Social Value Orientation

Self-Efficacy

Machiavellianism

Big 5

Affirm women's perceived community and concern for others

-Appeal to common goals

-Explain assertive behavior, focus on the position rather than the gender of the negotiator

Pro-self: concerned about personal outcomes; happier with the outcomes they received for themselves, because they are focused on themselves and have only themselves to rely on for satisfaction with outcomes

Pro-social: concerned with outcomes that benefit both yourself and others (usually the group you're invovled with); reach more integrative outcomes.

High in Machivellianism:

--Cynical about others motives

--More likely to be unaltruistic and unsympathetic

--More likely to approve of deceptive tactics or lying in  negotiations

--Do well in distributive situations

Extraversion and Agreeableness:

--Liability in distributive negotiations

-----Willing to accept offers as anchors

--No strong effect in integrative negotiations

Asset in integrative

No impact in distributive

Reinforce behaviors that expand the pie

Be immediate when doing so

Be clear and simple

Rewar Bxs not underlying states

Build a cooperative foundation without giving up any of the ZOPA

     -Smiling, nodding, maintaining eye contact

1. Build of differences; bet on the future don't argue over it
2. Diagnoses the honesty of the other side
3. Reduce risks through risk sharing
4. Increases incentives of party's to perform
5. manage decisin-making biases
6. Solves problems of trust

1. Look for issues that can be traded off to create value
2. Add issues that benefit both parties
3. Search for differences in: (for contingent contracts)
1. Time
2. Risk
3. Expectations

Short-term: receiver places more value on the favor

Long-term: Favor giver places more value on the favor

1. Questions not commands
2. Use the word "because"
3. "Put yourself in my shoes"

Don't give in to anger, respond calmly

Never make unilateral concessions. 

Good Cop/Bad Cop:

How to handle?

Responses to avoid?

Weaknesses of the tactic?

Assume all are bad guys

Suggest recess to consider the new demands but offer no concessions on your part

Bring in your own bad guy

Accepting the ploy and walking away from mutually beneficial agreement

Falling victim to the attack and making serious concessions

Weak: transparent adn hard to enact convincingly

State demands in a way that is more general and favorable to you

State an objective of fairness

Counter with opposite anchor

Make a joke about the offer

Perceive it as a part of the negotiation process rather than a substitute for negotiation

Ask for a reciprocal 

Avoid making unilateral concessions

Weak bc it ofen leads to resentment and damages future relationships

Limited Authority

Qualifying the negotiator first is best defense, "are they really the decision-maker?"

Ask to meet with the other party

Avoid giving in to the demands in fear of losing the deal

Weak bc it can cause considerable annoyance because people may have perceived the tentative deal as final agreement

Reciorocation

Be 1st to give: service information and concessions

Rule of the rare

Emphasize: genuine scarcity

Unique features

exclusive information

Showing knowledge

Establish position through:

Professionalism

Industry knowledge

Credentials

Admitting weaknesses 1st

The starting point 

Start:

small and build

with existing commitements

From public positions

Toward voluntary choices

Making friends and influencing people

Uncover:

Simialarities

Areas for genuine compliments

Opportunities for cooperation

People proof, people power

Unleash people power by showing:

Repsonses by many others

Others' past successors

Testimonials of similar others