In a negotiation, you will have things you really care about and things you do not
care about as much. "Tradeables" are things you are willing to give up getting
something you want. "Straw issues" are things you pretend to care about, but you
are actually willing to give them up easily.
Reynolds Negotiation Behaviour Model:
Reynolds' model helps us understand how people behave during negotiations,
including how they use tradeables and straw issues.
Determining: Reynolds Negotiation Behaviour Model
1. Identifying Tradeables:
Figuring out what things you are willing to give up getting what you really
want.
Detailed Explanation:
Tradeables are items or concessions that you are willing to exchange
with the other party to achieve your primary objectives. These are
areas where you have flexibility and are willing to compromise. To
identify tradeables, you need to assess your priorities and determine
which issues are less important to you. For example, in a contract
negotiation, you might be willing to offer a longer payment term in
exchange for a lower price. Or you might offer to complete a project
faster, in exchange for more resources. Tradeables are valuable tools
for building rapport and creating mutually beneficial agreements. The
key is to know what you can give away, and what you will receive in
return, to ensure you are getting a beneficial trade.
2. Identifying Straw Issues:
Figuring out what things you can pretend to care about, but you are actually
willing to give up easily.
Detailed Explanation:
Straw issues are items or concessions that you present as important
but are actually of little or no value to you. They are used as bargaining
chips to gain leverage or create the illusion of making significant
concessions. For example, you might insist on a specific clause in a
contract, knowing that you are willing to drop it later in the negotiation.
Or you can strongly state that a certain feature is vital, when in actuality
it is not. Straw issues can be effective for creating a sense of
reciprocity and building trust. However, it is important to use them
ethically and avoid being deceptive. Reynolds model shows that using
straw issues can be a useful negotiation tactic, but it is important to not
overuse them, because the other party might see through the tactic.
How Reynolds' Model Relates:
Reynolds' negotiation behaviour model emphasizes that successful negotiators
understand the dynamics of give-and-take. It highlights the importance of:
Strategic Concessions: Using tradeables effectively to make concessions
that benefit both parties.
Creating Value: Identifying and leveraging straw issues to create the
perception of value without sacrificing important goals.
Understanding Priorities: Recognizing the other party's priorities and using
that knowledge to guide the negotiation.
Analysing the First Offer
What is Analysing the First Offer?
When someone makes the first offer in a negotiation, it is like the opening move in a
chess game. You need to analyse it carefully to understand their strategy and plan
your response.
1. The Extreme but Credible Market Model:
The other person makes a very high (or very low) offer, but it is still somewhat
believable.
Detailed Explanation:
This model describes a common negotiation tactic where the initial
offer is deliberately extreme, pushing the boundaries of what might be
considered reasonable. However, the offer is still designed to be
"credible" enough to avoid immediate rejection. The idea is to anchor
the negotiation in a favourable position for the offering party.
How to Analyse:
Assess Credibility: Determine if the offer, while extreme, is still
within the realm of possibility. Research market values,
comparable deals, and industry standards to see if there is any
basis for the offer.
Identify Anchoring: Recognize that the extreme offer is likely
intended to anchor your expectations. Do not let it intimidate you
or set the tone for the entire negotiation.
Look for Patterns: See if the offer reveals any underlying
assumptions or priorities of the other party.
Example: In a real estate negotiation, the seller might initially
ask for a price that is significantly above market value, but they
might justify it by highlighting unique features or recent
comparable sales.
This tactic can be used to see how much room for negotiation
there actually is.
2. Use of BATNA:
Compare the first offer to your "Plan B" to see if it is worth considering.
Detailed Explanation:
Your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is your
fallback option if you cannot reach an agreement in the current
negotiation. Analysing the first offer in relation to your BATNA is crucial
for determining its value.
How to Analyse:
Compare to BATNA: Evaluate whether the first offer is better or
worse than your BATNA. If the offer is worse, you might be
better off pursuing your alternative option.
Assess Leverage: If the offer is significantly better than your
BATNA, you have strong leverage. If it is only slightly better,
your leverage is weaker.
Consider Timing: If you have a strong BATNA, you might be
more willing to reject the first offer and wait for a better one. If
your BATNA is weak, you might feel pressure to accept the
offer.
Example: If you are negotiating a job offer and your BATNA is
another job offer with a higher salary, you can use that
information to assess the value of the first offer. If the first offer
is lower than your BATNA, you might reject it or counter with a
higher salary.
By comparing the offer to your BATNA, you can make an
informed decision about whether to accept, reject, or counter it.
Determining Negotiation Power
What is Negotiation Power?
Negotiation power is like having influence in a conversation. It is about how much
you can affect the outcome of the negotiation. Different things can give you power,
like having something the other person wants, or being seen as an expert.
1. Reward Power:
The power to give someone something they want.
Detailed Explanation:
Reward power stems from the ability to provide positive incentives or
rewards to the other party. This could include things like bonuses,
promotions, favourable terms, or access to valuable resources. If you
have the ability to offer something that the other party desires, you
have reward power. For example, a manager negotiating a salary
increase has reward power because they can offer a higher salary. A
company negotiating a contract has reward power if they can offer a
lucrative deal. This power is effective when the other party values the
rewards you can offer.
2. Coercive Power:
The power to punish someone or take away something they want.
Detailed Explanation:
Coercive power comes from the ability to impose penalties or sanctions
on the other party. This could include things like demotions, fines,
withholding resources, or ending the negotiation. If you have the ability
to inflict negative consequences, you have coercive power. For
example, a boss who can fire an employee has coercive power. A
supplier who can withhold essential materials has coercive power. This
power is often effective in the short term, but it can damage
relationships and create resentment.
3. Legitimate Power:
The power that comes from having a formal position or authority.
Detailed Explanation:
Legitimate power is derived from a person's formal position or authority
within an organization or hierarchy. This could include titles like CEO,
manager, or team leader. People with legitimate power have the right
to make decisions and give orders. For example, a CEO negotiating a
merger has legitimate power because they represent the company. A
judge in a courtroom has legitimate power due to their position. This
power is effective when the other party recognizes and respects the
authority of the position.
4. Expert Power:
The power that comes from having special knowledge or skills.
Detailed Explanation:
Expert power is based on specialized knowledge, skills, or expertise in
a particular area. If you have unique knowledge or skills that the other
party values, you have expert power. For example, a lawyer
negotiating a legal settlement has expert power because they
understand the law. A consultant with specialized industry knowledge
has expert power. This power is effective when the other party
recognizes and values the expertise.
5. Referent Power:
The power that comes from being liked or respected by others.
Detailed Explanation:
Referent power is derived from personal charisma, likability, or respect.
If the other party admires or identifies with you, you have referent
power. This could be due to your personality, reputation, or
relationships. For example, a popular leader has referent power
because people want to be associated with them. A trusted colleague
has referent power because people value their opinions. This power is
effective when the other party wants to maintain a positive relationship.
Studying Personalities of Negotiators
What is Studying Personalities of Negotiators?
Everyone has a different way of thinking and acting. Understanding these differences
can help you figure out how someone might behave in a negotiation. It is like
knowing if someone prefers to talk a lot or listen, or if they make decisions based on
logic or feelings.
The Four Dimensions of Personality (MBTI):
1. Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I):
Whether someone gets their energy from being around people or from being
alone.
Detailed Explanation:
Extraverts (E) tend to be outgoing, assertive, and energized by social
interaction. They often think out loud and enjoy brainstorming with
others. In a negotiation, they might be more vocal, assertive, and
focused on building relationships. They might also be more comfortable
with spontaneous discussions and less structured negotiations.
Introverts (I) tend to be reserved, reflective, and energized by
spending time alone. They often think before they speak and prefer to
process information internally. In a negotiation, they might be more
quiet, thoughtful, and focused on analysing information. They might
also prefer structured negotiations with clear agendas and ample time
for preparation.
Understanding whether a negotiator is an extravert or introvert helps
you anticipate their communication style and preferred negotiation
approach. Extraverts may need to be given opportunities to speak, and
introverts may need to be given time to process information.
2. Sensing (S) or Intuition (N):
Whether someone focuses on facts and details or on possibilities and the big
picture.
Detailed Explanation:
Sensing (S) individuals focus on concrete facts, details, and practical
realities. They prefer to work with tangible information and rely on past
experiences. In a negotiation, they might be more focused on specific
data, measurable outcomes, and established procedures. They might
also be more cautious and risk averse.
Intuition (N) individuals focus on abstract concepts, possibilities, and
future implications. They prefer to work with patterns, insights, and
innovative ideas. In a negotiation, they might be more focused on the
big picture, long-term goals, and creative solutions. They might also be
more comfortable with ambiguity and change.
Understanding whether a negotiator prefers sensing or intuition helps
you tailor your communication to their preferred way of processing
information. Sensing negotiators will want to see the data, while
intuitive negotiators will want to discuss possibilities.
3. Thinking (T) or Feeling (F):
Whether someone makes decisions based on logic or based on feelings and
values.
Detailed Explanation:
Thinking (T) individuals make decisions based on logic, objective
analysis, and impersonal criteria. They prioritize fairness and
consistency. In a negotiation, they might be more focused on facts,
data, and logical arguments. They might also be more detached and
less concerned with emotional considerations.
Feeling (F) individuals make decisions based on personal values,
empathy, and social harmony. They prioritize relationships and strive to
create win-win situations. In a negotiation, they might be more focused
on building rapport, understanding the other party's needs, and
maintaining positive relationships. They might also be more sensitive to
emotional cues.
Knowing whether a negotiator prefers thinking or feeling helps you
understand their decision-making process and communication style.
Thinking negotiators will want to see the logic, while feeling negotiators
will want to understand the impact on people.
4. Judging (J) or Perceiving (P):
Whether someone prefers structure and planning or flexibility and spontaneity.
Detailed Explanation:
Judging (J) individuals prefer structure, organization, and planning.
They like to make decisions quickly and stick to schedules. In a
negotiation, they might be more focused on deadlines, agendas, and
clear outcomes. They might also be more decisive and less flexible.
Perceiving (P) individuals prefer flexibility, spontaneity, and
adaptability. They like to keep their options open and explore different
possibilities. In a negotiation, they might be more open to changing
plans, exploring new ideas, and adapting to unexpected situations.
They might also be more comfortable with ambiguity and less focused
on deadlines.
Understanding whether a negotiator prefers judging or perceiving helps
you anticipate their approach to planning and decision-making. Judging
negotiators will want a clear plan, while perceiving negotiators will want
to explore options.
