UNT PACS 4050 - Final Exam Study Guide (9 pages)

Previewing pages 1, 2, 3 of 9 page document View the full content.
View Full Document

Final Exam Study Guide

Previewing pages 1, 2, 3 of actual document.

View the full content.
View Full Document
View Full Document

Final Exam Study Guide


A study guide including vocabulary and notes from chapters 8-12.

Study Guide
University of North Texas
Pacs 4050 - Negotiation
Negotiation Documents
Unformatted text preview:

PACS 4050 1st Edition Final Exam Study Guide Lectures 8 12 Lecture 8 Chapter 8 October 29 What if They Don t Obey the Rules of the Road Trust Ethics and Reputation in Negotiation Relation based trust When you have a strong pre existing relationship with the other person you can predict their trustworthy behavior with accuracy In this type of relationship you can freely share information and assume the other will not exploit you Knowledge based trust The type of trust that develops when you know the other person and have had some prior interactions with them such that you can be confident inn predicting their behavior Identity based trust Trust in another person that is based on a shared identity like same religion or same sorority You do not actually know or have personal experience with the individual but you trust them due to your shared identity Institutional based trust The type of trust you have in someone because you know the institution or organization they represent has structures or policies in place that require their members to act in trustworthy ways Deception Giving information that implicitly encourages people to draw false conclusions Trust dilemmas Are mixed motive situations where there are short term incentives to compete To move the other person toward thinking long term you must focus on the future of the relationship increase communication focus on joint outcomes and institute accountability Ethics of purpose Is an absolutist approach to ethics that views people as basically good and suggests they will use a good means to reach a good end Ethics of principle A relativist approach to ethics that is grounded in the prevalent culture It assumes that people are rational and will do the right thing to produce an outcome that is consistent with the culture A do unto others approach Ethics of consequence A utilitarian or pragmatic approach to ethics It assumes the individual will choose the action that produces an outcome that does the lease harm and the most good Essential competition The type of competition where there can only be one winner In business it can be when there is a very small niche market and there is not room for two competitors thus it is essential that one must win Some will be tempted to use unethical tactics when there is essential competition Selective disclosure In negotiation this means you don t disclose all your information rather you share only that information that is in your best interest to share General Strategies for Promoting Trust o Enlarge the shadow of the future o Change the payoff structure to eliminate the conflict between self interest and mutual interest o Increase communication o Persuade the other party to focus on joint outcomes o Institute accountability Repairing Broken Trust in Negotiation o Set up a face to face meeting with the other negotiator o Put the focus on the relationship instead of on who is right or who is wrong o Apologize to the other negotiator Let the other negotiator vent about why he or she is upset or frustrated o Do not get defensive when talking to the other negotiator even if you believe the person is misinformed or wrong o Ask for clarifying information o Formulate a plan ask the other negotiator what he or she thinks is fair or what they need o Think about ways to prevent a future problem o Do a relationship checkup after working things out Forms That Unethical Behavior May Take in Negotiation Settings o Selective disclosure and or exaggeration o Misrepresentation o Deception o False Threats o False Promises o Falsification o Inflicting direct and intentional harm If you have no prior information about the trustworthiness of the other person you should approach the negotiation with caution If you have reason to believe the person across the negotiations table from you cannot be trusted you will likely hold your cards close to your chest and be reluctant to share critical information Integrative potential is unlikely to be recognized never mind achieved Rather the negotiation will take on a more distributive tone with each party claiming as much value as possible with little or no effort to create value first Relation based trust is probably the best predictor of future trustworthy behavior Trust dilemmas arise in situations where there are incentives for both parties to compete defeat in the short run even though over time both would be better off by cooperating If you are a negotiation tactic that you deem ethical overstating the value of you BATNA and the other negotiator learns their real value of you alternative that person is likely to judge your bargaining behavior as unethical Likewise if the other negotiator holds a very high ethical standard he or she my judge behaviors that most see as ethical and unethical Lecture 9 Chapter 9 November 5 Objects in the Mirror May Be Closer than They Appear Perceptions Biases and Communication in Negotiation Selective attention The tendency to focus only on information in our environment that is consistent with what we already believe or know This can lead to biased information processing where decision makers ignore information that is inconsistent with poor beliefs and only attend to self confirming evidence Halo effect and horns effect This effect occurs when we only know one good bad thing about another person and then generalize this information to other attributes of the person without good reason If someone is nice mean you may also assume they are smart stupid Framing effects These effects occur when a situation is described in terms of what you stand to gain versus what you stand to lose People are much more sensitive to and influenced by loss frames and they are more risk seeking in the domain of losses Preference reversals Are related to framing effects in that people will give responses that are intransitive depending on how the question is framed That is they will reverse their preference as a function of whether the question is posed in terms of possible gains or possible losses Loss aversion People are much more sensitive to losses than they are to gains of the same size Loss aversion can be explained by the subjective utility curve in Prospect Theory Prospect theory A subjective utility theory that shows individuals psychological value for money is not linear Most people have a utility curve that is concave in the domain of gains and convex in the domain of losses and the slope is steeper in the domain of losses which can account for

View Full Document

Access the best Study Guides, Lecture Notes and Practice Exams

Loading Unlocking...

Join to view Final Exam Study Guide and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Final Exam Study Guide and access 3M+ class-specific study document.


By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?