opponent can meet that goal

· Prioritize each of the means by which you can meet the larger goal

· If they reject the package, don’t lower your goal, just shift the weight across the other ways you indentified

· Strategies

· information exchange

· it is more important to disclose info about priorities than goals

· it is better to ask questions than to disclose info

· signals to the other side that you care about them

· use of numerical info (as opposed to feelings) is helpful if you are a number person, otherwise it doesn’t make much of a difference

· what do all of these have in common

· explicit: tell specific info about priorities, etc.

· direct and efficient

· doesn’t address what happens if there is low trust

· what to do if there is low trust

· implied: hinting enough to make inferences

· good if you don’t trust eachother.

· Talk time: spend most of your time talking about the most important issues

· Directed attention: don’t tell them what the priority is, but point out what area of the offer could be improved

· Show enthusiasm when discussing their high priority issue

· Don’t work well if the other person doesn’t see these implied methods

· Contentiousness

· Being argumentative

· Being coercive

· Reduces the likelihood of finding an integrative agreement

· What is the best way to be tough

· Avoid challenging their needs ( instead challenge the desirability/workability of their offer

· Signal flexibility while engaging in contentious behavior

· Remind the other side that you want to reach an agreement

· Be contentious at different points in the negotiation

· Phase 1: Tough (high contentiousness)

· Sets an impression

· Phase 2: Problem solvers

· bargaining strategy

· logrolling

· low priority concession making

· sequential strategy: go issue by issue reaching an agreement. You can return to an earlier issue

· takes a long time

· if you can’t reach an agreement on one, you might get hung up talking about one issue

· what if there is low trust? (

· heuristic trial and error: routinely refuse to make concessions on high priority issues and only make concessions on the low priority issues

· works even in low trust situations

· flexible rigidity: flexible as to the means of goal attainment, but rigid as to the goal itself

· rigid rigidity (here’s what I want and here is the only way to achieve it) is bad because you have trouble reaching a goal

· flexible flexibility is bad because you give up to much and walk away with a bad agreement

· How do I stay rigid to my goals?

· Have high goals (levels of aspiration)

· Tend to spend more effort to achieve them

· If you are accountable to a constituency

· If you represent someone else, you can’t automatically lower your goal as easily

· How do you stay flexible in your means of goal attainment?

· Have a problem solving orientation: care about the relationship with the other person

· Think about the future and dealing with this other party again

· Fisher & Ury: Interest Negotiation (Getting to Yes)

· Positional (Soft and Tough) vs. Principaled

· Positional: exchange of offers

· Principaled: interest (what you really want to get out of the negotiation) focused

· Difficult to figure out what an interest is because it keeps changing

· Positional Approach

Ask questions and paraphrased

· Criticism: “this is unrealistic as hell”

· What you do if they won’t engage in Principaled Negotiation?

· Don’t push back

· Identify the tactic, condmen it, but don’t condemn them

· Invite criticism

· Ask Questions/Paraphrase: they get a chance to correct you and shows that you’ve been listening

· develop a BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)

· what can you do if you don’t reach an agreement

· don’t use it as a weapon…it is a shield not a sword: it keeps you confident so that the other side can’t intimidate you

· Ury & Brown: Working Together

· Two fundamental problems that lead to bad relationships

· Assumed similarity: we tend to assume others think just like we do

· Expect reciprocity: if we do nice things for other people, they will do something nice back

· What should you do?: Respond in a counter-intuitive way

· If they are irrational ( you should stay rational

· If they misunderstand you ( try to understand them

· refuse to talk to you ( try to talk to them

· If they are unreliable ( try to be reliable

· If they are coercive ( remain noncoercive

· If they reject you ( try to accept them

· Fisher & Brown: Getting Past No: Dealing With Difficult People

· If you are dealing with an overly competitive person

· don’t react: “Go to the balcony” or take a time-out

· If you are dealing with the other person’s negative emotion

· step to their side and try to discover what their interest must be

· Other person’s positional behavior (won’t talk about interests just keep making offers)

· change the game by reframing it

· they are skeptical about your offers

· “build them a golden bridge”: get them involved in constructing their offer so that they see that it meets their interests

· they have more power than you

· bring them to their senses, not to their knees

· don’t be afraid to consult your BATNA

· Jerky Personalities

· Machiavellians (Christie & Geiss)

· Based on Machiavelli’s The Prince

· maintain emotional control: don’t get angry, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t act like they’re angry

· low ideological commitment: don’t believe in any value system or beliefs. Can change ideologies easily

· low commitment to social morality: don’t have any sense of ethics… “unencumbered by ethics”

· deceptive

· do NOT suffer from gross psycho-pathology: they’re not psychotic or neurotic

· three types of high machs

· They share one belief system: they are all cynical.

· But they vary in how they cope with this cynicism.

· Some become fatalistic, tending towards low self-esteem. They feel there is nothing they can do to protect themselves, so they get ahead in the world by becoming friends with powerful people. (They are suck ups.)

· Some become competitive. Tend towards high self-esteem. Primary way of getting what they want: deceit (lying or ingratiation).

· Some become extremely religious. They are usually heavily involved in the religion, even if they don’t believe in the underlying moral system. They tend towards more dogmatic, orthodox religions.

· Assumed that high machs would be more effective in negotiation…sometimes

· Depends what the outcomes look like

· When there is no value to winning…no difference between high and low machs

· As you increase the outcomes, high machs become more successful negotiators than low machs

· ( high machs don’t exhibit these personality traits unless the outcome is of value to them

· when high machs are paid on commission they are more productive than low machs…if they are paid on a flat rate, low and high machs are equally productive

· Northwestern has a higher percentage of Machiavellians than the rest of the world.

· There are some occupations that attract high mach ( attorneys, sales people, and politicians

· How does this play out in negotiations (about money)? High Macs ...

· talk less about money than low Macs.

· focus more on establishing their strength

· spend less time talking about the future of the relationship.

· tend not to use plural pronouns like they, their, them, and us.

· made fewer concessions.

· ask more questions than low Macs

· changed their facial affect more

· expressed more anger in the negotiation

· varied their pitch level

· are more likely to misrepresent facts

· If you can show that what you are doing is in their best interest, they will do it

· Once you get them on board, watch them because they might not follow through get everything in writing.

· Narcissist:

· Characteristics:

· Highly self absorbed. Spend more time thinking about themselves.

· Usually men.

· Low in empathy.

· Very high in self-confidence.

· Tend to accomplish their goals.

· Two types:

· Grandiose: blowhards. “I am so wonderful. You are so lucky to have me.” Exude a strong confidence level. High self-esteem.

· Insecure: low self-esteem. Always afraid that no one likes them, doesn’t understand why people wouldn’t like them. They keep trying to get people to like them.

· The more narcissistic the president, the more calls for impeachment, the more scandals.

· Narcissists have a tendency to blame other people for failures

· If they don’t succeed, they get momentarily depressed, but then they bounce back by blaming others

· When things aren’t going well, they’ll say “I don’t understand why people aren’t hearing me”

· How do you negotiate with them?

· They don’t respond well to attacks

· They see anything you say that is unsupportive as an identity attack

· They are good at negotiating tangibles (eg money)

· They are terrible at negotiating intangibles (eg face issues)

· The only thing that seems to work with narcissists in negotiating is to feed their egos—which sucks for you because you need to tell them they’re great when you think they’re really not

· Psychopaths: (non-clinical, psycho-pathological; they are not nice people but they don’t qualify for incarceration or extreme medication)

· Like high Machiavellians and narcissists, they have low or no empathy

· No ability to step outside themselves and

understand how other people are seeing their

actions. They will screw you over impulsively

without planning.

· Like Machiavellians, they lie

· Unlike the other two, psychopaths are sensation seekers/thrill seekers

· The individuals who are psychopaths don’t plan,

they act impulsively

· They act with a great deal of self confidence

· Sometimes we’re drawn to psychopaths because

they are so impulsive. They have that high degree of

self confidence that actually draws us to them.

· How do you negotiate with them?

· Psychopaths tend to do well in negotiation, even better than narcissists and Machiavellians.

· Like with the narcissists, they do better with tangibles.

· CEO’s score higher on psychopathy tests than known criminals.

· MR: I have not been able to find a single study that explains what to do with psychopaths other than avoid them.

High self-monitors

a. Characteristics:

i. Primary motivation: high concern for social appropriateness.

1. Don’t want to offend anyone.

2. Social chameleons. “What should I be in this situation?”

ii. Very socially skilled

1. Very good at managing others’ impressions of them

a. Aren’t always going to be projecting the truth

iii. Do what they do because they believe it is the right thing to do in a particular situation

iv. Don’t lie for personal gain (unlike Machs). They lie only when it’s the socially appropriate thing to do.

v. Tend to be extroverted

vi. Tend to be found in politics

b. Low self-monitors: primary motivation is honesty. “How best can I convey who I am?”

i. Characteristics:

1. Lower social skills

2. Tend to be introverted

3. Concerned with consistency, particularly re: values. Always do the same thing, reflecting their values.

a. Have to appeal to their values to get them to change.

4. Overly honest. Tell you exactly what they they think and feel.

5. Very loyal people

c. Benefits of high self monitors

i. Socially skilled; charming. People tend to like them.

ii. As a result, very effective at getting concessions

1. Ex: high self monitors are more likely to be promoted because they do many favors for other people. Others tend to feel indebted to them.

d. Downsides of high self monitors

i. As mentioned above, engage in rapport-building behaviors → you end up making more concessions

ii. Not loyal. Tend to bend to the circumstances.

1. Study found that high self-monitors who were in a relationship were more likely to accept a date invitation from someone else. Rationale was they didn’t want to offend the person asking them out. The situation was more important than the commitment they had made.

· Dogmatism (Rokeach)

· Built onto authoritiism

· Close minded, regardless of your political stance

· reject alternative belief systems: believe there is only one way to look at things

· in interviews they will ask questions about beliefs and won’t recommend you if your beliefs are different from theirs

· believe authorities: they tend to accept authority figures

· future oriented: low dogs focus on past, present, and future. High dogs only think about the future

· uncreative: cognitively simple (can’t view things from multiple angles and perspectives)

· problems in negotiation

· not good at integrative bargaining

· can’t find non-obvious solutions

· in distributive bargaining

· make few concessions

· try to be threatening and use coercion

· view compromise as defeat

· how to deal with them in negotiation

· try to show your similarity to them

· align yourself with authority figures they respect

· Verbally Aggressive

· primary way of getting what they want is to insult other people

· how did they get this way?

· they were raised in families with aggressive people

· it works ( they get what they want by acting in a verbally aggressive way

· two-faced orientation – they believe that they way they insult others it is not as bad as if it came back to them

· aren’t very good at reasoning and logic

· cognitively simple ( substitute intimidation for reasoning

· what are their methods?

· They attack character

· They attack competency

· what to do?

· fighting back does not help because they view it as an overreaction and see themselves as the victim of your aggression

· instead, maintain composure and stay focused on the issue without losing it.

Psychopaths.

Jerky Behavior

· Good Guy/Bad Guy Strategy

· Police interrogation

· Does it matter what the order is?

· Bad guy, then good guy is better than the other way around…Why?

· When the bad guy comes in we lower out level of aspiration and then the good guy capitalizes on low level of aspiration

· You feel so kindly toward the good guy that you feel obligated to reach an agreement

· We are so afraid of the bad guy, we reach an agreement with the good guy to avoid the bad guy coming back

· The more times someone confronts this strategy, the less they are effected by it

· Common Value Strategy

· You pretend to be interested in something to manipulate the other person into giving you what you really want

· Two ways to do this

· Sin of Commission: walk in and lie about your priorities

· Sin of Omission: allow other party to continue their misperception

· Sin of Omission is more common

· Best way to deal with this is to directly confront them

· Sand Bagging Strategy

· Pretend to be in a weakened condition to get concessions from the other side

· People tended to make concessions

· Who is most likely to use this strategy?

· Low machs tend to sandbag more than high machs

· Emotional Display Strategy

· Using emotion to get what you want

· when someone loses it during the negotiation, shouting increases concession making

Conflict Escalation

· In Process

· Avoid

· Overmatching: they threaten to do something to you and you counter with a worse threat

· What Works

· Reciprocate, but condemn: They threaten you and you respond in kind, but indicate that you did not want to

· You indicate that you are strong and not easily pushed around

· Also indicate that you don’t think this is a good way to continue

· Ignore, but condemn: They threaten you and you don’t reciprocate, but you condemn it

· Doesn’t work as well as reciprocating because you don’t demonstrate strength

· After the Negotiation

· GRIT (Graduated Reduction In Tension) Osgood ( Post Cold War

· Lack of Trust: primary problem with the conflict escalation

· A unilateral strategy

· A public official announces the desire to reduce tension

· announces a unilateral concession

· the concession must be specific

· One side could offer to destroy a certain weapons system

· invite verification

· it must be carried out on time

· These first five steps are to establish objective credibility

· announce another concession, regardless of what they do

· it takes a while to build back trust

· eventually invite, but do not demand reciprocation

· diversify concessions

· don’t make all of your concessions in one military area so that you are not incapable of retaliation

· gauge and match future concessions for risk

· (eventually if the other side doesn’t step up, you have to be willing to walk away and now it is their problem

· Never got to test this in a macro sense, but did test it in the lab

· Which steps are most critical?

· public announcement of desire to reduce tension

· specific concessions

· it must be carried out on time

· invite, but don’t demand concessions

· gauging the risk ( if you keep making concessions without reciprocation, you make yourself vulnerable

· How do you get the two parties that are escalating together as a third party?

· Intractable Disputes: two parties have dug in and refuse to move

· Coleman: Intractable Dispute flow from the following things:

· They involve values

· Issues are central to the parties (i.e. security, land, etc.)

· Typically involve coercion and losses

· They’ve been going on a long time and the parties are really hurting eachother

· Typically involve support

· Someone is willing to provide the parties support

· Ripeness: is the conflict ripe for resolution?

· A couple of ways this occurs

· Denial of resources (external)

· The ongoing dispute in Ireland

· Internal Dissent

· As long as enough people think that the fight is winnable, it will keep going

· Vietnam

concern for relationship or other’s outcomes

accommodative/smoothing/obliging/yielding

avoidant/inaction

Desire to Win: Concern for own outcomes

competitive/forcing

compromise/middle of the road

Collaborative/problem solving

feelers

thinkers

cognitively complex

cognitively simple

introvert

extrovert

Positional Negotiation

Soft

Tough

friends

make concessions

adversarial

soft on problem and opponent

demand concessions

Hard on problem and opponent

inherently trusting

never trust anyone

Goal: reach an agreement

Goal: Win the negotiation

Principaled Negotiation

explore alternatives

Hard on problem, but soft on opponent

Concept of trust is irrelevant