According to most negotiation experts, thorough preparation is the key to successful bargaining. Identifying your interests, alternatives, walkaway point, and ideal outcome — not to mention your opponent's interests, alternatives, and so on — can help you perform at your best once talks begin. The more you know about yourself and your counterpart, the more control you'll have during the negotiation process.
Sooner or later, every negotiator faces threats at the bargaining table. How should you respond when the other side threatens to walk away, file a lawsuit, or damage your reputation?
The article presents information on the role of power in negotiation. Power could generate competition or conflict in negotiations, however, effective channelization of power helps in bringing the win-win situation to both the parties. Social psychologists have described power as lack of dependence on others. Individuals possessing power tend to have the approach related to the behavior that includes positive mood or searching for rewards in their environment. On the other hand, powerless individuals show a great deal of self-inhibition and fear towards potential threats.
The psychological research is clear: bad events affect us much more powerfully than good events. So it stands to reason that burdens weigh more heavily upon our decision processes than do benefits. Negotiations that center around burdens can pose psychological hazards for negotiators — contentiousness, clouded judgment, suspicion, and a diminished understanding of their own interests. The result? A smaller pie of resources, for one thing. Here is a guide to help you avert the dangers.
The better able you are to "get inside the head" of your opponent, the better your negotiated outcomes are likely to be. But very few of us are born with the ability to take on the perspective of others effectively. Fortunately, this skill can be learned. The authors of this article show you how to use perspective taking — the active consideration and appreciation of another person's viewpoint, role, and underlying motivations — to understand your counterpart better and improve the quality of your deals.
We present a model of how culture affects both the conceptualizations and behavioral consequences of power, focusing in particular on how culture moderates the previously demonstrated positive relationship between power and assertive action. Western cultures tend to be characterized by independence, whereas individuals in East Asian cultures tend to think of themselves as interdependent. As a result, power is conceptualized around influence and entitlement in the West, and Westerners behave assertively to satisfy oneself.
The provision of choice is one of the most common vehicles through which managers empower employees in organizations. Although past psychological and organizational research persuasively suggests that choice confers personal agency, and is thus intrinsically motivating, emerging research indicates that there could be potential pitfalls. In this chapter, we examine the various factors that could influence the effects of choice. Specifically, we examine individual-level factors such as the chooser's socioeconomic status and cultural background.
The current research investigates whether observers blame leaders for organizational accidents even when these managers are known to be causally uninvolved. Past research finds that the public blames managers for organizational harm if the managers are perceived to have personally played a causal role. The present research argues that East Asian perceivers, who are culturally oriented to focus on the causal influence of groups [Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions.
Membership in certain intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), such as the World Trade Organization, has long been argued to stimulate trade. Yet, evidence linking IGOs to trade is mixed. We argue that identifying the influence of IGOs requires attention not only to the institutions IGOs enact, but to the network through which they enact them. We incorporate the full set of IGOs by using shared-IGO membership to create a network of connectivity between countries.