Educate yourself on Dental Clinics in Arizona

Background and Negotiation Description This is an example of a fixed pie negotiation because all the resources were distributive. That is there was only a fixed amount of resources to spread between the woman and myself. She had a certain amount of cash and we were negotiating over how much of that cash she would pay me for the John Olerud card. This can also be called be called a zero sum game. Having only distributive resources available to us, we were competing in a win/lose negotiation. Her loss was my gain and vice versa. Even though this was a win/lose negotiation, the woman and I had to come to joint decision since both parties are dependent on each other for a deal to take place; no one side has all the power. In contrast to me situation, some negotiations have integrative resources that can be brought into the negotiation. These resources can often provide substantial value to one side while imposing no or a minimal cost the other side. This kind of negotiation is also referred to expanded pie or variable sum. This is because the total "pie" or "sum" of value available to both parties can be expanded through bringing in new, often creative resources. There probably were ways that the woman and I could have added value for each other in the negotiation with little cost to the other party. Unfortunately, we were so focused on our positional bargaining that the existence of only two resources occupied the forefront of both our minds: my baseball card, and her cash. I did not predetermine a BATNA, target point or reservation point before this negotiation. My BATNA would have been a difficult number find. The only certain alternative to selling the woman the John Olerud card was keeping the card and enjoying the intrinsic value I gained from ownership. As one can imagine, this value would be hard to quantify. I experienced BATNA Risk in that I could not predict if there were going to be future offers for the John Olerud card that day and what those offers would be. Most likely, my target point was the price tag I had placed next to the card, $7. My reservation point is undeterminable since I had not established that point before the negotiation. Somewhere between the $1 and $2 mark would be my focal point, or arbitrary reservation point set during the negotiation. I determined this based on the fact that I had agreed to sell for $2, but I would not sell for $1. Diagram 1 - Estimated Target and Resistance Points The price tag of $7 on the card could also be referred to the first offer, or opening offer in a negotiation. The first offer is often referred to as the anchor point, because it centralizes the negotiation around a value. The woman's counter offer was a demand of $6. This demand began the negotiation dance, or series of offers made between parties in order to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. At that point I could have made a commitment by sticking to my $7 initial price, but I instead made a concession and agreed to lower my price to $6. This reflected my collaborative or comprising negotiating style. This woman illustrated a hard bargaining position approach to the negotiation. Her style can be described as forcing or competitive. This can be seen by her demanding one-sided gains, or unilateral concessions, to continue the negotiation. The timing of my concessions can be considered gradual within the context of a yard sale. I thought about each new, lower offer by the woman before I agreed. Other forms of timing for concession include immediate and delayed. Negotiations are often carried out in a quid pro quo fashion where concessions occur back and forth between parties. This often develops into the GRIT model where one party makes a concession, and then the other party follows suit according to the reciprocity principle. This gradual reduction in tension due to reciprocal concessions causes satisfaction for the negotiators. Both negotiators feel they have "earned" the concessions they have received. Black hat/white hat negotiations is another name for this approach. This is when a negotiator presents a tough stance initially by making small infrequent concessions. Gradually the negotiator softens their stance by increasing the frequency and size of the concession. A mixed motive was not expressed by the woman in the negotiation. A mixed motive can be characterized by efforts to cooperate so the negotiation ends up within the positive bargaining zone, while at the same time trying to maximize one's negotiator's surplus. The woman definitely tried to maximize her own surplus, but seemed to make little effort to cooperate. She tended to see the other participant (myself) as an adversary and not as a friend or future negotiation partner. I think this lack of focus on cooperation by her was one of the main reasons for the eventual failure in this negotiation. My metaperspective was that this woman thinks I am a young boy who she can take advantage of. Now that I look back on the situation, I think differently. She was a Hispanic woman with a thick accent. There could have been many other reasons for her seemingly abrasive negotiation style. The woman may have grown up in Mexico where bargaining for goods, especially on the street, is a cultural norm. My metaperspective could definitely been false. The difference in negotiating norms likely could have been based on cultural differences. Of course, attributing her negotiating style to the Single Cause of a learned cultural behavior could also be a fallacy in my thinking. This negotiation did not conclude with a deal. The woman and I left money on the table, or we missed out on a win/win situation. Looking back on this negotiation, I see that I allowed myself to be trapped into a win/lose situation. Presented with this same situation again, I might invent options for mutual gain in the hope of creating an expanded pie, or win/win negotiation. Another way I could have improved my negotiating tactics was to move from a soft negotiating position to that of principled negotiation or negotiating on the merits. This would have involved separating her from the negotiated resources, focusing on both of our interests, coming up with creative solutions to the negotiation, and creating an objective standard. These four keys can be referred to as People, Interests, Options, and Criteria. Ending Elements Resource being negotiated: Money Type of negotiation: Fixed Pie, Zero-Sum, Distributive, Win/Lose Outcomes: Me Them Give 15 minutes of my time 15 minutes of her time Get Lesson: Set reservation point before engaging in negotiations Key Terms: fixed pie first offer black hat/white hat fallacy: single cause distributive anchor point mixed motive expanded pie zero sum game negotiation dance negotiator's surplus variable sum hard bargaining position unilateral concessions positive bargaining zone left money on the table joint decision Timing of concessions: Gradual, Immediate and Delayed participant (myself) as an adversary invent options for mutual gain BATNA concession forcing/competitive positional bargaining target point metaperspective interests collaborative reservation point demand options compromising BATNA Risk quid pro quo criteria commitment focal point GRIT model people win/lose soft negotiating position negotiating on the merits win/win principled negotiation integrative