Soft Negotiation Style Key Features :

 Participants are friends

 The goal is agreement
 Make concessions to cultivate the relation ship
 Be soft on the people and the problem
 Trust others
 Change your position easily
 Make offers
 Disclose your bottom line
 Accept one-sided loses to reach agreement
 Search for the single answer ( The one they will accept )
 Insist on agreement
 Try to avoid a contest of will
 Yield to pressure
Hard Negotiation Style Key Features :

 Participants are adversaries

 The goal is victory
 Demand concession as a condition of the relation ship
 Be hard on the problem and the people
 Distrust Others
 Dig into your position
 Make Threats
 Mislead as to your bottom line
 Demand one-sided gains as the price of agreement
 Search for the single answer ( The one you will accept )
 Insist on your position
 Try to win a contest of will
 Apply pressure
Principled Negotiation Style Key Features :

 Participant are problem solvers

 The goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably
 Separate the people from the problem
 Be soft on the people and hard on the problem
 Proceed independent of trust
 Focus on interests , not on positions
 Explore Interests
  Avoid having a bottom line
 Invent options for mutual gain
 Develop multiple options to choose from ( decide later )
 Insist on using objective criteria
 Try to reach a result based on standards independent of will
 Reason and be open to reason
 Yield to principle , not to pressure

—Definition of Negotiations :
——Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a
beneficial outcome. This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just for
one or some of them.

—It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective,
or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a
position and making small concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the
negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in
determining whether negotiations are successful. Negotiation is not a zero-sum game; if there
is no cooperation, the negotiation will fail.

——Everyone negotiates everyday, often without even considering it a

negotiation. Negotiation occurs in business, sales, non-profit organisations, government
branches, legal proceedings, among nations, and in personal situations such as marriage,
divorce, parenting, etc. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Professional
negotiators are often specialised, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators,
peace negotiator, or hostage negotiators

Variety of Negotiations

 —Daily routine Negotiations

 —Commercial Negotiations
 —Employment Negotiations
 —Political Negotiations
 —Price Negotiations
 —Terms and Conditions Negotiations
 —Hostage Negotiations
 —Social Negotiations
 —Technology Negotiations
 —Barter Negotiations

Types of Negotiations
Distributive Negotiation (Win-Lose)
  Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-
bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model
of haggling in a market.
 In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme
position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a
combination of guile, bluffing, and brinkmanship in order to cede as
little as possible before reaching a deal.
 Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of
distributing a fixed amount of value

Integrative Negotiation (Win-Win)

 —Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based,

or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to
improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by
providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation
techniques.
 —While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of
value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative
negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the
negotiation ("expand the pie").
 —It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than
their arbitrary starting positions, approaches negotiation as a shared
problem rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon adherence
to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.

Negotiation Styles

1. Accommodating
 Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal
relationships. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and
verbal signals of the other parties. They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations
when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship.

2. Avoiding

 Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating,
avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they
may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic.

3. Collaborating
 Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways.
Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the
other parties. They can, however, create problems by transforming simple situations into
more complex ones.

4. Competing

 Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something.
Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often
strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators
often neglect the importance of relationships.

5. Compromising

 Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties
involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to
complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process
and make concessions too quickly.

Types of Negotiators
—Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The
Harvard Negotiation Project. These types of negotiators are: Soft bargainers, hard bargainers,
and principled bargainers.

——Soft. These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle
style of bargaining. The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others'
demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators.
Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement. They do not
separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both. They avoid contests of wills and
will insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their
opinions.
——Hard. These people use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such as
"this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it." They make threats, are distrustful of others,
insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and
their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they will search for one single answer, and insist
you agree on it. They do not separate the people from the problem (as with soft bargainers),
but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.
——Principled. Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions, and do so
by sidestepping commitment to specific positions. They focus on the problem rather than the
intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. They separate the people from the
problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards (which
are independent of personal will). They base their choices on objective criteria rather than
power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure. These criteria may be
drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, tradition, and so
on.
Negotiation Tactics
—Auction: The bidding process is designed to create competition. When multiple parties
want the same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out
on something, they will want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid
on, they also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can
drive up the price.
——Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point at
which the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of
"hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or
edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. Successful brinksmanship convinces the
other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative
to the proposed agreement.
—Bogey: Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no
importance to him or her is very important. Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be
traded for a major concession of actual importance.
—Chicken: Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluffs, to force the other party
to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are
unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
—Defence in Depth: Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow
further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority. In
other words, each time the offer goes to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add
another concession in order to close the deal.
——Deadlines: Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision. This
method uses time to apply pressure to the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or
artificial.
—Good Guy/Bad Guy: The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team
negotiations where one member of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands, and
the other offers a more rational approach. This tactic is named after a police interrogation
technique often portrayed in the media. The "good guy" will appear more reasonable and
understanding, and therefore, easier to work with. In essence, it is using the law of relativity
to attract cooperation. The good guy will appear more agreeable relative to the "bad guy."
This tactic is easy to spot because of its frequent use.
——Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use
a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that will never be achieved. The theory
is that the extreme offer will cause the other party to re evaluate his or her own opening offer
and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an
agreement). Another advantage is that the person giving the extreme demand appears more
flexible he or she makes concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this
tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.
—Flinch: Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common
examples of flinching are gasping for air, or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The
flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously. The flinch signals to the opposite party that
you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations.
Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked.“
——The Nibble: Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven't
been discussed previously just before closing the deal. This method takes advantage of the
other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing."
—Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that he or
she has difficulty determining which facts are important, and which facts are diversions.
Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question
asked by a non-expert.
—Mirroring: When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more
positive. In order to create trust and a rapport, it is recommended to mimic or mirror the
opponent's behaviour and repeat what has been said. Mirroring is a behaviour that refers to a
person repeating the core content of what another person just said, or repeating a certain
expression. It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation and acknowledges the other
party's point or statement. Mirroring can help create trust and establish a relationship.
Stages of Negotiation Cycles
—1. Before The Negotiation

Strategy : Increase Your Power

-Gather Benchmark Data

-Enhance Your BATNAs

Strategy : Control the Logistics

-Choose a Day With Nice Weather

-Choose an Early Time

-Choose the Right Medium

-Negotiate at Your Office

Strategy : Encourage Cooperative Behaviour

-Avoid Negotiation Terminology

-Schedule a Future Interaction

—2. During the Negotiation

Strategy : Convey the Proper Emotions

-Show the Signs of Disappointment

-Become Angry (When Appropriate)

Strategy : Demonstrate Your Power

-Mention Your BATNAs

-Avoid Disclaimers and Weak Language

Strategy : Properly Address the Terms

-Address all Relevant Terms

-Rank Order the Terms

—3. Ending The Negotiation

Strategy : Anchor Your Offer

-Make the First Offer

-Request a High Precise Range

Strategy : Frame Your Offer

-Separate Gains / Combine Losses

-Create Visual Balance

-Justify With Graphs

Strategy : Counter Their Offer

-Ask Diagnostic Questions

-Always Counter Their First Offer

-Pause After They Make an Offer

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to

reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with
respect to at least one of these issues. This beneficial outcome can be for all of the
parties involved, or just for one or some of them.

It’s aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or

collective. It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making small
concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties
trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in
determining whether negotiations are successful. In many cases, negotiation is not
a zero-sum game, allowing for cooperation to improve the results of the negotiation.

People negotiate daily, often without considering it a negotiation. Negotiation

occurs in organizations, including businesses, non-profits, and within and between
governments as well as in sales and legal proceedings, and in personal situations
such as marriage, divorce, parenting, etc.
Types of negotiation
Distributive Negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-
bargaining negotiation and attempts to distribute a "fixed pie" of benefits.
Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions and implies that any
gain one party makes is at the expense of the other and vice versa. For this reason,
distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption
that one person's gain results in another person's loss. Distributive negotiation
examples include haggling prices on an open market, including the negotiation of
the price of a car or a home.

In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing it

will not be accepted and then uses a combination of guile, bluffing, and
brinkmanship to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive
bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of
value.

In the distributive approach each negotiator fights for the largest possible piece of
the pie, so it may be quite appropriate, within certain limits, to regard the other side
more as an adversary than a partner and to take a somewhat harder line.

Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, or

principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality
and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different
parties value various outcomes differently. While distributive negotiation assumes
there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties,
integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the
negotiation ("expand the pie").
Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the forming of a
relationship. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve
mutual gains. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation.

In the integrative approach, unlike the distributive approach, parties seek to find an
arrangement that is in the best interest of both sides. A good agreement is not one
with maximum gain, but optimum gain.

However, negotiators need not sacrifice effective negotiation in favor of a positive

relationship between parties. Rather than conceding, each side can appreciate that
the other has emotions and motivations of their own and use this to their advantage
in discussing the issue. In fact, perspective-taking can help move parties toward a
more integrative solution. Fisher et al. illustrate a few techniques that effectively
improve perspective-taking in their book Getting to Yes, and through the following,
negotiators can separate people from the problem itself.
  Put yourself in their shoes – People tend to search for
information that confirms his or her own beliefs and often
ignore information that contradicts prior beliefs. In order to
negotiate effectively, it is important to empathize with the
other party's point of view. One should be open to other views
and attempt to approach an issue from the perspective of the
other.
 Discuss each other's perceptions – A more direct approach
to understanding the other party is to explicitly discuss each
other's perceptions. Each individual should openly and
honestly share his or her perceptions without assigning
blame or judgement to the other.
 Find opportunities to act inconsistently with his or her
views – It is possible that the other party has prior
perceptions and expectations about the other side. The other
side can act in a way that directly contradicts those
preconceptions, which can effectively send a message that
the party is interested in an integrative negotiation.
 Face-saving – This approach refers to justifying a stance
based on one's previously expressed principles and values in
a negotiation. This approach to an issue is less arbitrary, and
thus, it is more understandable from the opposing party's
perspective.

Additionally, negotiators can use certain communication techniques to build a

stronger relationship and develop more meaningful negotiation solution.

 Active listening – Listening is more than just hearing what

the other side is saying. Active listening involves paying close
attention to what is being said verbally and nonverbally. It
involves periodically seeking further clarification from the
person. By asking the person exactly what they mean, they
may realize you are not simply walking through a routine, but
rather take them seriously.
  Speak for a purpose – Too much information can be as
harmful as too little. Before stating an important point,
determine exactly what you wish you communicate to the
other party. Determine the exact purpose that this shared
information will serve.

Integrated negotiation is a strategic approach to influence that maximizes value in

any single negotiation through the astute linking and sequencing of other
negotiations and decisions related to one's operating activities.
Strategies

There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation.

One view of negotiation involves three basic

elements: process, behavior and substance.

The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the
parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and
stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among
these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The
substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions
and – more helpfully – interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the
end.

Another view of negotiation comprises four

elements: strategy, process, tools, and tactics. Strategy comprises the
top level goals – typically including relationship and the final outcome. Processes
and tools include the steps to follow and roles to take in preparing for and
negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and
actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to
this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern
day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis,
to a straightforward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions.

Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy is when one
negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as
a good guy by being considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad
guy for all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the
opponent.
BATNA, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA is the
alternative option a negotiator holds should the current negotiation fails and does
not reach agreement. The quality of a BATNA has the potential to improve a party's
negotiation outcome. Understanding one's BATNA can empower an individual and
allow him or her to set higher goals when moving forward.

One of the best strategy while going into a negotiation is to ensure that you have a
strong BATNA, and if not, have tools equipped that can help you made the other
side's BATNA weak. One of the major mistakes made by new negotiators is to
disclose their BATNA at first without having had any discussion with the other side.
This can jeopardize your position in the negotiation, as your negotiation might have
been weaker than the other sides, and such disclosure puts you at a weaker spot in
the negotiation. The best strategy is to ask a lot of questions to develop, if not an
exact, but a guess about the other sides BATNA to know your position in the
negotiation.

- The 5 conflict management styles (Accommodating, avoiding, compromising, competing,

collaboration).

 With regard to negotiation, the winner's curse occurs when:

A. a negotiator sets his/her aspirations too high
B. a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted by the other party
C. the counterparty demonstrates retaliative behavior
D. no one can be trusted
 B
 A type of negotiation behavior known as reactive devaluation refers to:
A. a negotiator who does not know what he or she really wants other than not
wanting what the other party is offering
B. a negotiator who sets the target point too high and refuses to make any
concessions
C. a negotiator who overvalues the counterparty's offer
D. an negotiator who opens the negotiation by setting their target too low
 A
 A negotiator's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
determines the point at which a negotiator is prepared to:
A. make larger concessions
B. keep options open
C. walk away from the negotiation table
D. identify the counterparty's alternatives
 C
 One strategy for improving one's BATNA in negotiation is to:
A. discuss it in explicit terms with the counterparty
B. improve your alternative options before going to the negotiation table
C. replace it with an aspiration point
D. revise it in reaction to progress of the negotiation
 B
 A negotiator's reservation point is a quantification of the negotiator's:
A. target point
B. BATNA
C. bargaining zone (ZOPA)
D. opening offer
 B
 Negotiators should consider the impact of three types of risk with regard to
their alternatives. These three types of risk include:
A. tactical risk, strategic risk, and overconfidence risk
B. failure risk, BATNA risk, and information-sharing risk
C. contractual risk, overconfidence risk, and failure risk
D. strategic risk, BATNA risk, and contractual risk
 D
 In negotiation, buyers and sellers may adopt differing bargaining positions for
an object, but their private valuations for the object should not differ as a
consequence of who has possession. The endowment effect is best described
as:
A. the difference between what sellers demand and what buyers are willing to
pay
B. a tendency for people to value an object more once they own it
C. the intrinsic value we associate with a certain outcome
D. saving money instead of purchasing goods
 B
 A dispute is best defined as a situation in which:
A. parties have to resort to their BATNA's
B. parties fail to exchange resources
C. a claim is made by one party and rejected by the other party
D. negotiators turn down favors and rewards from others
 C
 In negotiation which of the following statements is generally not true when it
comes to a negotiator's BATNA?
A. It is dynamic and constantly changing
B. It is generally wise to reveal it
C. It is determined by the negotiator's available options
D. It influences a negotiator's reservation price
 B
 In negotiation, the fixed-pie perception is defined as:
A. the assumption that attacking the other party is the best way to get most of
the pie
B. the assumption that capitulating to the other negotiating party's demands is
the best way to a win-win agreement
C. the belief that concessions are necessary by one or both parties in order to
reach an agreement
D. the assumption that sticking to your demands and refusing anything but the
majority of the pie is the best way to get most of the pie
 C
"The winner's curse" occurs when

A. a negotiator sets his/her aspirations too high

B. a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted
C. the counterparty demonstrates retaliative behavior
D. no one can be trusted
Answer:
"The winner's curse" occurs when

B. a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted

A type of negotiation behavior known as reactive devaluation is demonstrated by

A. the grass-is-greener negotiator

B. a positional negotiator
C. an overaspiring negotiator
D. an underaspiring negotiator
Answer:
A type of negotiation behavior known as reactive devaluation is demonstrated by

A. the grass-is-greener negotiator

BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) determines the point at which
a negotiator is prepared to

A. make larger concessions

B. keep options open
C. walk away from the negotiation table
D. identify counterparty's alternatives
Answer:
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) determines the point at which
a negotiator is prepared to

C. walk away from the negotiation table

One strategy for improving one's BATNA is to

A. discuss it with the counterparty

B. follow the "falling in love" rule
C. replace it with aspiration point
D. change it as a result of the progress of the negotiation
Answer:
One strategy for improving one's BATNA is to

B. follow the "falling in love" rule

The reservation point is mostly related to the

A. negotiator's target point

B. negotiator's BATNA
C. bargaining zone (ZOPA)
D. negotiator's opening offer
Answer:
The reservation point is mostly related to the
B. negotiator's BATNA
The three sources of risk in negotiation include

A. tactical risk, strategic risk, overconfidence risk

B. failure risk, BATNA risk, information-sharing risk
C. contractual risk, overconfidence risk, failure risk
D. strategic risk, BATNA risk, contractual risk
Answer:
The three sources of risk in negotiation include

D. strategic risk, BATNA risk, contractual risk

The endowment effect is

A. the difference between what sellers demand and what buyers are willing to pay
B. a tendency for people to value an object more once they own it
C. the value we associate with a certain object or outcome
D. saving money instead of purchasing goods
Answer:
The endowment effect is

B. a tendency for people to value an object more once they own it

A dispute occurs when

A. parties have to resort to their BATNAs

B. parties fail to exchange resources
C. a claim is made by one party and rejected by the other party
D. we turn down favors and rewards from others
Answer:
A dispute occurs when

C. a claim is made by one party and rejected by the other party

Most commonly, third-party intervention takes the form of

A. power differential
B. pie-slicing
C. partnership
D. mediation or arbitration
Answer:
Most commonly, third-party intervention takes the form of

D. mediation or arbitration
Which of the following statements are not true when it comes to BATNAs?

A. They are dynamic and constantly changing

B. It is generally wise to reveal them
C. They are determined by the negotiator's available options
D. They are a good anchor point for the negotiator
Answer:
Which of the following statements are not true when it comes to BATNAs?
B. It is generally wise to reveal them

Win-win negotiations are also called

1. fair division negotiations
2. equal-concession negotiations
3. integrative negotiations
4. distributive negotiations
3. integrative negotiations

Which of the following is true about integrative negotiations?

1. compromise is a method for achieving maximum win-win between parties
2. negotiators should reach an agreement to prevent an impasse
3. negotiators should reveal their interests
4. negotiators should reveal their positions
3. negotiators should reveal their interests

The first level integrative agreements

1. exceed parties' no-agreement possibilities or reservation points
2. do not create value relative to parties' best alternative
3. are as good as parties' reservation points
4. are as good as parties' disagreement alternatives
1. exceed parties' no-agreement possibilities or reservation points

All of the following strategies can potentially increase joint gain, except:
1. downplaying parties' differences
2. disclosing preferences and priorities
3. negotiating issues simultaneously
4. identifying more than one issue
1. downplaying parties' differences

A negotiated agreement is considered the pareto-optimal frontier if

1. both negotiators are satisfied with the outcome
2. the achieved outcome is beneficial to both negotiators
3. it is impossible to improve any negotiator's outcome without hurting the other
party's outcome
4. it is possible to improve one negotiator's outcome without hurting the other party's
outcome
3. it is impossible to improve any negotiator's outcome without hurting the other
party's outcome

Negotiators who make multiple offers have an edge in all of these critical aspects
except:
1. gaining better information about the other party
2. sweetening the deal and offering to make future concessions
3. being more aggressive in terms of anchoring the negotiation favorably
4. signaling one's priorities more effectively
2. sweetening the deal and offering to make future concessions
The fixed-pie perception refers to
1. simultaneously improving the outcomes for both parties
2. believing that the counterparty's interests are directly opposed to one's own
interests
3. fixed alternative agreements that improve one party's outcome
4. settling for outcomes that exceed parties' reservation points
2. believing that the counterparty's interests are directly opposed to one's own
interests

Lose-lose outcomes most often result from

1. lack of time and effort invested in a negotiation
2. believing that one's interests are incompatible with the other party's
3. assumptions we make about our opponent and the negotiation situation
4. bargaining zones that are too narrow
2. believing that one's interests are incompatible with the other party's

A contingent contract generally refers to a contract in which The illusion of

transparency refers to which phenomenon?
1. both parties are confident in positive outcomes in any turn of events
2. negotiators agree on the probability of future events
3. terms in the future will differ depending on the realization of some future event
4. lots of room is left for ambiguity
3. terms in the future will differ depending on the realization of some future event

The illusion of transparency refers to which phenomenon?

1. Making predictions when information is in short supply
2. Human judgment and decision-making differ from rational choice
3. Making reasonable estimation based on a single known data point
4. People believe they are revealing more than they actually are
4. People believe they are revealing more than they actually are

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
Physical Norms: Do people sit or stand close to one other, or farther apart? Are
greetings more or less physically intimate: bow, versus handshake (by now
something close to an international standard in business), versus hug or exchange
of a kiss on the cheek? Is touching (e.g., on the arm to get someone’s attention, on
the shoulder to direct them to a chair, on the wrist to signal agreement or
engagement when they are speaking) appropriate or inappropriate? Note that in
certain cultures (notably in Muslim and Middle Eastern cultures) different norms
may apply when interacting with persons who are not of the same gender. 

In many cultures, direct eye contact indicates confidence and conveys honesty and
forthrightness. In other cultures, however, protracted eye-contact is seen as
aggressive or rude. As with physical proximity, norms within a culture may vary
significantly depending upon the respective genders of the individuals. 
Status or Level of Formality:while some cultures are often characterized by
notable differences in norms governing the formality (or lack thereof) in both
business and social interactions. For example, American business culture tends to
espouse a non-hierarchical ethos, which in part is manifested by the custom of
using first or given names without titles - even in interactions where no previous
relationship exists. Australian culture tends to be similarly informal. By contrast,
some European and some Asian cultures are somewhat more formal toward fairly
extensive use of titles.

In some countries, the levels of power are very distinct and understood internally
but may not be apparent to outsiders. For example, in Russia, power tends to be
concentrated at the top. Executives or government officials may negotiate an
agreement, only to have it re-negotiated by even higher-level officials.

Individualism vs. Collectivism: People in a culture may think of themselves

in terms of the individual or as members of a connected group, or collective. In the
United States, people score highly in individualism while in countries such as China
and Japan, tend to be more collectivist. This thought process influences the way
societies are organized and decisions are made.
Gender Focus: Masculinity vs. Femininity: Some societies endorse what
are considered traditional or stereotypical masculine and feminine characteristics.
For example, aggressiveness and competition are often considered “male”
characteristics, while a focus on relationships and cooperation are traditional
“female” characteristics. Many Scandinavian countries score higher on quality of
life in relationships while other cultures, such as the United States and Mexico,
score higher on competition. There are also some cultures which would prefer to
deal with one gender and not the other.
Relationship Scope and Dynamics:  Some cultures emphasize fairly stark
divisions between the personal and professional. This is born of a belief that such a
separation leads to more impartial, fair, and thus more rational and productive
business dealings. In other cultures, the personal and professional are viewed as
inseparable where it may be difficult to imagine doing business with people in the
absence of strong personal relationships. Mutual understanding and trust are off
course built in both - the personal or social domain - and are a required foundation
for business interactions. Based in my personal experience, I find that in some
cultures, it is customary to spend time getting to know one another, or engaging in
social conversation, before getting down to business during a meeting or a
conference call. North Americans, Australians and many other Europeans are more
likely to jump right to the business at hand.
Purpose and Nature of Negotiation: It is important to understand on how
parties view negotiation.  Is the point of negotiation a deal, or is it to build a
relationship.  In either case, what are the fundamental assumptions about how
negotiations work. Is negotiation seen as an adversarial contest, a game, a
collaborative or a problem-solving endeavor. 
Communication:  Is direct or indirect communication favored. Cultures and
also some individuals favor direct communication may find indirect
communication inefficient, suspicious, and even dishonest. Cultures which favor
indirect communication may find the behavior of more direct counterparts rude
and disrespectful. Somewhat similarly, is the open display of strong emotions
perceived as appropriate or inappropriate. Is the withholding of emotional
reactions seen as professional or is it viewed with suspicion with lack of candor or
an absence of passionate commitment.
Perspectives on Time.Different cultures tend to embody somewhat different
attitudes toward time. North American and Northern European business culture
tends to place a premium on punctuality — being late to a meeting is likely to be
viewed as unprofessional, and to raise questions about the reliability or even
competence of a potential business partner. In Japan, punctuality is also valued,
and being late is likely to be viewed as disrespectful. By contrast, Latin American,
Southern European and Indian businesscultures are much more likely to treat
meeting times as approximations and to afford, and expect, significant latitude. 
Pacing of Negotiations. In some business cultures (notably the U.S., and to a
somewhat lesser extent, many Western European countries) the goal of negotiation
is primarily to get the deal closed and the contract signed in a timely manner.
Consistent with this transactional perspective on the negotiation process, the
preference is generally to close the deal more quickly rather than more slowly. Lack
of urgency or deliberate attempts to slow down or delay the process may be viewed
as tactics to gain advantage, or as evidence of lack of interest, or indicative of an
inability to conduct business efficiently. On the other hand, in many cultures,
learning about one’s counterparts, evaluating whether or not the parties are likely
to be able to work well together over the long term, as well as developing trust, are
critical aspects of the negotiation process — as or more important than the
development and execution of a contract. Ironically, efforts to defer formal
commitment in order to spend more time getting to know each other, so that trust
can be built, can often backfire with American counterparts who may view such
behavior with suspicion.
Deal Closure: Some cultures are uncomfortable with ambiguity; in negotiations,
business people would seek rules and regulations to guide them. Other cultures are
low in uncertainty avoidance, and more relaxed about negotiations. North
Americans tend to be comfortable with some uncertainty.

In North America and much of Western Europe, there is a strong emphasis placed
on conceptualizing business arrangements and commitments, and doing so in
significant detail. Moreover, contracts are viewed as binding. In many other
cultures, greater emphasis is placed on personal relationships and trust between or
among parties, and contracts are often less specific and treated more as an
articulation of general guidelines and principles. Furthermore, there is often an
assumption that if circumstances change significantly after the contract is signed,
the terms of the contract are no longer binding. The attitude is one of “How can we
be bound by terms that we agreed to under very different circumstances?” The
countervailing perspective is likely to be “We specifically signed a contract in order
to provide greater certainty about what we would each do even as conditions
change.”

I have made an attempt to describe cultural values in a general way and certainly
not all people in a given culture will adhere to each and every aspect. These
characteristics can, however, be broad descriptions of how different cultures
approach negotiations and may require much more in depth knowledge preferably
gained in living and dealing with a variety of cultures.