广药国际商务谈判.docx

第一NegotiationsNegotiations occur for several reasons: To agree on how to share or divide a limited resource To create something new that neither party could attain on his or her own To resolve a problem or dispute between the partiesApproach to the SubjectMost people think bargaining and negotiation mean the same thing; however, we will be distinctive about the way we use these two words: Bargaining: describes the competitive, win-lose situation Negotiation: refers to win-win situations such as those that occur when parties try to find a mutually acceptable solution to a complex conflictThree Important Themes1. The definition of negotiation and the basic characteristics of negotiation situations2. Interdependence, the relationship between people and groups that most often leads them to negotiate3. Understanding the dynamics of conflict and conflict management processes which serve as a backdrop for different ways that people approach and manage negotiationsCharacteristics of a Negotiation Situation There are two or more parties There is a conflict of needs and desires between two or more parties Parties negotiate because they think they can get a better deal than by simply accepting what the other side offers them Parties expect a “give-and-take” process Parties search for agreement rather than:Fight openlyCapitulate (give in)Break off contact permanentlyTake their dispute to a third party Successful negotiation involves:Management of tangibles (e.g., the price or the terms of agreement)Resolution of intangibles (the underlying psychological motivations) such as winning, losing, saving faceInterdependenceIn negotiation, parties need each other to achieve their preferred outcomes or objectives This mutual dependency is called interdependence Interdependent goals are an important aspect of negotiationWin-lose: I win, you loseWin-win: Opportunities for both parties to gain Interdependent parties are characterized by interlocking goals Having interdependent goals does not mean that everyone wants or needs exactly the same thing A mix of convergent and conflicting goals characterizes many interdependent relationshipsTypes of Interdependence Affect Outcomes Interdependence and the structure of the situation shape processes and outcomesZero-sum or distributive one winnerNon -zero-sum or integrative mutual gains situationAlternatives Shape Interdependence Evaluating interdependence depends heavily on the alternatives to working together The desirability to work together is better for outcomes Best available alternative: BATNA (acronym for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)Mutual Adjustment Continues throughout the negotiation as both parties act to influence the other One of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation The effective negotiator needs to understand how people will adjust and readjust and how the negotiations might twist and turn, based on ones own moves and the others responsesMutual Adjustment and Concession Making When one party agrees to make a change in his/her position, a concession has been made Concessions restrict the range of options When a concession is made, the bargaining range is further constrainedTwo Dilemmas in Mutual Adjustment Dilemma of honestyConcern about how much of the truth to tell the other party Dilemma of trustConcern about how much should negotiators believe what the other party tells themValue Claiming and Value Creation Opportunities to “win” or share resources Claiming value: result of zero-sum or distributive situations where the object is to gain largest piece of resource Creating value: result of non-zero-sum or integrative situation where the object is to have both parties do well Most actual negotiations are a combination of claiming and creating value processes Negotiators must be able to recognize situations that require more of one approach than the other Negotiators must be versatile in their comfort and use of both major strategic approaches Negotiator perceptions of situations tend to be biased toward seeing problems as more distributive/competitive than they really areValue differences that exist between negotiators include: Differences in interest Differences in judgments about the future Differences in risk tolerance Differences in time preferencesConflictConflict may be defined as a: sharp disagreement or opposition and includes the perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneouslyLevels of Conflict Intrapersonal or intrapsychic conflictConflict that occurs within an individualWe want an ice cream cone badly, but we know that ice cream is very fattening Interpersonal conflictConflict is between individualsConflict between bosses and subordinates, spouses, siblings, roommates, etc. Intragroup ConflictConflict is within a groupAmong team and committee members, within families, classes etc. Intergroup ConflictConflict can occur between organizations, warring nations, feuding families, or within splintered, fragmented communitiesThese negotiations are the most complexDysfunctions of Conflict1. Competitive, win-lose goals2. Misperception and bias3. Emotionality4. Decreased communication5. Blurred issues6. Rigid commitments7. Magnified differences, minimized similarities8. Escalation of conflictFunctions of Conflict1. Makes organizational members more aware and able to cope with problems through discussion.2. Promises organizational change and adaptation.3. Strengthens relationships and heightens morale.4. Promotes awareness of self and others.5. Enhances personal development.6. Encourages psychological developmentit helps people become more accurate and realistic in their self-appraisals.7. Can be stimulating and fun.Styles of Conflict ManagementContending Actors pursue own outcomes strongly, show little concern for other party obtaining their desired outcomes2.Yielding Actors show little interest in whether they attain own outcomes, but are quite interested in whether the other party attains their outcomes3.Inaction Actors show little interest in whether they attain own outcomes, and little concern about whether the other party obtains their outcomes4.Problem solving Actors show high concern in obtaining own outcomes, as well as high concern for the other party obtaining their outcomes5.Compromising Actors show moderate concern in obtaining own outcomes, as well as moderate concern for the other party obtaining their outcomes第二Three Reasons Negotiators Should Be Familiar with Distributive Bargaining1. Independent situations require knowing how this works in order to do well2. Need to know how to counter the effects of the strategies3. Every situation has the potential to require skills at the “claiming-value” stageThe Distributive Bargaining Situation Goals of one party are in fundamental, direct conflict to another party Resources are fixed and limited Maximizing ones own share of resources is the goal for both partiesPreparationset a Target point, aspiration point Walkaway, resistance point Asking price, initial offerThe Role of Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement Alternatives give the negotiator power to walk away from the negotiation If alternatives are attractive, negotiators can:Set their goals higherMake fewer concessionsIf there are no attractive alternatives:Negotiators have much less bargaining powerFundamental Strategies Push for settlement near opponents resistance point Get the other party to change their resistance point If settlement range is negative, either:Get the other side to change their resistance pointModify your own resistance point Convince the other party that the settlement is the best possibleKeys to the StrategiesThe keys to implementing any of the four strategies are: Discovering the other partys resistance point Influencing the other partys resistance pointFour Propositions That Suggest How the Keys Affect the Process1. The higher the other partys estimate of your cost of delay or impasse, the stronger the other partys resistance point will be.2. The higher the other partys estimate of his or her own cost of delay or impasse, the weaker the other partys resistance point will be.3. The less the other party values an issue, the lower their resistance point will be.4. The more the other party believes that you value an issue, the lower their resistance point may be.Tactical Tasks of Negotiators Assess outcome values and the costs of termination for the other party Manage the other partys impressions Modify the other partys perceptions Manipulate the actual costs of delay or terminationAssess the Other Partys Target, Resistance Point, and Costs of Terminating Negotiations IndirectlyDetermine information opponent used to set:TargetResistance points DirectlyOpponent reveals the informationManage the Other Partys Impressions Screen your behavior:Say and do as little as possibleDirect action to alter impressionsPresent facts that enhance ones positionModify the Other Partys Perceptions Make outcomes appear less attractive Make the cost of obtaining goals appear higher Make demands and positions appear more or less attractive to the other party whichever suits your needsManipulate the Actual Costs of Delay or Termination Plan disruptive actionRaise the costs of delay to the other party Form an alliance with outsidersInvolve (or threaten to involve) other parties who can influence the outcome in your favor Schedule manipulationsOne party is usually more vulnerable to delaying than the otherPositions Taken During Negotiations Opening offerWhere will you start? Opening stanceWhat is your attitude? Competitive? Moderate? Initial concessionsShould any be made? If so, how large? The role of concessionsWithout them, there is either capitulation or deadlock Patterns of concession makingThe pattern contains valuable information Final offers (making a commitment)“This is all I can do”Commitments: Tactical Considerations Establishing a commitmentThree properties: FinalitySpecificity Consequences Preventing the other party from committing prematurelyTheir commitment reduces your flexibilityWays to Create a Commitment Public pronouncement Linking with an outside base Increase the prominence of demands Reinforce the threat or promiseCommitments: Tactical Considerations Ways to abandon a committed positionPlan a way outLet it die silentlyRestate the commitment in more general termsMinimize the damage to the relationship if the other backs offClosing the Deal Provide alternatives: Assume the close Split the difference Exploding offers Deal sweetenersDealing with Typical Hardball Tactics Four main options:Ignore themDiscuss themRespond in kindCo-opt the other party (befriend them)Typical Hardball Tactics Good Cop/Bad Cop Lowball/Highball Bogey (playing up an issue of little importance) The Nibble (asking for a number of small concessions to) Chicken Intimidation (anger, legitimacy, guilt) Aggressive Behavior Snow Job (overwhelm the other party with information)SummaryNegotiators need to: Set a clear target and resistance points Understand and work to improve their BATNA Start with good opening offer Make appropriate concessions Manage the commitment process第三章What Makes Integrative Negotiation Different? Focus on commonalties rather than differences Address needs and interests, not positions Commit to meeting the needs of all involved parties Exchange information and ideas Invent options for mutual gain Use objective criteria to set standardsOverview of the Integrative Negotiation Process Create a free flow of information Attempt to understand the other negotiators real needs and objectives Emphasize the commonalties between the parties and minimize the differences Search for solutions that meet the goals and objectives of both sidesKey Steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process Identify and define the problem Understand the problem fullyidentify interests and needs on both sides Generate alternative solutions Evaluate and select among alternativesIdentify and Define the Problem Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles in attaining this goal Depersonalize the problem Separate the problem definition from the search for solutionsUnderstand the Problem FullyIdentify Interests and Needs Interests: the underlying concerns, needs, desires, or fears that motivate a negotiator Substantive interests relate to key issues in the negotiationProcess interests are related to the way the dispute is settledRelationship interests indicate that one or both parties value their relationshipInterests in principle: doing what is fair, right, acceptable, ethical may be shared by the partiesObservations on Interests There is almost always more than one Parties can have different interests at stake Often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values Can change Numerous ways to surface interests Surfacing interests is not always easy or to ones best advantageGenerate Alternative Solutions Invent options by redefining the problem set:Expand or modify the pieLogrollUse nonspecific compensationCut the costs for complianceFind a bridge solution Generate options to the problem as a given:BrainstormingSurveysElectronic brainstormingEvaluate and Select Alternatives Narrow the range of solution options Evaluate solutions on: Quality Objective standardsAcceptability Agree to evaluation criteria in advance Be willing to justify personal preferences Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selecting options Use subgroups to evaluate complex options Take time to “cool off” Explore different ways to logroll Exploit differences in expectations and risk/time preferences Keep decisions tentative and conditional until a final proposal is complete Minimize formality, record keeping until final agreements are closedFactors That Facilitate Successful Integrative Negotiation Some common objective or goal Faith in ones own problem-solving ability A belief in the validity of ones own position and the others perspective The motivation and commitment to work together Trust Clear and accurate communication An understanding of the dynamics of integrative negotiationWhy Integrative Negotiation Is Difficult to Achieve The history of the relationship between the partiesIf contentious in past, it is difficult not to look at negotiations as win-lose The belief that an issue can only be resolved distributivelyNegotiators are biased to avoid behaviors necessary for integrative negotiation The mixed-motive nature of most negotiating situationsPurely integrative or purely distributive situations are rare The conflict over the distributive issues tends to drive out cooperation, trust needed for finding integrative solutions第四章Goals The Focus That Drives Negotiation Strategy Determining goals is the first step in the negotiation process Negotiators should specify goals and objectives clearly The goals set have direct and indirect effects on the negotiators strategyThe Direct and Indirect Effects of Goals on Strategy Direct effectsWishes are not goalsGoals are often linked to the other partys goalsThere are limits to what goals can beEffective goals must be concrete/specific Indirect effectsForging an ongoing relationshipStrategy versus Tactics Strategy: The overall plan to achieve ones goals in a negotiation Tactics: Short-term, adaptive moves designed to enact or pursue broad strategiesTactics are subordinate to strategyTactics are driven by strategy Planning: The “action” component of the strategy process; i.e. how will I implement the strategy?Approaches to Strategy Unilateral: One that is made without active involvement of the other party Bilateral: One that considers the impact of the others strategy on ones ownStrategic Options Per the Dual Concerns Model, choice of strategy is reflected in the answers to two questions:How much concern do I have in achieving my desired outcomes at stake in the negotiation?How much concern do I have for the current and future quality of the relationship with the other party?The Non-engagement Strategy: Avoidance If one is able to meet ones needs without negotiating at all, it may make sense to use an avoidance strategy It simply may not be worth the time and effort to negotiate The decision to negotiate is closely related to the desirability of available alternativesActive-Engagement Strategies Competition distributive, win-lose bargaining Collaboration integrative, win-win negotiation Accommodation involves an imbalance of outcomes (“I lose, you win”)Understanding the Flow of Negotiations: Stages and Phases How does the interaction between parties change over time? How do the interaction processes relate to inputs and outcomes over time? How do the tactics affect the development of the negotiation?Negotiation proceeds through distinct phases or stages Begi