Lewicki Book Summary Chapters
Lewicki Book Summary Chapters
Lewicki Book Summary Chapters
• What one party wants is may not be what the other wants
3. Voluntary process
• Believe that they can get a better deal by negotiating than accepting what is voluntarily
exchanged
• Parties move away from their opening positions to middle position (compromise) to reach an
• Parties prefer to invent their own solution that resolves the conflict
• Intangible factors (psychological motivations) that may directly or indirectly influence parties in
negotiation
Interdependence
– Either they need to coordinate with each other to achieve their own objectives
– Or choose to work together because joint efforts can produce better outcomes than individual
effort
• Goals of both parties are interconnected such that only 1 party achieve his/her goal Zero-sum /
attainments
• Goals of both parties are linked such that when 1 party’s goal achievement helps the other party
Mutual Adjustment
– One assumption for successful mutual adjustment : the more information one has about the
– However, too much information may only confuse the parties involved
• When one party adjust his position to the another nearer to the counterpart’s position, it’s
concession making
• Parties involved will likely make similar concessions until a mutual agreement is reached.
Dilemma of honesty
o Revealing too much info puts one in a vulnerable position, susceptible to being taken advantage
of
o Revealing too little info may not help in allowing both parties to look for an agreement
Dilemma of trust
o How much should one believe what the other party says?
o Believing in all of the other party’s words may put one in disadvantage
o Not believing in the other party’s words may make it difficult to find an agreement
o Distributive
o Intergrative
o Only 1 winner
o Each party tries to claim as much as possible from the fixed resource
o Finding ways for all parties to meet their goals and objectives by either finding more resources
o Negotiators must be able to identify situations that require more of one approach than the other
o Negotiators should be versatile and comfortable with the use of both approaches
o Negotiators tend to see problems as more distributive/competitive than they really are
Key differences between Negotiators
• Differences in interests
Conflict
Levels of Conflict
2. Interpersonal conflict
3. Intragroup conflict
4. Intergroup conflict
• Contending
• Yielding
• Inaction
• Problem-solving
– High concern for both one’s own and other’s party’s outcomes
– Both parties try to make the most out of their collaborative efforts in the conflict
• Compromising
Chapter 2: Hardball Tactics
March 5, 2010 by nego4biz
a. “Bad cop” plays the role of the bad guy who takes tough measures (threats, intimidation)
b. “Bad cop” leaves the negotiation table for the “Good cop” to come and offer the targeted party
c. The “easy way out” option is meant for the targeted party to yield to the team’s demands
Advantages
Disadvantages
2. Lowball / Highball
Advantages
• Aims to get the other party to re-evaluate his opening offer & move closer to his resistance point
Disadvantages
• Requires a skilled negotiator to explain his extreme opening offer if the other party continues to
negotiate
• Best tactic : ask for a more reasonable opening offer instead of a counter offer
• Show that you are familiar with the bargaining mix and therefore you will not be fooled
• Show your displeasure of such tactic used against you by threatening to leave the negotiating
table
3. Bogey
b. Use this tactic to trade and make concessions for issues that are really important
Advantages
Disadvantages
• Difficult to enact
• May backfire if the other party takes you seriously and therefore giving you what you want to
bogey away
• Question why the negotiator wants a particular outcome or makes a sudden reversal in positions
• Not conceding to what the negotiator wants after his sudden reversal in position
4. The Nibble
a. Negotiator adds a small item(the nibble) to the agreement when the both parties had spent
Advantages
• None
Disadvantages
• Although the nibble is small in size, it’s enough to upset the other party
• Ask the negotiator “What else do you want?” every time he asks for a nibble, until all issues are
• Come up with one’s own nibbles in exchange for the negotiator’s nibbles
5. Chicken
a. The negotiator uses a big bluff with a threatened action, in order to force the other party to
Advantages
• Non
Disadvantages
• Makes it hard to distinguish whether either party will follow through on his/her stated course of
action
6. Intimidation
b. Common point of these tactics: the use of emotional ploys to force the other party to yield
e. Leads the targeted party to give in due to emotional rather than objective reasons
• Discuss the negotiation process with the intimidator, stating that you expect a fair negotiation
process
o Team members provide mutual support to one another through the process
7. Aggressive Behavior
b. Being aggressive in establishing your position and attacking the other party’s position eg.
ii. Getting the other party to explain his position by justifying item by item
8. Snow Job
a. To overwhelm the other party with large amount of information, such that the other party have
b. To use technical or expert language such that a non-expert party cannot understand and would
• Looking out for inconsistency in the negotiator’s answer or response & ask if in doubt
• Fundamental Strategies
• Push for settlement near opponent’s 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 point
– Modify your own resistance point
• Convince the other party that the settlement is the best possible
• Keys to the Strategies
The keys to implementing any of the four strategies are:
• Discovering the other party’s resistance point
• Influencing the other party’s resistance point
• Tactical Tasks of Negotiators
• Assess outcome values and the costs of termination for the other party
• Manage the other party’s impressions
• Modify the other party’s perceptions
• Manipulate the actual costs of delay or termination
• Assess Outcome Values and the Costs of Termination for the Other Party
• Indirectly
– Determine information opponent used to set:
• Target
• Resistance points
• Directly
– Opponent reveals the information
• Manage the Other Party’s Impressions
• Screen your behavior:
– Say and do as little as possible
– Direct action to alter impressions
– Present facts that enhance one’s position
• Modify the Other Party’s 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 needs
• Manipulate the Actual Costs of
Delay or Termination
• Plan disruptive action
– Raise the costs of delay to the other party
• Form an alliance with outsiders
– Involve (or threaten to involve) other parties who can influence the outcome in
your favor
• Schedule manipulations
– One party is usually more vulnerable to delaying than the other
• Positions Taken
During Negotiations
• Opening offer
– Where will you start?
• Opening stance
– What is your attitude?
• Competitive? Moderate?
• Initial concessions
– Should any be made? If so, how large?
• Positions Taken
During Negotiations
• The role of concessions
– Without them, there is either capitulation or deadlock
• Patterns of concession making
– The pattern contains valuable information
• Final offer (making a commitment)
– “This is all I can do”
• Commitments:
Tactical Considerations
• Establishing a commitment
– Three properties:
• Finality
• Specificity
• Consequences
• Preventing the other party from committing prematurely
– Their commitment reduces your flexibility
– Commitments:
Tactical Considerations
• Ways to abandon a committed position
– Plan a way out
– Let it die silently
– Restate the commitment in more general terms
– Minimize the damage to the relationship if the other backs off
– Closing the Deal
• Provide alternatives (2 or 3 packages)
• Assume the close
• Split the difference
• Exploding offers
• Deal sweeteners
• Dealing with Typical
Hardball Tactics
• Four main options:
– Ignore them
– Discuss them
– Respond in kind
– Co-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)
• Typical Hardball Tactics
• Chicken
• Intimidation
• Aggressive Behavior
• Snow Job (overwhelm the other party with information)
– Summary
Negotiators 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
Chapter 3: Integrative Negotiation
Posted in Chapter 3: Intregrative negotiation on March 5, 2010| Leave a Comment »
• It is important for individuals to focus on the commonalities within a group to achieve successful
integrative outcome. Parties have to believe that collaborative efforts will be beneficial to all of
them. Therefore, it is important for them to establish common, shared or joint goals among them.
Common goal
Shared goal
• A goal that both parties hopes to achieve but are beneficial to each other in a different way.
Joint goal
• A goal that comprises of a collective effort to combine differing individual goals together.
• The absence of such mentality will result in a lower devotion to collaborative relationship
3. A Belief in the Validity of One’s Own Position and the Other’s Perspectives
• Parties should respect and accepts the view, interest and desires of other parties and incorporate
• Hence, search for mutually beneficial alternatives that lead to satisfying negotiation outcomes.
• Parties should state their needs clearly, be willing to focus on the similarities and accepts
5. Trust
• Parties must be able to elicit a certain level of trust towards the other party, vice versa.
• The eliciting of trust will facilitate the sharing of information and greater accuracy in
communicating individuals’ needs, wants, positions and desires in the given situation.
• Parties must be willing to share relevant information and state what they want clearly to prevent
• Parties must make sure that the messages that were communicated through numerous
• Parties should always give everyone a chance to speak, no one should dominate the negotiation
process
• To achieve a successful outcome in Integrative Negotiation, one should truly understand the
dynamics, key elements, structure and principles that make up integrative negotiation.
• It is only through thorough understanding and training that one will be able to successfully
• Effective for negotiations that experience shortages in resources that fails to meet both parties
objectives or interest
Solution:
• Add resources (expand the pie) so that both parties can achieve their objectives
How?
• Ask diagnostic questions, such as, “Is there a resource shortage, How can resources be
• Unbundle issues
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
• Not applicable to problems that are outside the scope of shortages in resources
2. Logrolling
• Effective for negotiation that have more than one conflicting issues that are of different priorities
Solution
• Involves the trading off of issues between parties so that both achieve their preferred outcome
How?
• Done by trial and error, experimenting with numerous package deals that satisfies everyone’s
interest
• Ask diagnostic questions,”Can I unbundle issues, make one issue into smaller ones that can then
be logrolled?”
Advantages:
• Simple and easy way to solve negotiations with multiple conflicting issues
Disadvantages:
• Time-consuming
• Only applicable to negotiation that have more than one conflicting issue at stake
• Not suitable for successive negotiations-where parties takes turn to get what they want
• Not suitable for parties that do not wish to establish long-term working relationships
• Involves the paying off of a non specific compensation to the party that accommodates to the
• The payoff is unrelated to substantive negotiation but adequate for the party in agreeing to the
How?
• Parties should know how much compensation is sufficient in making the accommodative party
satisfied
• Need to experiment with different types of compensation offers to identify the one that satisfies
• Ask diagnostic questions, “What are the things that will be inexpensive to me but valuable to the
other party?”
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
• Time-consuming
• Fear of turning into distributive situation when , the other party may request for high demands
as in return for accommodating while the other tries to play down the compensation that he/she
will pay.
• Involves the achieving of one’s objective by minimizing the cost incurred by the agreeing party
How?
• Parties are required to have personal knowledge of the agreeing party’s needs, wants, desire and
preferences.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
• Time-consuming
5. Bridging
• Involves the inventing of a new options that meet the needs of both parties
How?
• Through the revealing of sufficient information which discloses interests and needs that facilitate
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
How?
• Find a more satisfying option or agreement over the present negotiated outcome
Advantages:
• Enable both parties another chance to reach an even more satisfying outcome
Disadvantages:
Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. In layman’s terms, it
As perception depends on the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and comprehension, here
could always be errors in the interpretation and subsequent communication. Some forms of such
Assign attributes to one solely on the basis of the membership to a particular large
group or category (social, racial, religious or sexual orientations )
Eg: He is an Italian so he must know so much about Rome.
Very common, highly resistant to change once formed
Generalize many attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of the individuals
without any consistent relationship between them
Positive effect à good attribute, negative effect à bad attribute
Reasons for occurrence
o Very little experience with the other party
o When the person is well known
o When the qualities have strong moral implications
o Eg: He is smiling so he must be telling the truth!
Singles out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out information
that does confirm the belief.
– Projection
Framing
Frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of
situations based on their own experiences, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.
Substantive
Outcome
Aspiration
Predisposition to a broader set of interests, needs and concern other than a specific
outcome.
Primarily used by integrative negotiators
Process
Identity
Definition of oneself, based on membership of a number of different social groups such
as gender, religion, ethnic origin, etc
Used to differentiate themselves from others and tend to be positive
Characterization
One’s definition of the other parties, shaped by prior or early experience and knowledge
about others.
Tend to be negative in conflicts
Loss/ Gain
Negotiators with an attractive BATNA should tell the other party about it if they expect to receive
-The style and tone used to convey information about an attractive BATNA
1).Politely making the other party aware of one’s good alternative can provide leverage without
2).Waving a good BATNA in the other party’s face in an imposing or condescending manner may
Negotiators should be cautious about sharing their outcomes or even their positive reactions to
outcomes with the other party, especially if they are going to negotiate with that party again in the
future.
Ÿ Social Accounts
3).Reframing explanation
How well it is going or what procedures might be adopted to improve the situation.
“Information-is-weakness Effect”: Negotiators who know the complete preferences of both parties
may have more difficulty determining fair outcomes that negotiators who do not have this
information.
Ÿ Use of Language
-Two levels of language operation: Logical level & Pragmatic level: The meaning conveyed by a
statement or proposition is combined with a logical surface message and several pragmatic levels.
Parties whose statements communicated interests in both the substance of the negotiation and the
relationship with the other party achieved better, more integrative solutions.
–When listening: show others you are paying attention and listening that you consider them
important
–When delivering: emphasize the importance of the message that is being sent
One’s body position indicates whether one is paying attention to the other party.
–To show you are attentive: hold your body erect, lean slightly forward, and face the other person
directly
–To show strong rejection or disapproval: crossing arms, bowing the head, furrowing the brow,
Indicate discouragement: a frown, a scowl, a shake of the head, or a grab of one’s chest in mock
pain
–Face-to-face negotiators are more easily to develop personal rapport, more inclined to disclose
Questions in Negotiation:
1).Manageable: cause attention or prepare the other person’s thinking for further questions, get
–collect and diagnose information, assist the other party in addressing and expressing needs and
interests
Ÿ Listening
Receive the message while providing no feedback to the sender about the accuracy or
completeness of reception. (Can be used as the best strategy when the counterpart is talkative)
2).Acknowledgment:
Receivers occasionally nod their heads, maintain eye contact, or interject responses like “I see,”
3).Active listening
Gain an understanding of the other party’s perspective or frame of reference: allow negotiators to
understand more completely the other party’s position by actively arguing these positions until the
–avoid surrendering important information needlessly, and to refrain from making “dumb remarks”
–recognize the other party’s faux pas and dumb remarks for what they are and refuse to respond
or be distracted by them
Power – capabilities negotiators can assemble to give themselves an advantage or increase the
from ability to punish other for not doing what needs to be done
from respect or admiration one commands due to attributes like personality, integrity,
interpersonal style and the like
– most common source of power – derived from ability to assemble and organize facts and
– power based on expertise is a special form of information power – only for those who have
– to use expert power, demonstrate that this expertise actually exists and is relevant to the
– cognitive orientation
individual differences in ideological frames of reference
shape one’s expectations, the way individual process social information about power and
people’s willingness to share power
3 types of ideological frames
o The unitary
– motivational orientation
differences rooted more in need and energizing elements of the personality rather than
in ideology
power motive – a need to influence and control others and to seek positions of power
and authority
– moral orientation
different moral view about power and its use
has strong impact on how likely parties will be to constructively use power
shape “power with” orientation between parties, inducing higher expectations of
assistance, more persuasion and less coercion and more trusting and friendly attitude
Derived from the respect or admiration one commands due to attributes such as
personality, interpersonal style, integrity and the like.
Based on an appeal to commonalities
Has negative forms to create distance between themselves and others or to label others
– BATNAs
– Culture
Often contains many implicit rules about use of power and more or less processes
Company culture shapes what kind of power are seen as legitimate and illegitimate or
how people use influence and react to influence
National cultures also differ in the degree to which these “power over” or “power with”
orientations are supported or encouraged
Negotiation process is more complex when acting as agents, or other parties such as
public media, critics, etc are present to observe.
These other parties might or might not share your interests, putting pressure on either
party.
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a
1. End result ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to
achieve
2. Duty ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold
appropriate rules and principles
3. Social contract – Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms, values, and
strategy of my organization or community
4. Personalistic ethics – Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal
convictions
Tactics 1 and 2 are generally viewed as appropriate and are likely to be used. However, the other
A negotiator using this tactic deceives the other party about what she wants on the common-value
issue and then (grudgingly) agrees to accept the other party’s preferences, which in reality
common-value issue:
2. Other Motives
1. Effectiveness
If using the tactic allows a negotiator to attain rewarding outcomes that would be
unavailable if he had behaved ethically, and if the unethical conduct is not punished by
others, the frequency of unethical conduct is likely to increase because the negotiator
believes he can get away with it
2. Reaction of others
Arises from judgments and evaluations by the person who was the “target” of the tactic
Depending on whether these parties recognize the tactic and whether they evaluate it
as proper or improper to use, the negotiator may receive a great deal of feedback.
People who discover that they have been deceived or exploited are typically angry and
unlikely to trust the unethical negotiator again, may seek revenge from the negotiator in
future dealings, and may also generalize this experience to negotiations with others.
3. Reactions of self
Under some conditions – such as when the other party has truly suffered – a negotiator
may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt or remorse
On one hand, while the use of these tactics may have strong consequences for the
negotiator’s reputation and trustworthiness, parties seldom appear to take these outcomes
into consideration in the short term
On the other hand, particularly if the tactic had worked, the negotiator may be able to
rationalize and justify the use of the tactic
Some explanations and justifications are as follows:
1. The tactic was unavoidable
2. The tactic was harmless
3. The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences
4. The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated
5. “They had it coming” or “They deserve it” or “I’m just getting my due”
6. “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first”
7. “He started it”
8. The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
These explanations and justifications help people to rationalize the behavior to
themselves as well as allow the negotiator to convince others that the conduct that would
ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable
So, How Can Negotiators Deal With The Other Party’s Use of Deception?
Research shows that most buyers fail to ask questions, and that asking questions can
reveal a great deal of information, some of which the negotiator intentionally leave
undisclosed
While asking questions can help a negotiator determine whether another negotiator is
being deceptive, such cross-examination may actually increase the seller’s tendency to be
deceptive in areas where questions are not being asked
Pose a question that forces him or her to tell a direct lie or else abandon or qualify the
assertion
This kind of question may make the other party nervous about liability for fraudulent
negotiator behavior
4. Discuss What You See and Offer to Help the Other Party Change to More Honest Behaviors
Tries to assure the other party that telling the truth is, in the long term, more likely to
get him what he wants, than any form of bluffing or deception will
5. Respond in Kind
If the other party bluffs, you bluff more. If she misrepresents, you misrepresent.
Not recommended, but if she recognizes that you are lying too, she may also realize
that the tactic is unlikely to work
All in all, ethics in negotiator is a blurred topic. There is a fine line between good ethical behavior
and unethical behavior. Although some behaviors are clearly unethical, others depend on the
When negotiating in the context of an important relationship, relationship issues could dramatically
–Attempting to anticipate the future and negotiate everything up front is often impossible.
Ÿ Reputation
–Reputations develop over time; once developed, they are hard to change.
Ÿ Trust
–Many people show remarkably high levels of trust when approaching a new relationship.
–Individual motives shape both trust and expectations of the other’s behavior.
–Trustors, and those trusted, may focus on different things as trust is being guilt.
–The nature of the negotiation task can shape how parties judge the trust.
–Greater expectations of trust between negotiators lead to greater information sharing, therefore
–Distributive processes may tend to reduce trust while integrative processes tend to increase
trust.
–Trust increases the likelihood that negotiation will proceed on a favorable course over the life of a
negotiation.
–Negotiators who are representing others’ interest tend to behave in a less trusting way.
Trust Repair
The more severe the breach of trust, the more difficult it is to repair trust and reconcile the
relationship.
If the parties had a good past relationship, it was easier to repair trust.
The party who breach the trust must apologize as soon as better.
The one who makes the apology must take personal responsibility for having created the
breach.
Apologies were more effective when the trust breach appeared to be an isolated event rather
Ÿ Justice
Forms of justice:
3) Interactional Justice: about how parties treat each other in one-to-one relationship
4) Systemic Justice: about how organizations appear to treat groups of individuals and the
They are all central to relationship negotiations and feed each other.
l Relationship Repair
Find out:
Ÿ What might be causing any present misunderstanding, and what can I do to understand it
better?
Ÿ What might be causing a lack of trust, and what can I do to begin to repair trust that might
Ÿ What might be causing one or both of us to feel coerced, and what can I do to put the focus on
Ÿ What might be causing one or both of us to feel disrespected, and what can I do to
Ÿ What might be causing one or both of us to get upset, and what can I do to balance emotion
and reason?
Environmental Context:
Includes environmental factors that neither negotiator controls that influence the negotiation.
Seven factors:
2. International Economics
Countries differ in the extent to which the government regulates industries and
organisations
4. Instability
Instability may take many forms: lack of resources, shortages of other goods and
services, and political instability
Challenge for international negotiators to anticipate changes accurately and with enough
lead time to adjust for their consequences
Negotiators facing unstable circumstances should include clauses in their contracts that
allow easy cancellation or neutral arbitration, and consider purchasing insurance policies to
guarantee contract provisions
5. Ideology
Negotiators from other countries do not always share the same ideology
Clashes in ideology may lead to parties disagreeing at the most fundamental level about
what is being negotiated
6. Culture
7. External Stakeholders
International negotiators can receive a great deal of promotion and guidance from their
government via the trade section of their embassy, and from other business people via
professional associations
Immediate Context:
Relative power has frequently been operationalized as the amount of equity that each
side is willing to invest in the new venture
The presumption is that the party who invests more equity has more power in the
negotiation and therefore will have more influence on the negotiation process and outcome
2. Levels of Conflict
High conflict situations – those based on ethnicity, identity, or geography – are harder
to resolve
Also important is the extent to which negotiators frame the negotiation differently or
conceptualize what the negotiation concerns
4. Desired Outcomes
Tangible and intangible factors play a large role in determining the outcomes of
international negotiations
Countries often use international negotiations to achieve both domestic and
international political goals
5. Immediate Stakeholders
Include the negotiators themselves as well as the people they directly represent
Skills, abilities, and international experience of the negotiator clearly can have a large
impact on the process and outcome of international negotiations
Concept of culture:
Cultural attribution error – the tendency to overlook the importance of situational factors in favor
of cultural explanations
Cross cultural comparisons are made by finding the important norms and values that
distinguish one culture from another and then understanding how these differences will
influence international negotiation.
Four Dimensions that Describe the Important Differences Among the Cultures:
1. Individualism/Collectivism
The extent to which the society is organized around individuals or the group
Negotiators from collectivist cultures will strongly depend on cultivating and sustaining a
long-term relationship, whereas negotiators from individualistic cultures may be more likely
to swap negotiators, using whatever short-term criteria seem appropriate
2. Power Distance
Describes the “extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and
institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”
Greater power distance will be more likely to concentrate decision making at the top
Negotiators from comparatively high power distance cultures may need to seek approval
from their supervisors more frequently, and for more issues, leading to a slower negotiation
process
4. Uncertainty Avoidance
Indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or
comfortable in unstructured situations
Low Familiarity
Employ Agents or Advisors (Unilateral Strategy)
Bring in a Mediator (Joint Strategy)
Induce the Other Negotiator to Use Your Approach (Joint Strategy)
Moderate Familiarity
High Familiarity
1
Most of the complexities in multiparty negotiations will increase linearly, if not
exponentially, as more parties, constituencies, and audiences are added.
True
A)
False
B)
2
Negotiators who have some way to control the number of parties at the table may begin
to strategically manipulate this control to serve their objectives.
True
A)
False
B)
3
A single negotiator is simply one of the parties in a multiparty negotiation and wants to
ensure that his or her own issues and interests are clearly incorporated into the final
agreement
True
A)
False
B)
4
When a chairperson is also advocating a particular position or preferred outcome, it will
be difficult for that individual to act or be seen as "neutral."
True
A)
False
B)
5
Conflict is a natural part of group life that improves members' ability to complete tasks,
work together, and sustain these relationships.
True
A)
False
B)
6
Multiparty negotiations differ from two-party deliberations in which of the following
ways?
More issues and more information are introduced than when two parties negotiate.
B)
The process for multiparty negotiators is more complex than two-party ones.
D)
7
In multiparty negotiations, research shows that parties who approached multiple issues
simultaneously:
have less insight into the preferences and priorities of the other parties at the table.
D)
Research shows that parties who approached multiple issues simultaneously
E) achieved all of the above.
8
There are five ways in which the complexity increases as three or more parties
simultaneously engage in negotiation. Which one of the following statements is
incorrect?
9
What are the three key stages and phases that characterize multilateral negotiations?
the prenegotiation stage, managing the actual negotiations, and managing the
A) agreement stage.
the coalition building stage, the relationship development stage, the networking
B) stage.
the coalition building stage, the networking stage, and the actual negotiation stage.
C)
the prenegotiation stage, the networking stage, and the managing the agreement
D) stage.
None of the above lists the three key stages and phases that characterize
E) multilateral negotiations.
1
0 Which of the following questions should not be asked as part of the requirements for
building a relationship in the connect model?