国际商务谈判罗伊列维奇原版课件.pptx

1、McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. The Titles 1. Perception2. Framing3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation4. Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in Negotiation5. Mood, Emotion,

2、 and Negotiation6. Chapter SummaryMcGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.1. Perception Perception Defined Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. The process of ascribing meaning to message and events is strongly influenced by

3、 the perceivers current state of mind, role, and comprehension of earlier communications. Perception Distortion In a given negotiation, the perceivers own needs, desires, motivation, and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. This causes for concern when it leads to

4、biases and errors in perception and subsequent communications. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.The Perceptual Process Figure 5.1 Perception is a “sense-making ” process; people interpret their environment so that they can respond appropriatePerceptionStimu

5、lusRecognitionTranslationBehaviorAttentionMcGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.Perception Distortion -1 Stereotyping. It occurs when one individual assigns attributions to another solely on the basis of the others membership in a particular social or demographi

6、c category. Halo Effects. It occurs when people generalize about a variety of attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an individual. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.Perception Distortion -2 Selective Perception. It occurs when the perceiver s

7、ingles out certain information that supports or reinforces a prior belief and filters out information that does not confirm that belief. Projection. It occurs when people assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves. It usually arises out of a need to protect to ones

8、 own self-conceptto see oneself as consistent and good.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.2. Framing A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situation, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions. The pop

9、ularity of framing has come with the recognition that often two or more people who are involved in the same situation or in a complex problem see it or define it in different ways. Frames are critical in negotiation for several reasons. Understanding framing helps negotiators evaluate the process, a

10、nd better controlling it. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.2.1 Types of Frames (1) Substantivewhat the conflict about. (2) Outcomea partys predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome. (3) Aspirationa predisposition toward satisfying a broader s

11、et of interest or needs. (4) Process how the parties will go about resolving their dispute. (5) Identify how the parties define “who they are”. (6) Characterizationhow the parties define the other parties. (7) Loss-gainhow the parties define the risk or reward McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill

12、Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.2.2 How Frames Work in Negotiation Negotiators can use more than one frame. Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict. Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements. Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain

13、types of issues. Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.2.3 Another Approach to Frames: Interests, Right, and Power Parties have a choice about how they approach a negotiation in terms of

14、interests, rights, and power, the same negotiation can be framed in different ways and will likely lead to different consequences. The example of a student who has a dispute with a local car repair shop shows that different frames are very likely to lead different discussions.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004

15、The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 2.4 The Frame of an Issue Changes as Negotiation Evolves At least four factors can affect how the conversation is shaped: (1) Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues, or concerns that are raised every time the parties negotiate. (2) Each party

16、 attempts to make the best possible case for his or her preferred position or perceptive. (3) Frames may define major shifts and transitions in a complex overall negotiation. (4) Multiple agenda items operate to shape issue development. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rig

17、hts Reserved.2.5 Summary We can offer the following prescriptive advices about problem framing for the negotiator:(1) Frame shape what the parties define as the key issues and how they talk about them.(2) Both parties have frames.(3) Frames are controllable, at least to some degree.(4) Conversations

18、 change and transform frames in ways negotiators may not be able to predict but may be able to control.(5) Certain frames are more likely than others to lead to certain types of processes and outcomes.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in

19、Negotiation -1 Irrational Escalation of Commitment. It is an tendency for an individual to make decisions that stick with a failing course of action. Escalation of Commitment is due in part to biases in individual perception and judgment. One way to combat these tendencies is to have an advisor to s

20、erve as a reality checkpoint. Mythical Fixed-Pie Belief. The tendency to see negotiation in fixed-pie terms varies depending on how people view the nature of a given conflict situation. It can also be diminished by holding negotiators accountable for the way the negotiate.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The

21、McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -2 Anchoring and Adjustment The choice of an anchor might well be based on faulty or incomplete information and thus be misleading in and of itself. Through preparation, along with the use of devils advocate or reali

22、ty check, can help prevent errors . Issue Framing and Risk. The way an issue is framed influences how negotiators perceive risk and behave in relation to it. The tendency to either seek or avoid risk may be based on the reference point against which offers and concessions are judged.McGraw-Hill/Irwi

23、n 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -3 Availability of Information. Negotiators must also be concerned with the potential bias caused by the availability of information or how easy information is to retrieve. The availability of information

24、also affects negotiation through the use of established search patterns. The Winners Curse . The winners curse refers to the tendency of negotiators to settle quickly on a item and then subsequently feel discount about a negotiation win that comes too easily. The best remedy for winners curse is to

25、prevent it from occurring. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -4 Overconfidence. It is the tendency of negotiators to believe that their ability to be correct or accurate is greater than is actually true. It has a double-edg

26、ed effect. It appears that negotiators have a tendency to be overconfident about their own abilities and that this overconfident affects a wide variety of perceptions and behaviors. The Law of Small Numbers . It applies to the way negotiators learn and extrapolate from their own experience. Example

27、of “hot hand ” fallacy.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -5 Self-Serving Biases Fundamental Attribution Error . The effects of self-serving biases. Self-serving biases have recently been shown to influence perceptions of fa

28、irness in a negotiation context. Perceptual error may also be expressed in the form of biases or distortions in the evaluation of data.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -6 Endowment Effect. It is the tendency to overvalue s

29、omething you own or believe you possess. In negotiation, the endowment effect can lead to inflated estimations of value that interfere with reaching a good deal . Ignoring Others Cognitions . Reactive Devaluation. It is the process of devaluing the other partys concessions simply because the other p

30、arty made them. Such devaluation may be based in emotionality or on distrust fostered by past experience. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 4. Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in Negotiation They are typically arise out of conscious awareness as

31、 negotiators gather and process information. Box 5.4 presents a sizeable inventory of the variety of decision traps that can occur. Merely discussing how to set opening offers, aspiration levels, and bottom lines with team members will not reduce the effects of perceptual biases. Careful discussion

32、of the issues and preferences by both negotiators may reduce the effects of perceptual biases. Reframing.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-1 The role of mood and emotion in negotiation has been subject of an increasing body

33、 of recent theory. The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three characteristics: specificity, intensity, and duration. Some select findings are available as following.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-2 Negotia

34、tions Create Both Positive and Negative Emotions. Most researchers agree that emotions tend to move the parties toward some of action I their relationship, such as initiating a relationship, maintaining to fixing the relationship, or terminating the relationship. Positive Emotions Generally Have Pos

35、itive Consequences For Negotiations. Positive feelings are more likely to lead the parties toward more integrative processes. Positive feelings are also create a positive attitude toward the other side. Positive feelings promote persistence.McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All

36、 Rights Reserved.5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-3 Aspects of the Negotiation Process Can Lead to Positive Emotions. Positive feelings may result from fair procedures during negotiation . Positive feelings may result from favorable social comparisons. Negative Emotion Generally Have Negative Conse

37、quences for Negotiators. Negative Emotions may lead parties to define the situation as competitive or distributive. Negative Emotions may undermine a negotiators ability to analyze the situation accurately. Negative Emotions may lead parties to escalate the conflict. Negative Emotions may lead parti

38、es to retaliate and may thwart integrative outcomes. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-4 Aspects of the Negotiation Process Can Lead to Negative Emotions. Negative Emotions may result from a competitive mindset. Negative Emo

39、tions may result from impasse. The Effects of Positive and Negative Emotion in Negotiation. Positive feelings may have negative consequences. Negative feelings may create positive outcomes Emotions Can Be Used Strategically as Negotiation Gambits. Given the power that emotions may have in swaying th

40、e other side toward ones own point of view, elements may also be used strategically and manipulatively as influence tactics within negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.6. Chapter Summary In this chapter we have taken a multifaceted look at the role

41、 of perception, cognition, and emotion in negotiation. First we presented a brief overview of the perceptual process and discussed four types of perceptual distortions, then turned to a discussion of how framing influences perceptions in negotiation and how reframing and issue development both change negotiator perceptions. And then we reviewed a research findings of cognitive biases in negotiations.